House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we come to today’s business, I would like to remind the House that today is International Day of Parliamentarism. The Inter-Parliamentary Union’s Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians, which protects MPs under threat, says it has found many examples of politicians being persecuted simply for doing their job. In recent experience, Members of this House, peers and others have faced sanctions from China for speaking out against the human rights violations of the Uyghur people. That is completely unacceptable— I stress, completely unacceptable. The ability to speak out on things that matter to us, however controversial, is a basic human right of every British citizen. Members of this House must be able to speak out fiercely on behalf of their constituents, and on important national and international issues. That is why, with colleagues from the British group of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I was delighted to attend the flag raising in New Palace Yard this morning to mark this special day, the principles of which, I am sure, all Members will support.
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
May I align myself very much with your comments, Mr Speaker? I know the whole House will share the sentiments you expressed.
I have regular discussions with the Welsh Government and the First Minister on a wide range of subjects, including the UK Government’s international trade policy.
Richard Thomson
Does the Minister share my concern that the devolved Governments have had no democratic involvement or oversight in the negotiation and approval of the Australian trade deal, despite the disproportionate impact it will have on their areas? When does he think that this “Union of equals” will start working equally— or, like this Government’s post-Brexit promises to farmers, is this another empty set of words that will turn out to be all bull and no beef?
Simon Hart
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that I do not agree with his comments. We have engaged devolved Administrations and numerous other stakeholders during the whole course of the various free trade agreements that have been reached, in particular the Australia trade deal. It would be nice if we could reach some kind of consensus between us about the opportunities that these trade deals offer, not only for businesses in Wales but for businesses in Scotland.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
We all support new export opportunities for Welsh businesses, but free trade deals must also be fair. There really is widespread concern that this proposed deal with Australia will disadvantage Welsh farmers, because they will be forced to compete against producers with lower animal welfare and environmental standards. So I ask the Secretary of State again: if he is unable or unwilling to protect our farmers, why will he not let Welsh Government Ministers take part fully in trade talks, so they can stand up for them instead?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. Of course, we have involved numerous stakeholders in the preparation of these deals. That includes the Welsh Government and some very positive responses from farmers in Wales, who, by a majority, voted in favour of leaving the European Union in 2016. They accept, as I do, that there are numerous opportunities. We have built into this process some protections—a 15-year transition period—as well as taking note of the fact that the Australians themselves say they cannot even fulfil their existing markets, let alone start flooding ours.
Nia Griffith
It is not just selling out our farmers. Today, the Government are choosing to bury their head in the sand and pass up the last opportunity to renew vital steel safeguards. With our industry now dangerously exposed to cheap imports and the news that a deal is imminent that will grant exemption to EU exports going to the US, our steel exports are going to be desperately trying to compete. What will the Secretary of State now do to ensure that his Government negotiate a similar deal that will protect our steel exports and enable them to enter the US without tariffs? How soon can we have news on that?
Simon Hart
The hon. Lady and colleagues across the House have been resolute champions of the steel industry in Wales. I hope the UK Government’s support of Celsa Steel in Cardiff during the pandemic is an indication that we, too, are prepared to put our money where our mouths are as far as supporting the industry, for all the reasons she has rightly highlighted. It would be rash of me to predict what the statement or announcement might be on this, other than to say that I expect it later today, so she, and colleagues across the House, should get clarity on this matter before close of play today.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Speaker. There have been several instances in recent weeks where UK Government Ministers, including the Secretary of State for International Trade, have dismissed concerns from the agricultural community regarding food standards in this trade deal, especially Australia’s position on animal welfare. Can the Secretary of State explain to Welsh farmers how the UK Government will ensure fair competition and that imports from Australia will always match those expected of Welsh farmers?
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman, like me, has significant agricultural interests in his constituency in west Wales. We have had local conversations as well as national ones to try to reassure farmers—I think successfully, in some respects—that the transition period and our commitments on animal welfare and environmental standards will not be compromised. I do not think there is anything I can say to him that suggests that that has changed in any respect, but I urge him—I know he will take this seriously—to look at the trade deal as a huge opportunity for food and drink producers in Wales. As we work to challenge some of the myths that have been written and spoken about the Australia deal, let us also use the platforms that we have to promote everything that is good about it and how it will provide access to new markets of the sort that we have not had before.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) said, this Government have until tonight to step in and temporarily retain crucial steel import safeguards to protect our steel industry from cheaper foreign imports. There is still no action from the Government. I hear what the Secretary of State says, but we will be waiting with keen interest. Is this what Ministers meant by promising to protect and champion our businesses post Brexit, and what exactly have Wales Office Ministers done to intervene and stop this?
Simon Hart
I assure the hon. Lady that we have been in regular touch with our colleagues in Government on this, as well as with the industry itself, with whom, as the hon. Lady knows, we deal on a regular basis. I said earlier that our commitment to steel in Wales—as she knows, because we have talked about it so many times—is absolutely resolute, but I am afraid that she will have to wait until later this afternoon to have a statement or announcement of some sort, which I hope will clarify the situation.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues as part of the UK Government response to covid-19. This includes weekly meetings with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment and, of course, the First Minister of Wales.
Bob Blackman [V]
I thank my right hon Friend for his answer. Clearly, cases of infection in Wales have dropped dramatically. Over the last seven days, they are roughly 50 to 55 per 100,000, compared with the previous highs of 500 per 100,000. In these circumstances, does he agree that it is about time that the Welsh Government gave Welsh businesses some certainty or vision for when they can start to rebuild their lives, and that the Welsh Government should come on board with the UK Government road map out of the lockdown?
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend’s question reveals quite a sad contrast between the priorities of the Welsh Government and the priorities of the UK Government at this moment. We read in the papers this week that the Welsh Government are fixated on talking about new tourism taxes. They are talking about constitutional reform, even going as far as reform of the House of Lords. None of these seems to be consistent with the UK Government ambitions, which are jobs, livelihoods, investment and recovery, and they should be joining us in that endeavour.
David Simmonds
Like my right hon. Friend, I hugely welcome the progress that has been made in Wales, but what frustrates many is that the Welsh Government seem to be in the habit of announcing extended lockdowns at short notice—[Laughter.]—without having due consultation with the Government. Does he agree that, should this practice continue, we should expect Cardiff Bay to meet the financial cost of supporting businesses to keep their heads above water during those lockdowns?
Simon Hart
I notice the laughter stopped at the moment my hon. Friend raised that particular question. I will say again what I have often said from the Dispatch Box: certainty is crucial in all this. I have always preferred a UK-wide response to covid, in whatever respect that might come, because it inspires confidence and compliance. I think that some kind of further indication from the Welsh Government as to the unlocking process for businesses in Wales is overdue and I hope very much that we will hear more shortly.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llefarydd. With your permission, I would like to say thanks to Wales’s national football team. It was not to be this time, but fe godwn ni eto— we will rise again.
More than one in five households in Wales with a net income under £20,000 have seen their income drop since January. Nearly 110,000 families are struggling to cover essential costs. Labour’s leader in Wales complained yesterday that the key levers for tackling poverty are in the hands of the UK Government, but paradoxically he opposes the devolution of those powers to the Senedd. One Government have the levers but choose not to use them, while the other are content with not having those levers at all. Will the Secretary of State urge the Chancellor, please, to make use of his powers and make permanent the £20 uplift to universal credit?
Simon Hart
I am absolutely happy to confirm, as I always do from the Dispatch Box, that the Chancellor is very focused on making sure that levelling up means exactly that, that economic recovery means exactly that, that nowhere gets left behind and that every decision we take in Government, in any Department, is always taken through the prism of levelling up and of equalising opportunity and job and life chances across Wales. That has been a really transformational development during covid, and I very much hope that the right hon. Lady can join me in congratulating the Chancellor on the work that he has done.
Liz Saville Roberts
None the less, I am sure that for those families £20 would make a lot of difference.
Last week, I presented a Bill—the Crown Estate (Devolution to Wales) Bill—to devolve the management of the Crown Estate, and our natural resources in Wales, to Wales. Scotland gained those powers in 2017, and now it is reaping the benefits of the green offshore wind revolution. I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that the value of the Crown Estate’s remaining seabed assets, which include those in Wales, has more than doubled over the past year, to more than £4 billion. Does he agree that Wales deserves equal treatment with Scotland as regards control over our natural resources?
Simon Hart
I can confirm that I have conversations with the Crown Estate. Its proposals for offshore floating wind off the west Wales coast are extremely welcome. Where I think that I am in some form of disagreement with the right hon. Lady—she will not be remotely surprised by this—is on the fact that in order to achieve some success in the renewables sector, somehow we always have to go back to powers and further devolution. Of all the conversations that I have had with industries, sectors, individuals, voters—you name them—across the whole of the past 18 months, including and in particular at the Senedd elections, not one single person urged me to follow the route that the right hon. Lady has just set out. Of course, they urge us to pursue our renewables agenda, and that is what we are doing. We are doing it, as far as we can, as a UK-wide endeavour, because that is the way we will get to our targets the quickest.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
The UK Government’s vaccine taskforce has been the foundation for the success of our covid-19 vaccines programme. The research, development, acquisition, manufacture, payment and UK-wide distribution, supported by the UK armed forces, has demonstrated beyond doubt the value of our United Kingdom.
Suzanne Webb
Can my right hon. Friend give an indication of just how many vaccines the UK Government have now supplied to the Welsh Government and the NHS in Wales so that they can continue to roll out this triumphant United Kingdom achievement, in which I am reliably told that my constituents in Dudley borough are leading the way?
Simon Hart
To date, the UK Government have delivered more than 3.8 million doses of vaccine to the Welsh Government—free of charge, as should absolutely be the case. Of all the many examples that we could stand here and list of the strength of the Union, the value of the Union and where it has been such a reassuring force in the past 16 months, the success of this UK-wide programme is probably the best that we could ever turn to. I am grateful to have been given an opportunity to say so again.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
We work very closely with the Department for Transport and share the view that the safety of staff at the DVLA is paramount. That is why the DFT has implemented weekly covid testing for everyone, hired more than 30 new cleaners and installed thermal imaging cameras to carry out temperature checks on all people entering the building.
Carolyn Harris
I am glad to hear that the Minister is so in touch with the DVLA, but can I enlighten him on an issue? A staff rep at DVLA has been subjected to a tirade of online abuse for standing up for colleagues’ safety. Much of that abuse has been shared on the social media accounts of some DVLA managers. The DVLA is refusing to remove an online petition that includes threats to the rep’s safety. Will the Minister join me in condemning this abuse and, in his conversations with Department for Transport colleagues, encourage them to not only distance themselves from that abuse, but ensure that the DVLA removes all the abusive contact immediately?
David T. C. Davies
I am not aware of the specific examples, but I am happy to join the hon. Lady in condemning all kinds of online abuse against absolutely anyone. I have been the victim of online abuse myself, and I am sure that the hon. Lady has—I assume that most of us have—and I would never ever support the abuse of anyone online, whatever their views or their position in some form of industrial dispute. I would just gently point out, though, that 60,000 items are received by the DVLA every day that have to be dealt with in person, and many of them are coming from the most vulnerable members of society, so I hope, notwithstanding the issues around online abuse, that the Public and Commercial Services Union will quickly draw this dispute to a close.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
Inward investment is central to the UK Government’s mission to level up the UK economy. Last year, Wales attracted 5% of all inward investment projects into the UK, creating over 1,500 new jobs and safeguarding almost 7,000. This strong performance will be boosted by the Welsh trade and investment hub, based in Tŷ William Morgan, which I was pleased to be able to visit last week.
Caroline Ansell
I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Visitor destinations in Wales are, like Eastbourne, set for an unprecedented staycation summer this year, but to secure the long-term recovery of the sector, to remain internationally competitive and to fully realise the power of the visitor economy, the 5% VAT cut is key. Will he make representations to the Treasury to that effect?
David T. C. Davies
The 5% cut in VAT for the hospitality industry has been a boost to tourism businesses across the whole of the United Kingdom, including in Eastbourne, and it has certainly benefited many businesses that I have had the pleasure of visiting in Wales, such as the National Slate Museum at Llanberis, the zip wire at Penrhyn and Surf Snowdonia at Dolgarrog. There are fantastic opportunities to go on holiday to north Wales, to south Wales and even to Eastbourne as a result of the cut in VAT, and I hope hon. Members will take advantage of it this summer.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Welsh Labour Government’s business support funding has been a lifeline to many Welsh companies throughout the pandemic. Indeed, there are businesses that have been able to stay afloat solely because of the emergency grants and loans that they have received, but this business support is under threat due to this Conservative Government’s determination to make decisions about post-EU funding here in Whitehall instead of working with the newly elected Welsh Government. Will the Minister urgently reconsider this approach to the ending of 20 years of Welsh decision making on these issues, in order that businesses can have confidence that these vital Welsh Government programmes will have the funding to continue in the future?
David T. C. Davies
I welcome the point made by the hon. Gentleman, because it is absolutely true that the £3 billion that the UK Government gave in support to businesses in Wales has been hugely beneficial in ensuring that those businesses survived, along with the £8.6 billion extra that the UK Government delivered to the Welsh Assembly Government. That commitment of those billions of pounds demonstrates the enormous commitment of the UK Government towards Wales. I can assure him that the new shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up funds will continue to support Welsh businesses, and of course we look forward to working with the Welsh Government to ensure that those funds are well spent.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that last week the Lloyds Banking Group announced the closure of 44 branches across England and Wales. For communities such as mine in Pontypridd and Taff Ely, these banks provide a vital service for residents and are important local employers. Can the Minister therefore confirm exactly what conversations he has had with the Chancellor about encouraging banks to remain open in Wales to protect these vital local jobs and services?
David T. C. Davies
I have certainly had discussions about closures with Lloyds bank in my capacity as a constituency MP. We do not, of course, have the power to prevent independent commercial organisations from making such decisions, but it is regrettable that banks have closed down. Obviously, I would be happy to work with the hon. Lady, as I did last week when we visited the excellent Royal Mint in her constituency and met some of the kickstart workers who have benefited as a result of UK Government funding.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
With its world heritage site, the Llangollen canal and the steam railway, tourism is vital for jobs and investment in Clwyd South. Does the Minister agree that the Labour Welsh Government’s plans for a tourism tax would be disastrous for the hospitality industry in Wales, particularly as we have just come out of the covid pandemic?
David T. C. Davies
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I look forward, I hope, to an invitation to visit his constituency at some point in the future to see some of the superb tourist attractions there. The UK Government have shown their commitment to the tourism industry by cutting VAT to 5%, whereas the Welsh Labour Government want to implement a tax on the tourism industry at a time when it is at its most fragile. The UK Government will always want to level up the economy, whereas Welsh Labour will always want to levy taxes.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I have regular discussions with the Welsh Government and the Business Secretary on a wide range of subjects, such as the impact of legislation on Wales. This Bill will ensure that any unnecessary and unclear barriers imposed on accessing professions—both for overseas-qualified professionals and UK nationals, including those in Wales, who are seeking to become qualified—are removed.
Wendy Chamberlain
The Bill allows the Secretary of State to exercise powers concurrently over areas where Welsh Ministers normally exercise power. Does the Minister therefore agree that the devolved Administrations should be able to revoke these measures if they decide this is necessary in the future?
David T. C. Davies
The UK Government have shown their commitment to devolution on numerous occasions and are always willing to work with the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations, but at the end of the day the Bill is about ensuring that highly qualified professionals in the hon. Lady’s constituency are able to work anywhere in the UK, and I would have thought that that is something she would support.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (David T. C. Davies)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the Morlais tidal energy and Pembroke dock marine initiatives, both of which are part of the growth deals. Later this year, we will bring forward a net zero strategy and hold an auction for up to 12 GW of renewable energy funding.
Ruth Jones
The newly re-elected Welsh Labour Government have wasted no time in getting to work and have committed to building greener homes, hospitals and schools, which will develop new green jobs in a radical transition to a zero-carbon Wales. So will the Minister join me and the people of Newport West in welcoming these Welsh Labour Government commitments to build on their investment in Wales? What lessons does he think the Westminster Government can learn from these green, ecologically sound plans?
David T. C. Davies
Of course I welcome Welsh Government commitments to support green energy and green jobs. I assure the hon. Lady that the Secretary of State and I will want to work with the Welsh Government to further that aim. These are issues we can agree on, which is why we have demonstrated that commitment through the £21.5 million going to the south Wales industrial cluster and the £15.9 million going to Meritor—or Lucas Girling as she and I would remember it—for electric powertrain integration. That will help many members of her constituency.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
I have recently been corresponding with the Archbishop of Canterbury regarding the Bishop of St Davids’ ill-advised and divisive comments on Twitter. I am sure we all agree that our religious leaders should promote tolerance and inclusiveness, and I am pleased that the Church in Wales has apologised for the bishop’s intemperate language.
Scott Benton
I am very supportive of the actions taken by the Secretary of State involving the Bishop of St Davids, but does he agree that this issue of intolerance towards those who hold Conservative views is becoming more widespread throughout academia and public life, and that we need concerted efforts to address this?
Simon Hart
As my hon. Friend knows, it appears that this sort of trolling habit is, sadly, not exclusive to the bishop; Professor Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones has also been busy dishing out abuse, with his most recent contribution being to describe Conservative voters as the “lowest form of life”. I cannot help but ask what the professor would have done and how he would have reacted if any of our colleagues had described university academics as the lowest form of life. It would have been as outrageous for him as it is for us, and I very much hope that Cardiff University will follow the example of the Archbishop of Canterbury and deal with this promptly.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Simon Hart)
We have committed £2 billion to Network Rail for the current control period, and close to £60 million has been committed to upgrade Cardiff Central station and £76 million to electrify the Severn tunnel route. More locally, the Cambrian and Wrexham-Bidston lines and stations at Bow Street and St Clears are also set to receive additional funding.
Chris Elmore
In a previous answer, the Secretary of State said that the UK Government’s priority was investment. That clearly is not the case with Welsh railways: we have more than 11% of the track but have not had even 2% of funding over the past decade. It has been a lost decade for Welsh railway infrastructure. The Secretary of State needs to set out quickly with Department for Transport officials how he is going to address the lack of investment and ensure that Welsh railway gets the investment it deserves.
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman is a great campaigner on this issue, but I can only repeat what I said in answer to the substantive question, which was a list of investment. It is all about levelling up and infrastructure—
Simon Hart
It is all very well the hon. Gentleman shaking his head in disbelief, but the reality is that there has been more investment in all the infrastructure projects than at any stage in recent history. That is largely thanks to the energy of this Government and our commitment to levelling up in Wales.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Cefn bridge at Trewern is a bottleneck between mid-Wales and the west midlands economy. Will the Secretary of State meet me and stakeholders to ensure that the Union connectivity review, which I very much welcome, tackles this bottleneck?
Simon Hart
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is the epitome of energetic campaigning on road improvement and other infrastructure schemes. Who will forget the Pant to Llanymynech bypass as one of the great achievements of the MP for Montgomeryshire? I am happy to confirm that, so excited am I by that prospect, I will be there on Monday next week.
Petition
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I am grateful to be able to present a petition on behalf of my constituents at Stonehill Woods Park, a park home site in my constituency of Dartford, who will be profoundly impacted on should the London congestion charge move to Outer London.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that consideration should be given to stopping the Mayor of London imposing charges for driving in Outer London; notes that if the Mayor of London imposes these charges, residents of the constituency of Dartford will be forced to pay a £3.50 fee each time they drive in Outer London.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider stopping the Mayor of London from imposing charges on driving in Outer London.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002670]
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we move on to Prime Minister’s questions, I would like to pay tribute to a member of my staff who is retiring today from the House of Commons after 28 years’ service. Ian Davis, who took part in his final Speaker’s procession earlier, joined the House service in October 1993, having served in the Army across the world for 24 years, including the overseeing of a field hospital in northern Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf war.
On his retirement as Band Sergeant Major in the Scots Guards, Ian, a gifted musician who plays the French horn and violin, came to the Commons to be a senior Doorkeeper around the Chamber. He joined Speaker Michael Martin’s team in my office in 2001 as the Trainbearer, which is how he is dressed today, before his promotion to Assistant Secretary to the Speaker in 2011, which is the role he has held until now.
Ian’s military discipline, can-do attitude, friendship, sense of humour and expertise will be sorely missed by my team, and particularly by me. I have got to say: it is not an easy job to become Speaker, but the one thing that was easy for me was knowing that Ian Davis was there to advise me and the Speaker’s Secretary on the work that we do. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I cannot thank Ian enough for the support and help that he has given to me personally, as well as to the office.
Of course, Ian was in the Scots Guards, and so was his father, so he has a great history of serving this country. After 52 years of public service and an MBE for services to Parliament, I would like to wish you, Ian, all the best and a very happy retirement with Linda, back home on the Isle of Wight. The Isle of Wight’s gain is the Commons’ loss. Thank you for everything you have done. [Applause.]
Covid-19: Impact on Attendance in Education Settings
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on the impact of coronavirus on children and young people’s attendance in education settings.
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. This Government are absolutely focused on returning society back to normal as soon as possible, and that includes in our schools, colleges and right across the education sector. As I have made clear throughout the pandemic, my top priority has been to keep children in school. Indeed, as I speak today, millions of children have been back in the classroom since 8 March, learning with their friends and teachers. As I am sure the House will agree, that is exactly where they belong. The vast majority of schools are open—99.8% of state-funded schools were open on 24 June—benefiting children who have given up so much during the pandemic.
Back in February, the Prime Minister set out an extensive road map. We need to continue to be careful to complete this cautious but irreversible road map to freedom. We understand the frustration of parents and pupils who may feel that they are being asked to isolate unnecessarily. As I have said throughout the pandemic, children are best off in school. As we continue with our educational recovery, it is vital that absence is minimised as far as possible, and that children and young people attend school. I am looking carefully every day at how we manage the balance between safeguarding children’s education and reducing transmission of the virus, because I know that too many children are still having their education disrupted, no matter how good the remote education they receive.
T he new Health Secretary and I have already discussed these matters, and I am working with him across my Department, as well as with scientists and public health experts, to take the next steps. However, as the House is aware, some restrictions remain in place in schools. I want to see those restrictions, including bubbles, removed as quickly as possible, along with wider restrictions in society. I do not think that it is acceptable for children to face restrictions over and above those on wider society, especially as they have given up so much to keep older generations safe over the past 18 months. Further steps will be taken to reduce the number of children who have to self-isolate, including looking at the outcomes of the daily contact testing trial, as we consider a new model for keeping children in schools and colleges. We constantly assess all available data, and we expect to be able to confirm plans to lift restrictions and bubbles as part of step 4. Once that decision has been made, we will issue guidance immediately to schools.
I would like once again to put on the record this Government’s sincere thanks to all teachers for their dedication and work at this time. My commitment to the House and to the children of Britain is that, as we open up wider society, we will stick to the principle that children’s education and freedom comes first.
Kate Green
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question.
Data published yesterday showed that 375,000 children were out of school last week because of coronavirus. It is nine weeks until the new academic year begins, but we have no idea what the Secretary of State plans to keep them in class. School leaders dread another last-minute announcement. They need time to put plans in place, and their staff desperately need a break over the summer.
The Secretary of State has briefed that the bubbles policy will be replaced with daily testing from September. Will testing take place in schools? If so, what support will they receive to do it? Can he tell the House the results of the pilots in schools using regular testing instead of bubbles? What impact has that had on the number of coronavirus cases in the school community and the number of hours that children and staff remain in class? Will he tell us why, if he believes he has a solution that will keep children safely in the classroom, he is waiting until September? What is he doing now to keep children in school before the summer holidays?
Time and again, Labour has called for mitigations to keep children learning, including ventilation and Nightingale classrooms. Why has that not happened? Will the Secretary of State clarify why he abandoned the policy of masks in schools when cases were rising and masks were still required in shops and indoor spaces? Will he share the scientific evidence that led to that decision?
Can the Secretary of State confirm that children who have to isolate over the summer and cannot attend the holiday activities and food programme will still receive free meals? Finally, will he tell us when he expects to receive Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation advice on vaccinating older children? Does he believe that they will begin receiving the vaccine before September?
Ministers’ negligence on letting the delta variant into our country is keeping hundreds of thousands of children out of the classroom. The Secretary of State must act now or make way for someone who will.
Gavin Williamson
On daily contact testing, that is something that Public Health England has been running trials on. We expect it to report back to the Department of Health and Social Care and to us in the coming weeks. We are very clear that we want action to be taken, and that is why we very much want to see the lifting of more restrictions and of the bubbles in schools as part of the next step. As the hon. Lady will appreciate, that decision has to be made across Government as part of the next stage of our road map, but we will of course be informing schools and keeping them up to date as to progress in plenty of time before the start of the next term.
The Labour party deigns to give advice. Let us not forget that its advice was to join the European Union vaccine programme. Well, where would that have got us? It was the Labour party that said that it would not be possible for schools to deliver testing right across all our schools and colleges, yet that was what we were able to do. And it was the Labour party that opposed children going back into the classroom and did not support this Government’s efforts to ensure that children were able to get their education at the earliest possible stage. At every point, the Labour party has done everything it can to frustrate and stop the opportunities for children to be in school.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he is doing to try to keep schools open, but we have 300,000 children being sent home. In addition, 93,500 children are missing 50% of school or more, as identified by the Centre for Social Justice this week in a hard-hitting report.
We are in danger of creating a generation of ghost children, denied a proper chance to climb the education ladder of opportunity. Will my right hon. Friend update the guidance and look to establish mobile testing units in schools as soon as possible, even before September, to stop the need for children to be sent home? Will he also set out a plan, galvanising the forces of the Department, local authorities and schools, for how these 100,000 ghost children are going to be returned to school properly so that we can bring their education back to life and do not damage their life chances for decades to come?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend raises the important issue of children who are not attending school. That is why we have pulled together the REACT teams, which are a combination of DFE teams, regional schools commissioners, local authorities, the police and, crucially, schools themselves, to target those children, working alongside the supporting families initiative led by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there is already extensive testing in schools. In fact, some 57 million tests have already been conducted in schools and colleges across the country, so we already have a well-established testing mechanism. The next stage, as we move to step 4 of the road map, is that we want schools to be able to operate more freely. We want all children to be able to be part of the summer activities, whether that is the holiday activity and food programmes or the additional summer schools that schools are laying on. That is why, as part of step 4, we are looking at lifting the restrictions and bubbles that schools currently have to operate, and we are looking at doing that at the very earliest opportunity, so children will be able to benefit through the summer.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Will the Secretary of State stop this dither and delay? On education matters, everyone in this House should be united, but there is a generation of young children who have missed education and will continue to miss education. Families, and parents particularly, want certainty. They want to know what the rules are and what they can expect, so that they can plan their everyday lives. Most of all, all of us who care about education know that the upcoming summer holiday could be an opportunity for a vast number of national volunteers to work with children, to give them the vital support they are missing because they have missed so much school education. Come on, Secretary of State, take the lead and do something positive, imaginative and bold.
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughts. We have already outlined, if he had listened to my answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), that we are looking towards lifting the restrictions, especially bubbles, as part of the next step of the road map. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government will, in the very near future, announce the next step of the road map, and lifting the restrictions will very much be part of that. It is important that all our actions, right across Government, are properly co-ordinated as part of a process of easing restrictions right across the country.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I am delighted that the Government prioritised the reopening of schools as we eased lockdown; I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all his efforts to make sure that children return to schools and get in-person education as much as possible. Does he agree that rolling out regular testing as we do so will ensure that we not only stop the spread of the virus, but prevent children from being unnecessarily sent home and missing out on their education? At the same time, we must make sure that the tests are carried out properly and appropriately.
Gavin Williamson
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend will probably have seen the figures: more than 50 million tests have already been conducted across schools and colleges. We are very much aware that testing has been an important part of getting schools reopened, and we continue to work with colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care and in track and trace to ensure that testing is available to all pupils and their families.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD) [V]
The number of children missing school is rising every single day and families are at their wits’ end, while the Government are once again far too slow to react. Will the Government act now and establish a rapid taskforce with public health directors and school leaders, with a mandate to keep schools open safely?
Gavin Williamson
It is fair to say that Liberal Democrats have never been very good at numbers. Actually, schools are open right across the country—they are welcoming children. Millions of children are in school, benefiting from being with their teachers, and we continue to take action to ensure we do everything we can to maximise the number of children there. As part of step 4, as I touched on earlier, we will be looking at lifting more restrictions; that will be announced in the near future.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s work to keep schools open and his ambition to see the end of the bubble system, but may I ask him to look at a cohort of children who risk being caught up negatively by covid guidance and restrictions: those who are due to start primary school this September? I declare an interest in that my own son is due to start school this September. Under the current guidance, schools are unable to run the settling-in sessions that are essential for children to familiarise themselves with their new environment and have the best start in school life. Will my right hon. Friend take action to ensure that those settling-in sessions can happen?
Gavin Williamson
I will share some of the guidance that we have. There is flexibility for schools, for those key transition years, to have some level of familiarisation with those children. I will organise it that my office shares that information with my hon. Friend.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab) [V]
The number of children self-isolating has quadrupled during this month because of increases in cases of covid. Following this sharp rise, more children are now able to learn online from home with the IT equipment and internet access provided to schools by the Government. Hundreds of families in my constituency of Birmingham, Hall Green have benefited from the scheme, but I am now hearing that many of the devices have been either disabled or taken back by the schools. That has a significant impact on learning, especially for those who are living in poverty. It is important that access to IT equipment should not be disrupted. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that children keep the laptops and return them only when they leave school at year 6 or 11?
Gavin Williamson
The investment that we made in IT equipment is there to help pupils. Although those laptops are the property of the schools, we very much want the schools to prioritise using them to help children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. I will certainly take up the hon. Gentleman’s point and look in more detail at whether we can give more guidance and a stronger steer to schools to really emphasise that point.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
We all know that the pandemic has caused many young people to miss out on vital learning experiences and I welcome the Government’s recovery strategy to help them catch up. In Cumbria, we have unique outdoor education centres, such as the Blencathra Centre and the Outward Bound centres, that offer life-affirming educational experiences both as day and residential activities, giving young people a chance to benefit from some of the vital opportunities they have missed out on. Does my right hon. Friend agree that these centres can be a key part of the solution, and will he look into his Department directly supporting and utilising these assets to achieve the educational recovery?
Gavin Williamson
As part of step 3 of the road map, we lifted restrictions so that people could do overnight residential. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the benefits of outdoor education centres and the real value they bring to many young people. We will certainly continue to work with the sector on how we can promote that, especially as schools have more and more freedoms in the future.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The Government have consistently let down our children. To bring down case numbers and to reduce school closures, the likes of me advocated for teachers to be vaccinated, for a circuit break during half-term last year and for other sensible measures, but we were ignored. Now, shockingly, one child in 20 was out of school last week and case numbers are still rising. Will the Secretary of State commit to reviewing the use of the bubble system and to implementing the recommendations now, rather than waiting until the autumn?
Gavin Williamson
I will happily pass on a copy of Hansard to the hon. Gentleman, so he can reference what I said earlier in response to this urgent question.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Secretary of State is right to push back on the Labour party. I do not remember Labour Members being huge champions of getting schools back on 8 March, when we were campaigning so strongly for it. Their words are a little bit hollow now.
The Secretary of State is clearly indicating where he wants to go on getting rid of bubbles. I am not really sure, though, why we cannot do it now. We are going to cause a huge problem for the rest of term and we will not be giving a lot of time for teachers in schools to prepare for the autumn. What I really wanted to ask him was about testing. We have now vaccinated all adults at risk of being seriously ill from covid. Given that covid is going to be endemic, is he really suggesting that for the rest of time we are going to be testing our schoolchildren on a regular basis? I think we need to move back to normal. Once we have protected everyone who is vulnerable to covid—children are not, largely—we need to get back to normal, not ensuring our children have to be continuously tested for the entirety of their school careers.
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend raises a very interesting and thoughtful point. We want to see schools return to normality. We do not want children to feel as if there is an extra layer of things they have to do that we, as adults, do not have to do. That is very important. Testing has been an incredibly important tool in the armoury to get schools back, especially on 8 March when we saw the mass return of schools, but we do keep it under review. We take scientific advice from the Department of Health and Social Care, Public Health England and other scientific bodies. We are looking at this continuously and we have found it a useful tool, but in the much longer term do I see testing as something that we expect children to continuously do always in the future? No, I do not. Ideally, I want to move away from that at the earliest and most realistic possible stage.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) pointed out that there is a risk, as things stand, that children may have to isolate and stay at home when they should be taking part in the holiday activities and food programme over the summer. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, whatever happens, children who are entitled to access food support over the summer will still be able to do that?
Gavin Williamson
I can absolutely assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is the case. Obviously, the Department for Work and Pensions has its covid support fund, which is available for local authorities to provide free school meals. Any changes as part of the road map that would lead to the lifting of further restrictions and of bubbles within schools would also take effect for the summer holidays, so children who wanted to take part in holiday activity and food programmes would be able to do so without operating within a bubble system.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Because of new variants, it is quite possible that long into the future the number of covid cases will increase from time to time. Is the Secretary of State aware that Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, who was behind the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, has said:
“If…high protection against hospitalisation continues despite spread in the community, the public health crisis is over”?
Does my right hon. Friend understand that we must move away from being concerned with the number of cases of covid and disrupting schools needlessly through testing and isolation, and focus squarely on hospitalisation?
Gavin Williamson
I very much have that at the forefront of my mind. If my right hon. Friend has time, it would be very interesting to sit down with him, and with some of my team and some from the Department of Health and Social Care, to discuss this in greater detail. The key thing is making sure that people are not being hospitalised and people are not in danger of dying. The vaccine has had enormous success in doing that, but we cannot then have the brake on children’s lives in the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend and thank the Secretary of State for being here today and addressing the concerns of many of us. What happens here sets the direction for regional Administrations. Covid-19 has had a huge impact on the education of young people, with some not being able to access resources and many suffering as a result of the closure of schools. Mental health issues among pupils are rising at alarming levels, so what discussion has he had with school principals and with regional Assemblies to reduce the negative impact on our children’s academic development? What steps can he take to ensure that the education system is pandemic-ready for the future?
Gavin Williamson
We have always, at all stages, done as much as possible to work with all devolved Administrations across the UK and we will continue to do so, be it on mental health issues, the awarding of grades, or education recovery. Let me take the opportunity to put on the record my thanks for the work that I had the opportunity to do with Peter Weir, who was the Minister for Education in Northern Ireland. We had a very close working relationship and I am very appreciative of all the work he undertook for the children and students in Northern Ireland in his time as Minister.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con) [V]
The metropolitan borough of Bury currently has more than 2,000 children self-isolating, which is negatively impacting on their social, emotional and educational development. I welcome and recognise my right hon. Friend’s commitment to keeping children in school, but does he recognise and agree—I am sure he does—that we cannot allow this situation to continue? Surely we must learn to live with covid-19 and remove the requirements for school bubbles, together with the current policy of self-isolation, at the earliest opportunity.
Gavin Williamson
We are very much wanting to go down that course of easing restrictions and ensuring that, as we come out this pandemic, children are one of the greatest beneficiaries. My hon. Friend’s mind and mine are very much in the same place.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab) [V]
Children in the most disadvantaged areas are almost twice as likely to be those self-isolating, such as year 6 in St Mark’s Primary School in my constituency, but they are also likely to be on the wrong side of the digital divide, with 23 pupils at St Mark’s still without the kit and connectivity required to log in and learn from home when isolating. With every click widening the attainment gap, will the Secretary of State today back my campaign to ensure that every child entitled to free school meals has access to data and a device at home?
Gavin Williamson
This is very much why we invested hundreds of millions of pounds in the roll-out of 1.3 million devices to be able to support schools, but most importantly to be able to support children, as the hon. Lady set out.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
Can my right hon. Friend reassure me, as we look to 19 July and the end of the summer term, that there can be no question of a return to bubbles and self-isolation when children return in the autumn?
Gavin Williamson
I do not want to pre-empt the decision across Government on the next stage, but our direction is very clear about lifting the restrictions and ensuring that children are not in a situation where they have to bubble. That is very much part of the course of the road map, and of course we would very much expect that our children would not be facing that in September, as my right hon. Friend has said.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
The Secretary of State says that his priority is to keep children in school, yet hundreds of thousands of them are missing yet more precious time in the classroom as well as important end-of-term rituals, and families are angry and desperate. For many months, organisations such as the Health and Safety Executive and the Royal Society of Medicine have been saying that one of the basic things that needs to be done to protect our children is to ensure better ventilation in all classrooms. People who live in New York, for example, can consult a public website to see the ventilation status of every single classroom in the state, and there has been serious investment in ventilation and filtration there. Why has the Secretary of State not done something similar here to introduce those basic mitigation measures and fast-track the assessment of testing pilots? Living with covid must not mean dumping all the risk on our children because the Education Secretary has not acted with anything like the urgency and ambition this crisis demands.
Gavin Williamson
At every stage, we have put in all the protective measures that are required in order to be able to keep children safe and ensure that they are back in the classroom and have the opportunity to learn.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The numbers of pupils self-isolating and therefore not at school have risen nationally from 40,000 to 300,000 in three weeks, and in the same period in Gloucestershire they have risen from a few hundred to almost 8,000, which is virtually 8% of all pupils. That is clearly not the direction that either the Education Secretary or any of us want.
We can therefore all agree with the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies’ children’s expert, Professor Russell Viner, who has said that we have to rethink all the rules around our schools. Schools are not the driver of transmission at the moment, and to my knowledge there is not a single child in Gloucestershire in any of our hospitals with the virus, so something needs to be done. My right hon. Friend has already given a clear steer that he wants to see children back at school as soon as possible and the benefits of summer school being enjoyed, so would he consider a pilot project in Gloucestershire to allow all these children who are self-isolating to get back to school as soon as possible?
Gavin Williamson
Frankly, if there is going to be a pilot project, it is going to be in Staffordshire, not in Gloucestershire, but that was a good old punt.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
Professor Marmot has reported today on the impacts of inequality in large parts of Greater Manchester, including my own constituency, and we know that covid has exacerbated these inequalities. We know that too many children have had and are still having their education disrupted. We all agree that we need to ensure that children and families are supported, not just during self-isolation, and that catch-up is intensified, so what work is the Secretary of State’s Department doing on the wider impact that covid may have on this cohort of children in school or college through the pandemic? How do we ensure that we properly tackle the inequalities created by covid on top of the pre-existing inequalities affecting the same children?
Gavin Williamson
I would very much appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman forwarded that report, as it would be interesting to look at the details. We have been looking closely at the impact of covid on children’s learning right across the country. We have been doing a detailed study with Renaissance Learning to look at the lost learning, not just as a national cohort but very much in granular detail, and that is very much informing our policy development as to how we best address that.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answers today and for his commitment to remove self-isolation for schoolchildren as soon as possible. That will be widely welcomed across Wimbledon. Can he reassure me about what the Government are doing to ensure that disabled children get the support they need at home when they have been self-isolating and unable to attend school?
Gavin Williamson
We very much expect the education to be delivered for all children remotely, whether they are in a mainstream school, a special school or alternative provision. We work with the sector to ensure that that happens, including on the provision of IT equipment and devices, which is so critical for all schools to be able to deliver that.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
We remember the appalling free school meals debacle over Christmas, where the Opposition and football players had to try to force the Government to do the right thing. My Ilford South constituents, who are among some of the poorest in certain super-output wards, are extremely concerned that their holiday activities and food programme has not been guaranteed if they are going to be at home self-isolating. Will the Secretary of State please be crystal clear that nobody will go without food this summer?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman probably heard my earlier answer. Of course, the Department for Work and Pensions scheme is there to support children who are in receipt of free school meals over the summer period. The holiday activities and food programme is an extensive scheme across local authorities right across the country. This is an excellent scheme and we want to see all children able to take part in it because of the benefit of not just food, but, as importantly, the activity that is part of the scheme.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to end bubbles. Last week, some 74% of children who were isolating in England were doing so not because they had caught covid but because someone in their bubble had done so. This puts a huge strain on them and their parents. With that in mind between now and the terminus date, will my right hon. Friend consider accelerating the rapid testing programme to ensure that we see less self-isolating for children?
Gavin Williamson
We always continue to work with the Department for Health and Social Care on testing and being able to maximise that so that we can catch people with covid at home, so they are not in a position of infecting their friends at school and the teachers.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
With nearly 400,000 children and young people out of school just last week for covid-related reasons, the Government’s failure to secure our borders against the delta variant has demonstrated the damage that it is doing to children and their future. Given those failures and the incompetence, frankly, of the Secretary of State over the last year in getting a grip and supporting schoolchildren, is it not time that he worked with the Chancellor to get the funding that is needed for catch-up, as was recommended by the former catch-up tsar, Sir Kevan Collins? There is a shortfall of £13.6 billion. Is it not time that that money was provided so that children do not continue to suffer because of the mistakes of the Secretary of State’s Government?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady seems to be blissfully unaware that we have already invested over £3 billion in supporting children to be able to catch up in our schools. As she requested, we will continue to work closely with the Treasury—as we have been doing—as we approach the spending review to see what further action is needed to be able to support our children.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Last week, 375,000 pupils were off school through self-isolation and there has been a 40% increase in anti-depressants being prescribed to under-17-year-olds. Given that children are extremely unlikely to suffer serious ill health as a result of catching covid, and given the damage being done to their education and their mental health, is it not time we stopped this self-isolation madness and got all pupils back in the classroom where they belong?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend raises a really important issue in terms of children’s mental health. This is why we have been so concerned to put interventions in place to be able to support children, as well as those who work in our schools and colleges, with their mental health at this incredibly difficult time. The best way of helping children and all people—all staff—with their mental health is by actually having schools functioning as normally as possible. That is why we have always been clear that when we are in a position to be able to remove those restrictions, and to be able to make those changes and make it easier for schools to operate as normally as possible, we will always take those steps at the earliest possible stage.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
My constituent Stephen sums up the frustrations of parents and pupils when he tells me that his boy is now home again for a third time—10 days of isolation—because somebody has tested positive in his school, even though he wears a mask. He has tested negative on a PCR test, plus two further tests a week. Stephen asks how we can justify 40,000 people hugging each other at Wembley, but his son cannot see his friends. The effect on pupils has also been raised by my constituent Joe, who teaches and has seen the mental health effects to which the Secretary of State just referred. What additional support will be put in place to support Joe and the pupils that he supports during this mental health crisis?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Member is probably aware that both the Department of Health and Social Care and my Department have outlined support packages for schools to boost mental health provision, including training to ensure that there are people trained to deal with mental health issues in all schools, right across the country. He is probably also aware of the comments I made earlier about the lifting of restrictions and the removal of bubbles. That is the next step that we very much want to take, but it has to be done in line with the broader changes and steps to unlock the country that are part of the road map.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Getting children back into school without having to self-isolate cannot come soon enough, as there is no substitute for learning, attainment and keeping children in face-to-face education. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that keeping children in an educational setting whenever it is safe to do so remains his priority?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is so right. The provisions—whether it was the roll-out of mass testing across all schools, or the restrictions and levels of safety that we had to put into schools—have all been designed around getting children into schools for the maximum amount of time, ensuring that they are in front of the teacher with their friends, having the very best classroom experience. That is the No. 1 priority. As we move out of this crisis, we want to lift as many of those restrictions as possible and liberate schools to be able to operate in the best possible way for themselves.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government’s failure to get border controls in place has enabled the delta variant to take hold in the UK, forcing children out of classrooms and away from their friends?
Gavin Williamson
At every stage, the Government have been one of the first to act in order to keep this country safe; this was one of the first countries in Europe to impose travel restrictions on India as a result of the delta variant. The new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the Transport Secretary and the Prime Minister take that responsibility incredibly seriously.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments. I have recently finished a 10-day period of self-isolation following someone in my office testing positive for covid. However, the flatmate of that person was able to go about their daily life in a normal way, using the Government’s daily testing trial. As we learn to live with covid, surely it is time to move quickly to a more nuanced approach that does not endlessly interrupt children’s education, as it cannot be right to have learning continuously disrupted by unnecessary self-isolation.
Gavin Williamson
There is nothing that I can really disagree with my hon. Friend about, so I had better just sit down, hadn’t I?
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Too many schoolchildren across my constituency of Blaydon have faced disadvantage from being out of school under the current arrangements. Will the Secretary of State be absolutely clear with school leaders well in advance of any new arrangements to be put in place? It is vital that they have that information. Will he also talk about the support that can be given to disabled children to ensure that they have the chance to catch up on the education opportunities that they have missed?
Gavin Williamson
I very much want to reassure the hon. Lady that we will give all schools good notice of any new arrangements. As I have committed to, we are aiming to issue guidance and advice to schools in conjunction with the details of step 4. On disabled children and children with special educational needs, we will continue to have a really strong emphasis in terms of how we support special schools or alternative provision. In particular, we will weight the level of support at a much higher level for those schools than we do for mainstream schools.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Like others, I would also like to see the immediate return of the daily testing that has been so successful in the pilot schools, so that pupils can remain in school. I agree with others that we should go back to normal as soon as possible, preferably in September. Yesterday, the Minister for School Standards stated that we are consulting parents, teachers and pupils about extending the school day. Will the Secretary of State make it clear during the consultation that the extended day should be for enrichment activities as well as time for extra tutoring where necessary?
Gavin Williamson
I very much want to see children spending as much time in school as possible, although I do want them to have the opportunity to go home at certain points, Mr Speaker! As part of that extra time, I want them not only to be learning from a rigorous curriculum that has been carefully crafted by my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards—they will get a lot of fun out of learning from that rigorous and detailed curriculum—but to have more fun doing sporting activities, cultural activities, art and so much more as well.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Over the past few weeks, I have been touring secondary schools in my constituency. The current self-isolation policy, which, incidentally, resulted in a Twickenham secondary having to close its doors entirely last week for several days, combined with lockdowns is not just impacting academic progress; the No.1 issue, according to heads and safeguarding leads, is the mental health impact. As well as ensuring support for academic catch-up, may I urge the Secretary of State to do everything he can to speed up the roll-out of mental health support teams in schools? Will he also please speak to the Health Secretary to provide urgent additional capacity for tier 4 child and adolescent mental health services beds because too many children are being turned away? From the evidence that I am being presented with, it is not exaggeration to say that children’s lives are at risk because teachers and school counsellors just do not have the skills to deal with those cases.
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady raises a very thoughtful and important issue. I am very much with her in that I want to see the roll-out of mental health support in schools as quickly as is feasibly possible. That also plays an incredibly important role in tackling some of the further pressure that is then put at the door of CAMHS services. I am very happy to take up the point that she raised with the Department for Health and Social Care, which runs CAMHS, as to how best we can support children in those early stages and, if there is a need for clinical intervention, how that can be best supported and swiftly supported in order to be able to deal with the problem early on.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
The Government prioritised reopening schools above almost anything else. Schools in Stoke-on-Trent have been doing an absolutely amazing job in keeping education going, given the challenges that they have faced. I know that schools in my constituency are struggling with several covid cases right now. It is vital that we keep children in school as far as possible, especially those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to ensure that no more time is lost and that all our young people receive the good quality education that we want to see?
Gavin Williamson
I know my hon. Friend has done so much for education in Stoke, including his efforts to secure a new free school for the Stoke-on-Trent South constituency. He is right: we constantly review what needs to be done to keep children in school for a maximum amount of time so that they can benefit from the education. We recognise that that delivers the best benefits for children not only in his constituency, but in all of our constituencies.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab) [V]
Teachers and school staff in Warrington North have moved heaven and earth over the past 18 months to try to support the education and welfare of our town’s young people in the face of last-minute, changing and often contradictory guidance. Nowhere is this more the case than in special educational needs and disability educational settings, especially as testing can be traumatic or, indeed, impossible for some children with special needs. When will schools know what is to happen in September and, can the Secretary of State confirm that this will be shared with schools well in advance of the summer holiday to ensure that staff are not required to work across their summer leave, and that specific guidance will be provided for SEND schools rather than their being an after-thought?
Gavin Williamson
Specific guidance is always provided for special educational needs schools. I can ensure that the detail on the gov.uk website is available to the hon. Lady so she might be able to read it if she is interested in doing so. I absolutely assure her that, as I have said in answer to other questions, we will provide that information at the earliest possible stage.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I have been contacted by parents across Burnley and Padiham, some of whom have children who are off for the third time despite having never had coronavirus themselves, so I welcome the Secretary of State’s work to end isolation for students. One thing that will really help schools is getting the testing solution right. What conversations has the Secretary of State had with Public Health England and the Department of Health and Social Care about new types of testing, such as saliva testing, that would be far quicker and easier for schools to implement?
Gavin Williamson
We always work with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England in respect of the very best forms of testing. We are always aware that there is new technology and innovation and we want to be able to use that to the best of our ability, to make sure that not only all my hon. Friend’s constituents in Burnley who want to attend school are able to do so but everyone throughout the country can do so as well.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab) [V]
I have had lots of emails from desperate parents in south Manchester whose children have suffered multiple periods of isolation and are worried about more. They all say that we need to review the isolation rules urgently. We now hear that the Secretary of State is looking at announcing plans as part of step 4, but there is no reason to wait for step 4: schools have a problem now and they need to know what to do about it. Every time I have met headteachers in the past year, their biggest complaint is always about the lateness of guidance from the Secretary of State’s Department. Why is it that the Department for Education is always so slow with advice? Why do pupils and schools always seem to be the after- thought in this crisis?
Gavin Williamson
I assure the House that we always do everything we can to ensure that all guidance is available to schools at the very earliest opportunity.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, in Keighley and Ilkley, we have been subject to restrictions since the pandemic began, whether under the local or regional approach. There is concern among some of my constituents that a regional approach to the implementation of restrictions may return at some point. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if that was the case—I do not want to see it—we would not end up with a situation in which schools in Keighley and Ilkley were forced to close when others in the country were able to be open?
Gavin Williamson
I assure my hon. Friend that I want schools in Keighley and Ilkley always to be open and never to be closed, and that is certainly something that we want to ensure happens. We do not want to see schools in different parts of the country having to close, which is why we will take all the measures that are required to ensure they stay open.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Schools will not stay open because the Secretary of State wills it—we need a long-term plan. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care told the House on Monday that we are going to have to live with the virus. What does that mean for schools? Where is the plan for improved ventilation and Nightingale classrooms so that children can socially distance in schools and not have to be sent home in bubbles? The virus is not going away—where is the plan?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman seems to have paid little heed to some of the measures we have put in place to ensure that children can get back into school. That is probably not surprising given that his party’s policy seems very rarely to be to encourage and make sure that schools are open—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to ask his question—
Gavin Williamson
We will continue to do everything that we can to ensure that children are able to benefit from a great education. That is what we have been doing. We have seen schools open up and down the country—99.8% of schools are open—and we will continue to take the measures required to keep schools open.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Parents, pupils and, of course, teachers have borne the brunt of difficulties in respect of bubbles and the self-isolation of children, but it now feels that the whole country is a goal for progress on these issues. Has the Secretary of State heard today, as I have heard, that the Labour party would now support him if he felt able to go where it feels his spirit wishes to lead him and make progress on ending self-isolation and bubbles? Can he now count on their support?
Gavin Williamson
I would probably count the Opposition as a rather unreliable ally, but I certainly hope that they will not do the usual flip-flop that we are accustomed to seeing from the Leader of the Opposition.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has again been found sleeping at the wheel. One in 20 pupils were self-isolating last week, and today my office was told of another Coventry school being forced to close. Teachers are doing the best they can, but with mitigation rules relaxed and without additional resources, the delta variant will continue to rip through schools. Why were masks required in class in April but not now, given that case rates were lower then than they are now? Will he abandon his “feeble” catch-up plan—not my words, but those of his former adviser? Will he now put in the resources needed to mitigate covid and for educational catch-up—that is £15 billion—as his adviser recommended?
Gavin Williamson
I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is arguing for more restrictions or fewer—her question did not seem to be that coherent. Perhaps if she can write to me to clarify whether she is pro restrictions or against then, I would be happy to answer.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his update, and for the promise of ending bubbles and school isolation. Does he agree that it is surprising to hear the Labour party’s latest change in position on pupils attending schools, especially given that only earlier this month it was advocating moving away from formal learning, rather than catching up on crucial lost lessons?
Gavin Williamson
I suppose one of the great advantages of opposition is that consistency is not something that has to be adhered to. There has been an element of inconsistency there. What we are focused on, as we come out of the pandemic, is ensuring that we do everything possible to support schools, teachers and, most importantly, children, to help them catch up on what they have missed over the last year and a half.
Points of Order
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Monday, in a point of order, I queried the apparent discrepancy between the Secretary of State’s insistence to the House on 21 June that 6 million children will benefit from tutoring, and information given by his officials to Schools Week that the Government had pledged to provide 6 million courses. In yesterday’s estimates day debate, the Minister for School Standards again referred to 6 million courses. We now have two Ministers saying two different things. However, despite Mr Deputy Speaker’s response to my point of order on Monday, no ministerial correction has so far been issued. Can you assist me by inviting the Secretary of State to clarify the matter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving notice of her point of order. It is of course essential that ministerial statements to the House are accurate, but the content of a speech, as she knows, is a matter for the Member or Minister themselves. I do not know whether anyone wishes to make a further point. The Secretary of State and his Ministers are here and will have heard the hon. Lady’s point of order, so I am sure that she will find some clarity forthcoming.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ahead of my Westminster Hall debate this afternoon regarding my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, it has come to my attention that Members of this House have been sent briefings originating from the Indian high commission here in London. This is something, as you will be aware, that diplomatic delegations are entitled to do, but in this instance it would seem that they have included details that would seek to prejudge what is a live criminal case in that country. I am sure you will agree this is a most unusual state of affairs when one considers the separation of the judiciary from other branches of government, which is seen as a cornerstone of a well-functioning liberal democracy, and a position that flies in the face of the fundamental truth of being innocent until proven guilty. During the three and a half years of his imprisonment, I have sought myself to not prejudge the case against my constituent as it is, as you will appreciate, a matter for the Indian courts. I have only asked that transparency, due process and the rule of law be abided by—something that in this instance it would seem has been denied to Jagtar and is another indication that the growing calls for the UK Government to define his detention as an arbitrary one should now be listened to. Could you advise me and the House: what recourse is open to Members of this place on diplomatic missions to the Court of St James with regard to their ongoing business with this House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in giving notice of his point of order. I do not think it appropriate that Members of this House should be lobbied in this way, nor that judicial processes should be interfered with. I thank him for putting his concerns on the record and for giving me the opportunity to express our concerns as well.
I now suspend the House for three minutes to make arrangements for the next business.
Flexible Working
Wednesday 30th June 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Flexible Working Bill 2021-22 View all Flexible Working Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give workers the right to flexible working from the first day of employment except in exceptional circumstances; to require employers to offer flexible working arrangements in employment contracts and advertise the available types of such flexibility in vacancy notices; and for connected purposes.
Before the pandemic, about 60% of the workforce said that they had some flexibility when it came to working. Leading organisations in the field, such as the commercial law firm Hill Dickinson, and astonishing organisations in my constituency, such as Synergy Vision, have talked about bringing in flexible working for their employers and increasing happiness in the workforce. Synergy Vision has been recognised for that with a UK’s Best Workplaces 2020 award. When I asked its chief executive, Ffyona Dawber, what benefits had come out of introducing flexible working, she said that it was a win-win for the employers and the employees.
During the pandemic, things have changed and there has been a 6% increase in the workforce who work from home, but there is a myth that during coronavirus everyone had flexible working and everyone worked from home. Actually, that is not true. The truth is that people who were on higher incomes and earning more were able to work from home and work flexibly, but that was not the case for everyone. People on low incomes either did not have the flexibility at work or had to retain working from home and could not change their working lifestyle at all.
In fact, from March 2020, flexible ways of working other than working from home, including compressed hours, job sharing and part-time working, all declined gradually. The organisation Pregnant Then Screwed said that phone calls to its hotline from women who had been refused when they asked for flexible working had more than doubled, and about two thirds of requests for flexible working had been turned down.
Four out of five people want to work flexibly in future. There are organisations that are already doing that work; the Royal Air Force, for example, was recognised as a leading practitioner with an award for best practice in flexible working. There are other organisations that believe that putting the mental health of their employees first is important.
For those of us who were able to work from home and work flexibly during coronavirus, it was a life-changing experience. I spoke to parents who said that they had never felt more connected to their children. There were mothers who talked about the relief of not being the last to pick up their child from nursery—sitting on the step of shame, as we call it. I can relate to that. I spoke to disabled workers who said that it was such a relief that they did not have to commute to work in the morning and that they could sit in their own living room, log on and speak in Zoom meetings. I spoke to carers who said that it was such a relief not to have to worry about whether the pharmacy was closing and whether they could get to it in time to get urgent medication for the elderly relative they were looking after.
There were people who benefited massively. The truth is that flexible working disproportionately benefits people who are women, people who are disabled, people who are carers, people who are from low-income backgrounds and people from a black and minority ethnic background, because the intolerant office culture still exists. There are also massive mental health benefits from flexible working—in a survey, 96% of employees said that their happiness levels had risen since agile working was introduced—not to mention the benefits for retention and recruitment in the workplace. EY has said that the productivity of workplaces when they introduce flexible working is quantified at £15 million per year. Infrastructure and construction companies said that when they started talking about and promoting flexible working, 38% more people started applying to the jobs that they advertised.
There is also the benefit that there is a wider talent pool of people to pick from once employers have advertised flexible working, but overall the impact of flexible working is mostly on women—that is something that we cannot deny. In this country, the responsibilities for childcare and looking after children largely fall on women. The statistics show that if women can flexibly work and go back to their jobs, they are twice as likely not to quit their jobs after they have had a child, and to go back to their careers. Men can work flexibly, too, and the statistics show that women are twice as likely to excel in their career if their husband is helping them with childcare. McKinsey has pointed out that if we fully utilise women in the UK economy, by 2030 we would be adding £150 billion to our economy. A lot of that depends on widening flexible working and making sure people buy into it.
Despite the benefit to the economy, the impact on mental health, the benefit to disabled people, the benefit to people on low incomes and the benefit to people from BAME backgrounds, there still is not a culture of flexible working in this country. Since 2020, only 17% of jobs advertised have said that those who apply can work flexibly. A third of requests for flexible working are turned down. This problem is that companies can use a wide range of business reasons for not granting a request for flexible working. The problem is that companies are given a blank cheque. They are not told they will face some sort of legal restriction if they say people cannot work flexibly. There is no point saying that coronavirus has completely changed office work culture and that everyone will be able to work flexibly from now on.
I have a million case studies at my fingertips, but I will use just one. It is of a mother who looks after a five-year-old child, has a disabled husband and has caring responsibilities for her 80-year-old father. During the pandemic, she worked flexibly and her productivity increased, which was reflected in her bonus. She went to her employer when the pandemic sort of came to an end and they were all going back to the office, and her boss said, “You can’t continue working flexibly.” That goes to show that we cannot leave it up to offices to make their own decisions. We have to bring in robust legislation if we want to change the culture and if we want to make some amount of change.
I welcome the fact that the Government are consulting on making flexible working the default, but I have been in politics far too long and know that consultations can drag on. They may have the veneer of being true and that action will be taken in the end, but they drag on and nothing changes. We in this Parliament have the privilege of changing the law so that flexible working becomes something that everyone can enjoy and to which everyone has the right, not just the privileged few who have the perk of enjoying it.
I ask the Government to pay attention to the fact that I have cross-party support for my Bill. Members will have received numerous emails from constituents about flexible working. I also ask the Government to take this seriously, to bring in robust legislation and to make a difference to the way we work in this country.
I thank some of the organisations that have pushed for the change for years and have helped me with my Bill: Pregnant Then Screwed, the TUC, the Fawcett Society, Mother Pukka, Young Women’s Trust, Gingerbread, the Fatherhood Institute, and Working Families. I hope the Government will listen to me, to their colleagues who support this Bill and to voices across the House by introducing legislation that changes the way we work in this country once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Tulip Siddiq, Laura Farris, Layla Moran, Christine Jardine, Caroline Lucas, Dr Philippa Whitford, Claire Hanna, Jim Shannon, Mary Kelly Foy, Kevin Brennan, John McDonnell and Dawn Butler present the Bill.
Tulip Siddiq accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November, and to be printed (Bill 136).
Estimates Day
Official Development Assistance and the British Council
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us this estimates debate on official development assistance, more commonly known as foreign aid, and the British Council. It is clear how much passion and interest there is across parties on this topic.
Over the last two years, there have been considerable and brutal reductions in overseas development aid at a time of unprecedented global need. When other nations across the globe are stepping up, the UK seems to be walking away, and that is why today’s debate is so important. Public and parliamentary interest in aid has never been greater.
I wanted to spend the debate looking in detail at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s spending plans. I wanted to scrutinise how UK aid, cut drastically to 0.5% of GNI at a time when more aid is needed, is being spent in the most effective way possible. However, the information needed to carefully check that spending simply is not being shared by the FCDO.
The Select Committee on International Development has had to fight tooth and nail to extract whatever information it can from the Government. A pattern of behaviour is emerging that demonstrates this Government’s contempt for parliamentary scrutiny. That cannot be allowed to continue.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the comments that she has made so far and for her work on the Select Committee. In the post-Brexit age, we hear a lot from the British Government on sovereignty and being able to make sovereign decisions, but is not the crux of the matter—as this major issue, the cut to international aid, shows—the fact that we are not making decisions on the basis of parliamentary sovereignty, and that the Government really should be paying more attention to the views of this House?
Sarah Champion
That is absolutely the nub of my speech. At a time when we ought to be able to scrutinise the detail of the spending of taxpayers’ money—particularly at a time when cuts are being made to it—that is not in the gift of this House. It is in the gift only of a very few Ministers, and that should concern us all.
When my Committee received the main estimate from the FCDO this year, we were genuinely shocked. It looked very different, with considerably less detail than last year’s equivalent. Budget lines had been altered, with the majority of spending from the former Department for International Development lumped together under one heading. That obscures the size and distribution of the cuts to aid spending.
It is customary for the Government to consult with relevant Select Committees prior to making such radical changes to the presentation of estimates. Needless to say, that did not happen. Surely, at a time of increased parliamentary interest in aid spending, we should expect more detail, not less. With such little detail and information, Parliament cannot know exactly what is going on and what it is agreeing to. How can we make an informed decision without a basic breakdown of where the FCDO plans to spend in a particular country or on a particular theme?
Sadly, that is entirely consistent with the lack of information and transparency provided by the FCDO throughout last year. Add that to the lack of willingness to engage with my Committee, and Members’ questions being dodged or simply ignored, and Parliament faces a constant uphill struggle for the most basic details that we should be entitled to.
The Government have said that they will return to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid “when fiscal circumstances allow”. My Committee, and I am sure other Members in the House, have lost track of how many times we have asked the Foreign Secretary to define what is meant by that. We are getting no closer to an answer. We have repeatedly asked for a country-by-country breakdown of funding allocations for this financial year. Instead, we got only a worryingly short list of countries where the UK will spend bilaterally this year, with no figures attached. It is simply impossible to perform proper scrutiny without those figures.
My Committee is being stymied in its efforts to scrutinise, Parliament is being blocked from being able to consider the figures, and many of the organisations that are implementing the UK aid programmes, making the difference on the ground, have had to fight for clarity on whether their programmes will even survive these cuts. The haphazard way in which these cuts to aid programmes have been made has also caused considerable financial waste.
Let us take the cuts to global health, one of the FCDO’s priority areas, as just one example. Donated drugs to treat preventable diseases will be wasted, as there is no one available to distribute or administer them following a 90% cut in funding. In Bangladesh, a programme providing essential healthcare to disadvantaged communities, including a response to covid-19, was given less than a week to close. That story plays out across every area of UK aid.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point on the fact that the more barriers there are to aid, the more difficult it is to deliver. Does she agree therefore that it is a moral and economic imperative that this Government do everything in their diplomatic might to reauthorise and readopt the cross-border crossings in north-east and north-west Syria to relieve the millions of people there at serious risk of loss of life?
Sarah Champion
I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s calls for that border crossing to be reopened. It is a time-limited ask, and the International Development Committee wrote to the Foreign Secretary over two weeks ago asking for that very thing—to open those borders and keep them open so that aid can get in to help those desperate people—and we still have not received a reply.
In Vietnam, teams clearing land mines are being made redundant, as there is no funding for their project. In the Central African Republic, a project fighting the worst forms of child labour will be forced to close early. How does it make sense to invest in these transformative projects over years and then cut the funding at the very point they are about to realise their goals? It is a waste for those communities and a waste for the UK taxpayer, who has been funding it.
This debate also considers the role of the British Council, an organisation that has experienced huge challenges as a result of the pandemic. Unable to offer its normal range of paid-for educational services, budgets have been squeezed dramatically, impacting upon other programmes and leading to office closures around the world. Indeed, from next week, the British Council is starting the redundancy process for between 15% and 20% of its jobs.
The British Council is one of the best examples of soft power that I know, and the Government are standing by and letting it crumble. That is set against a growth in cultural institutes from other states—namely China’s Confucius Institutes—that are creeping across the planet. That is not exactly the action of an outward-looking, global-focused Great Britain, is it?
The Government say they are proud of the UK’s aid spending, but hiding figures and failing to respond to my Committee’s questions are not the actions of a Government who are proud. They seem like the actions of a Government who are trying to cover up their shocking reductions in funding and the devastating results: the girls who will not go to school, the children who will not be vaccinated and the families who will not have access to clean water. Once again, I ask the Minister for three things: to publish the individual country allocations for this financial year; to provide immediate clarity to organisations implementing UK aid programmes on their funding allocations for this financial year; and, most fundamental of all, for the Government to detail the steps that they will take to return to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA.
Finally, I want to say thank you to all the FCDO staff and all the aid workers around the world who do an amazing job in the most difficult of circumstances. We stand with them and will continue fighting for the resources that they need to be able to do their job: tackling poverty and inequality around the world. That is the right thing to do; morally it is the right thing to do, but it is also the right thing to do for Britain’s interests.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
There will be a seven-minute time limit on Back-Bench contributions, with the clock in the Chamber and on the screen for those participating virtually.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the very good speech from the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and I echo her comments in thanking FCDO staff and aid workers around the world for the work that they do, often, as she said, in extremely difficult circumstances. I would also like to say to the Minister that I am grateful to Lord Ahmad for the discussions he is having with me on modern slavery and initiatives on modern slavery, and those discussions are continuing.
Before I come to the specific points I want to make on the estimates, I will make a general point on this debate, because I believe that, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) last week, the Prime Minister implied that this debate was a vote on 0.7%. Of course, it is a vote on the estimates for the FCDO. It cannot be used as a proxy vote on 0.7%, and I hope the Government will accept that and recognise that the calls for a vote on 0.7% are still there.
There are two issues that I particularly want to raise. The first is that, in the limited information available to us on aid spending from the Government, there seems to be little suggestion from the Government that they are actually paying attention to the important linkages between the different elements of spending in the aid budget. This is often an holistic matter, and these things cannot just be looked at in silos.
To give just one example of this, our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is rightly very keen to encourage girls’ education around the world. It has been a theme of Conservative Governments now for some considerable time. We have taken it up in G7 meetings, and we have encouraged others around the world to take up that theme. Of course, a girl who is educated is less likely to be lured into modern slavery. However, if we cut the programmes for dealing with modern slavery, that girl may not be able to get into education because the slave drivers and the gangs—the criminal gangs—may have got to her first. We have to look at these issues holistically and at the linkages between them.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me for interrupting her, but she is making such an excellent point, and exactly the same argument can be made on tackling gender-based violence. If we want to succeed in getting women through education, then we must tackle gender-based violence. It is a comprehensive package, and that is why we need to be securing the 0.7%.
Mrs May
Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I gave just one example, but actually we have to look at aid funding holistically, and look at the linkages between areas and the impact of cuts in one area on another area. There is no evidence, I am afraid, from what I have seen from the Government, that that is what they have done. It does appear that they have just cut in silos. We see, for example, that the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery has an 80% cut in its funding and there is a 25% cut in funding for girls’ education, but these are linked. I urge the Government to look at those links.
I want to note that, in their response to the fourth special report of the Select Committee, in late September —28 September—last year, the Government said:
“The Government’s manifesto made clear that we would proudly maintain our commitment to spending 0.7 percent of our national income on development—a commitment enshrined in law and one to which the new Department will honour its responsibilities. The Integrated Review, which will inform the priorities and direction for this new department, will set an ambitious vision for the future of the UK as an active, internationalist, problem-solving and burden-sharing nation. Investing 0.7 percent of Gross National Income…on international development is at the heart of that vision; it shows we are an enterprising, outward-looking and truly global Britain that is fully engaged with the world.”
That was at the end of September 2020, and in November 2020 the funding was cut. Either one hand does not know what the other hand is doing in the Government, or they were just trying to calm everybody into a sense that everything was going to be okay before they actually wielded the knife on this particular issue.
The second point I want to make is about the impact on the UK’s presence on the world stage of the decisions that have been taken. This relates not just to ODA spending, but to the spending of the FCDO in general. I note that the Select Committee, in response to the decision to merge DFID into the FCO, said that it had
“significant concerns that the merger may jeopardise the ongoing effectiveness of future UK aid spending… In the long run, the creation of the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office could reduce the UK’s clout on the world stage.”
I fear that it is reducing the UK’s clout on the world stage, and this cut in overseas aid is but one example of that, although we focus, as we have in previous debates on this issue, on the very real impact on the ground of the money being cut from different programmes. The health programme has been mentioned by the Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Rotherham, but there are others, including the cut in funding to starving people in Yemen, for example, and all of these are having a real impact on the ground.
The FCDO also needs to look very carefully at the DFID expertise that is now within the FCDO. As it looks across its estimates and at how it is spending its money in the Department, it needs to make very certain that it does not lose that expertise. There have been times in the past when people have rightly questioned the way in which our aid money has been spent, but I have to say that that has changed in recent years, largely due to and initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he was the International Development Secretary. We spend our aid differently, and we have developed—and successive International Development Secretaries did this too—real expertise. We are now hitting the needy across the world with a double whammy because they are losing our funding and they are losing our expertise as well.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend realise that the position is far worse than was set out when the so-called merger took place? What has happened is that DFID has been completely dismantled. Even in the days of her predecessor, Lady Thatcher, there was an overseas development administration within the Foreign Office, which was a sort-of department for development with a Minister of State in charge of it. There is nothing like that today. The whole thing has been completely smashed to pieces, as she is saying in her speech.
Mrs May
I thank my right hon. Friend for clarifying that point so well. If we are going to continue to be respected as a country that leads on overseas aid, it is absolutely imperative that we not only spend the money, but that we also have the expertise to ensure that it is being spent properly. Hosting receptions in the British embassy, and getting to know local businessmen and politicians, is a different skillset to knowing how to deliver aid on the ground logistically, so that British taxpayers’ money is spent in the most effective way.
Maintaining that expertise is particularly important if the Government are to be believed, as we hope they are, when they say that they are going to restore the 0.7%. When a programme is cut, we cannot just say, “Well, you are not having that money this year, but next year you are going to have it.” People will no longer be employed to give the aid on the ground. We need the expertise to be able to build the programmes up. We are looking at a perfect storm, where not only has the money gone away but, when the time comes—I hope it will be next year that the Government restore 0.7%—we will find that the people are not in the Department to ensure that that is being done, and being done effectively.
I say to the Minister that I sincerely hope that we can restore the respect that we have had around the world, through our funding and our expertise, restore the 0.7%, look holistically at the aid spending and not lose DFID expertise. If we do that, we might be able to return, as was said in the Government response to the fourth special report, to being
“an enterprising, outward-looking and truly global Britain that is fully engaged with the world.”
Sadly, at the moment, the message is rather different.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the effective speech by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I suspect that we will see a good deal of consensus across the House this afternoon on these points.
The Government’s sudden default on their commitments, enshrined in law, and the way the cuts are being implemented, with minimal information for this House, has damaged plans, partnerships and trust that have built up over many years between the UK Government and international partners. At a stroke, the Government have succeeded in damaging the UK’s reputation as a reliable partner, at a time when they are supposedly developing the UK’s role as a global player. All of this is purportedly to ensure that we can shoulder the burden of their disastrous covid policy, while conveniently playing into the supposed prejudices of their new and possibly fickle supporters.
These cuts have been rushed, with no consideration or assessment of the impact they will have on the people who receive UK aid or the effect on UK-based overseas aid projects, particularly small-scale initiatives without the robust structures or funding to absorb large-scale cuts made by their main or only real source of finance. There has been no real consultation, not least with this House, and there has been a failure, or more likely a refusal, to understand and take into account the likely impacts, or to engage with partners and communities, so as to try to minimise the damage, if that is at all possible.
Throughout this process there has been poor communication with partners. The Government have failed to provide dependable and predictable information, and the repeated failure to deliver on promises of forthcoming decisions and information has left organisations and projects unable to plan or manage the situation.
Let me turn for a moment to small-scale projects in Wales. Hub Cymru Africa reports that the closure of the FCDO’s small charities challenge fund—the most accessible grant scheme up to £50,000 for Welsh NGOs—is hitting, for example, the Teams4u project in Wrexham. The closure of the FCDO’s partnership grants of up to £250,000 is affecting the successful delivery of projects such as Interburns. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain why the partnership grant of £249,000 to Bees for Development Monmouth for its work in Ethiopia is being cut by £102,000, thereby closing the project early. That explanation might be useful for his ministerial colleague at the Wales office, the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). United Purpose in Cardiff has been working in Malawi for 32 years. Its work has been rated A++ for performance and value for money by the FCDO itself. It has had to drastically reduce its work, with only weeks of warning, due to Malawi’s law on staff notices and severance packages. Some Welsh NGOs are considering closing down entirely.
Such cuts stand in clear contrast to the Welsh Government’s aid schemes, such as Wales for Africa. Wales takes international aid seriously; achieving sustainable development is written into the Welsh constitution. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 commits to a “globally responsible Wales”. This Government are betraying those Welsh values. Even our universities—responsible for so much of the success of the domestic vaccine programme—are affected. UK Research and Innovation has already confirmed that the ODA cuts will lead to a £120 million budget shortfall in 2021-22. That conflicts with the Government’s own ambitions for R and D to reach 2.4% of GDP by 2027. This is disastrous not only for Welsh universities, but for the wider UK research community.
Let me turn to an example of broad-scale effects. Plan International reports that an estimated 20 million women and girls will now not be reached; 700,000 fewer girls will be supported by girls’ education programmes; 2 million fewer women will be supported by humanitarian assistance; 8 million fewer people and girls will be supported by nutrition interventions; and 9 million fewer women will be supported to access clean water and sanitation. This is a disaster.
This is not a deliberate wrecking by a perfidious foreign competitor. It is not an explicit hostile action by an enemy. It is not even the unintended consequence of absent-minded and careless prime ministerial policy making aimed at grabbing a headline or two. It is a deliberate disaster of this Government’s own making, and it will not be forgiven or forgotten by its survivors.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I will not go over the existing point about 0.7% and 0.5%, because I think the House knows my view. I share absolutely the views of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who have made their point—and, in fact, my point—extremely clearly.
Instead, I will focus on the integrated review and the merger of the Departments, and what it actually means according to the statements of Her Majesty’s Government compared with the actions on the ground. I would suggest that there is a slight dissonance between the talk of global Britain engaging directly with nations, and the cuts to bilateral Britain while we are reinforcing multilateral action. Now, I understand why we have taken those decisions: we have legal contracts with multilateral agencies and therefore we have legal obligations with them that are harder to break; so instead we are undermining our own policy and weakening those bilateral ties.
It seems to me—perhaps the Minister will be able to explain why I am wrong—that we are wracked over the small print while others are racking up the newsprint of their achievements, and that is a mistake. It is a mistake because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead made clear, we need to be demonstrating our place around the world. I support the ambitions of aligning the two Departments, and indeed of bringing the Department for International Trade and perhaps other Departments much closer together with the Foreign Office. My former colleagues in the Ministry of Defence will not like this terribly, but I support the idea of having a Foreign Secretary who is the strategic mind for the British Government overseas, including on the deployment of, for example, carriers. HMS Queen Elizabeth is in port in Cyprus today. Although the Foreign Office should have had a very clear view on her role and deployment, and was absolutely right to support the ships going through international waters—or Ukrainian waters, as they were only the other day—I would never argue that an ambassador should be the admiral of a fleet or that a political councillor should be the captain of a destroyer. The same is true, I am afraid, in respect of aid spending; there is a technical expertise here that is not the same as the strategic oversight of foreign policy, which is why I would like to see some of this coming back and being reinforced as the technical skill it really is.
Let us look at a few examples. Some have said to me that perhaps we are going back to a pre-1930s world, and there is certainly a hint of that. Let us look at the cuts we have seen in Lebanon, a very important historical ally, one in which we have invested heavily, through the Lebanese armed forces and through the relationship of building capability that would fight terrorism, which we all face. This is an organisation that has done more to hold the state of Lebanon together than many of its supposedly civic institutions. We have invested an awful lot and we have a huge amount of good will—having been there and met the Lebanese armed forces chief when I was serving in the armed forces, I can also say that we have also brought back a lot of raki from his personal collection, but that is a separate matter. We have built up a fantastic relationship with a very important strategic partner in the middle east. That is not just good for Lebanon, which is facing the crisis of a quarter or a third of its population being migrants—refugees forced over from the Syrian civil war—and nor is it just a good moment for the middle east, because it creates a link into various forms of support into other countries, but it is brilliant for Britain. It is fundamentally strengthening the UK and our place in the world. It gives us a toehold into one of the most vibrant financial climates in the region and an essential partner for so many of our other operations.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to interrupt him, because he makes an excellent point about how our having that relationship with countries promotes Britain. But it is also about the organisations we support, be it the HALO Trust or War Child. These organisations end up being supported by the British Government and then find themselves on active duty promoting our interests—helping save people. That is also integral to delivering the global Britain message.
Tom Tugendhat
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have spoken to the Mines Advisory Group about its work in Lebanon, which has been so important, not just in promoting our interests. Sadly, it will almost certainly be needed not just in Iraq, where it has operated at some points, but in Syria.
Dr Murrison
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that £6.8 million of the spend by the Foreign Office last year was not “ODA-able”, which is a remarkable thing, as our support, in particular to Lebanese armed forces, has enabled land in Lebanon to be farmed by farmers who have not seen that land for 50-odd years?
Tom Tugendhat
My right hon. Friend makes an essential point: the OECD definition of what is “ODA-able” is historically anachronistic. He is right to say that we need to update it and that spending money on the armed forces who keep the peace and allow development is an essential building block of development, and therefore should be ODA-able. That is a slightly separate point to the one I am making, but I am very grateful to him for making it. As a right hon. and gallant Member, he knows well the strength that the armed forces and indeed the royal naval surgeons can bring to any theatre.
My next point is about the change to our footprint in Mali, Niger and Chad, where we have just opened embassies, which I welcome. I am glad that we are extending the Foreign Office’s footprint. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) is the Minister responsible and has visited or will no doubt soon visit all three of those embassies and missions. When he does so, I hope he will take with him the best wishes of the whole House to the staff there.
Of course, in such areas of the world it is not enough to have just nice words; we also need nice actions. The actions that we need our diplomats to be able to complete are those that promote our interests and values and, indeed, the interests of the people in those areas. Those things are not terribly surprising: they are democracy, the rule of law and the education of women. I have heard the Prime Minister speak about them so often that I can rattle them off not quite in my sleep but pretty much. It is certainly true that we are doing all the right things when we have the capability; the challenge is that for Mali, Niger and Chad there is no budget line. We will therefore see our efforts branded as the work of the World Bank, the World Food Programme and many other organisations. They are fantastic organisations, but that will reduce the impact of global Britain.
I am a little concerned about the cut to our funding for research on tropical diseases—from £150 million to £17 million. As the House may know, the Foreign Affairs Committee is doing an inquiry into global health security, and we have been hearing how that investment is essential to the maintenance of future capabilities against pandemics. We are all aware of the pandemic we face today but, as the House knows, it is not enough to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted; we need to try to predict when the horse might be getting a little jittery. For example, we know the effect we have had in making sure that Ebola never broke out in the UK —although there was a limited incident when one nurse came back with it.
In Nigeria, a country of which I am particularly fond—forgive my bias, but I think it is a quite remarkably vibrant, brilliant and engaging country—we have been cutting our ODA spend again. This leaves me somewhat confused. Health makes up 34% of the current allocation and education about 11%, so a cut of 58% is very likely indeed to cut into those things.
I hope the House can see that although I welcome strategic alignment, I do not think that ambassadors are admirals or that consuls are captains. What I do think, however, is that this House and, indeed, this Prime Minister have set a strategic vision for Britain in the world that seems to have got lost in translation between the Cabinet table and the Foreign Office. I question, very slightly, whether or not a moment of deep thought, alignment and reinvestment might just bring back a bilateral and a multilateral into balance, and perhaps when we get back to 0.7% that will give us the global Britain we have all asked for.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on speaking so powerfully.
This debate has demonstrated the cross-party strength of feeling about what is being done to our aid budget. While every other G7 member state has responded to the pandemic by increasing aid, the UK Government have done the exact opposite, which is deeply frustrating and concerning. They are reducing the budget by £4 billion this year, on top of the almost £3 billion that was cut last year. Reducing aid spending to 0.5% should shame us all. Until this year, there has been a strong cross-party alliance in favour of maintaining the 0.7% commitment, of which we are all proud. The speeches today have demonstrated that strength of feeling.
The pandemic has left the world even more vulnerable, with some of the poorest people in deep trouble and some of the poorest nations in great difficulty. We know that the Government’s cuts are leading to lifesaving water sanitisation and hygiene projects being cut by 80%. Education programmes will be cut by 40%, resulting in 700,000 fewer girls receiving education. They will then be much more vulnerable, as the former Prime Minister said. Essential humanitarian aid programmes, including to Yemen, will be cut by 60%. The Rohingya crisis has led to 1 million displaced people in camps in Bangladesh. Funding to that group has been cut by almost 50%. They are the most vulnerable people in the world. They have faced genocide, and rape has been used systematically against the women. Across the world in conflict zones such as Yemen, many of us have seen women and children suffering the most. Rape and violence against women, whether Syrian refugees or those forced into refuge in Yemen, has been used as a weapon of war. That is what these cuts have meant: women being made more vulnerable when they have already faced trauma and violations. That is why the proposed cuts are so unacceptable and why this Government’s undermining of parliamentary scrutiny and democracy is so concerning.
There is not only a moral imperative to support those who face vulnerability, especially given the pandemic; it is in our economic interests as well. The World Bank estimates that nearly 124 million people have been pushed into extreme poverty since the pandemic began. The World Food Programme estimates that 270 million people are either at risk of becoming or already are acutely food insecure. This is a global economic and health crisis. As we have heard time and again, the virus is not a respecter of international borders. While one country is at risk, all countries are at risk. No one is safe until everyone is safe. Last year, the UN Secretary-General described the covid-19 pandemic as
“menacing the whole of humanity—and so the whole of humanity must fight back.”
To the contrary, our Government are being isolationist. They are not thinking about our interests. If we do not support the poorest countries in the world to protect those who are vulnerable and manage the pandemic through our aid effort and other partnerships, we will not get out of this crisis. We will leave many more people vulnerable. Hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of dying because of the decision to cut our aid budget.
On the economic dimension, we have to think about the linkages, as the former Prime Minister said in her speech. Others have spoken about the influence that Britain can have on the global stage. If we provide the support to countries that need help, according to the International Monetary Fund the cumulative gain will be $9 trillion by 2025, with $3.6 trillion accruing to the advanced economies, which will recoup $1 trillion in tax revenues. So it is in our economic interest to help countries develop, get out of the pandemic, and survive and thrive. There is not just a moral imperative, albeit that is very important for our country and we are all proud to be a part of what we have done over the last few decades. A country-by-country analysis by Save the Children shows that American and European funding of vaccines will each be repaid 35 times over in increased trade and output.
That link takes me to a wider point about the cuts to the British Council. As we have heard, the linkages between our different institutions, what they do and their presence in developing countries, can create the climate for better trading relationships for our economy to succeed through those partnerships. We are already seeing that in the attempts to get trade agreements with countries outside the European Union. If we cut our funding when they need it most, it does not bode well for strong partnerships, whether on the economic side or in relation to security and development. That is why it is so important that the Government should allow us to vote on the 0.7% in the future, and that they should reconsider this cut in the aid budget, because supporting the vulnerable is in our economic interests as well as a moral imperative in these really difficult times. I call on Ministers to think again and to reverse the cuts.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee and, indeed, the International Development Committee, which is so ably led by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), who shadowed me for a period of time when I had responsibility for some of these matters. I want to underline what has already been said about our respect for and gratitude to humanitarian workers and others around the world who put themselves in harm’s way for their fellow members of humanity and also, of course, to our brilliant diplomats, who are the subject of these estimates debates.
The Prime Minister, when responding to me last week, mentioned the possibility of a vote on these estimates. Languidly, that ball was tossed to him by the Leader of the House, but it is worth making clear, not least for those outside this place, that there was never any question of having a vote on the estimates. The Leader of the House was merely teasing the House by suggesting that, because he knows perfectly well that it is neither sensible nor serious to vote in that way. I believe he sleeps with “Erskine May” on his nightstand, and he knows that very well. The estimates have never been rejected by this place. They can either be reduced or rejected, but they cannot be increased. Of course, many of us want to see them increased so that we honour our commitment to 0.7%. If we had accepted my right hon. Friend’s invitation on the estimates, and if we had rejected them, the Foreign Office would have needed to send out redundancy notices on Monday in order to meet its legal obligations, like Liverpool in the days of Derek Hatton and the loony left. And they think that we who stand up for the 0.7% are the irresponsible Members of this House!
Let us be absolutely clear on the estimates. To oppose them would have given my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip all his Christmases in one go. No responsible Opposition would support such a thing. What we seek from this Government, who are rebelling against their own promises and manifesto, is a meaningful vote, not a show of force or something that the Government can ignore, and we do this in accordance with Mr Speaker’s specific instructions to the Government at 3.30 on 14 June, just a couple of weeks ago.
Why do we care so much about this issue? I would like to make just three points, because the House has probably heard enough from me on much of it. These cuts are hurting our reputation and threatening our foreign policy ambitions. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who spoke so eloquently today, made the 0.7% her first commitment in the 2017 election, because she understood the importance of standing by the 0.7% in reinforcing our values and our promises. Much worse, these unprecedented cuts in the heart of a pandemic are damaging hundreds of thousands of people’s lives and leading to many avoidable deaths.
There are three examples that I want to mention quickly. The first is education for girls, which the Prime Minister has spoken about so eloquently, and on which British policy has been driven passionately and effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin). However, we are cutting that investment by 40%, meaning that 700,000 fewer girls will get into education, and we are also cutting by 60% our grant to UNICEF, the agency that is the very engine of getting girls into school. In 2010, the British Government doubled their UNICEF grant. A third of all girls in secondary schools in Africa drop out because they become pregnant, yet we are cutting by 85% our funding of the work of the United Nations family planning agency across the world. That is not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead indicated, joined-up government.
Anna McMorrin
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is often women and girls across the world who face the brunt of climate change in their own communities, and that the cutting back of aid within those countries and communities is not only having a devastating effect over there but, given the interconnected nature of climate change, is impacting on us here? In the year of COP, five months away from it, surely we should expect better from this Government.
Mr Mitchell
The hon. Lady makes an extremely good point. We cannot understand international development unless we see it through the eyes of girls and women.
My second point, which has already been mentioned, is on the 90% cut in funding for work on neglected tropical diseases. That funding is a huge British taxpayer investment. It is also one of the best investments we can make in global health. The Prime Minister, in a superb video earlier this year, promised strongly to support that work, yet it has now been cut by 90%. That means that 74 million schoolchildren will not receive drugs to prevent parasitic worms. It means that huge numbers will be maimed, blinded, debilitated, disabled and killed. The UK was a world leader in this extraordinarily important area, stimulating public and private sector partnerships. As a result of this cut, hundreds of millions of drugs, vaccines and tablets will be wasted and probably burned.
My third point has been very well made by my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) and for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). It is about the work of the British Council, the Voluntary Service Overseas and the International Citizen Service, which I had the privilege of setting up some 10 years ago. There is no clarity about the future funding of the International Citizen Service, which has sent thousands and thousands of youngsters overseas, many of them not from well-off families but from families that were on free school meals. They have been brilliant ambassadors for our country as well as doing such a good job in international development. The British Council, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay is going to talk about, is now far more self-sufficient in raising its own money and giving the taxpayer a better deal than ever before, and to let it down in this way is really quite wrong. Is it any wonder that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead rather movingly made the 0.7% her first pledge in 2017 general election?
I want to draw the House’s attention to the words of the deputy Foreign Secretary—the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly)—who, as little time ago as 9 July last year, said this from the Dispatch Box:
“The Government remain completely committed to the 0.7% of GNI to ODA. That has been called into question a number of times, so I will repeat myself, despite the fact that my time is short: the Government are completely committed to the 0.7% target…That commitment is embedded in law, but we do not spend 0.7% because it is embedded in law—we spend 0.7% because it is the right thing to do.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2020; Vol. 678, c. 1198-1200.]
I end on two points. First, when are the Government going to abide by Mr Speaker’s instruction to the House at 3.30 pm on 14 June to bring forward a meaningful vote? Secondly, post-Brexit, with the emphasis on returning powers to this Parliament, we stand here today on an issue where we all promised—all 650 of us—to stand by the 0.7%. It is an issue on which the Government gave undertakings on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly; that is enshrined in law, with the most senior lawyers in the country warning that the Government have changed the 0.7% and not missed the target; and on which the Government have avoided a vote on the Floor of this House because they know they will lose it. If that is the case, what is the point of the good people of the royal town of Sutton Coldfield sending me here? What has become of the pride we all feel in being Members of this place? If we cannot secure a vote on an issue of life and death, do we not need to look afresh at the balance of power between the Executive—the Government—and the legislature of this House of Commons, in order that we do have powers to vote on something that is so important and to which so many of us have been, for years, so committed?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I do not think I have ever agreed with so many consecutive speeches from the Conservative Benches. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and the Chair of the International Development Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), on securing this debate.
It is great that we are getting to discuss the estimates on estimates day. Not so long ago, Members would have been called to order and dismissed from the Chamber for trying to do that, so this is one arrangement—possibly the only arrangement—that has been a beneficial emergence from the establishment of English votes for English laws in this House. If EVEL is to be done away with, and I hope it is, I hope that this aspect of scrutinising line by line Government expenditure through the estimates is retained. Sadly, as the hon. Member for Rotherham said, we are discussing only one line in today’s estimates documents. What was once an entire Department—the Department for International Development—with its own estimate and all the scrutiny that could accompany that has been reduced to one budget heading in HC14, the estimates document, on page 187, “Strategic priorities and other programme spending”. All the amazing, life-saving work carried out by DFID staff, partners, stakeholders and grassroots organisations around the world has been diminished not only by the savage cuts to the budget, but even by the way it is accounted for and reported in the Government’s spending paperwork.
Tom Tugendhat
The hon. Member is making a very good point. Does he agree that we could learn, although perhaps only in this example, from the US Congress, the French Parliament and a few other Parliaments around the world where the Government are required to publish their accounts line by line in a way that can be compared year on year? It is a bit difficult to hold the budget to account if we are not given the details with which to do it.
Patrick Grady
Absolutely. Indeed, if we had that kind of appropriations process, we could vote to amend the budget lines. I agree again with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield on that, but at least we should be thankful that it is not just listed as “a giant cash machine in the sky” in the budget. Of all the offensive, dismissive and belittling expressions used by the Prime Minister, both before and since his election to office, that description of the UK’s aid budget and everything that went with it—to dismiss so frivolously and contemptuously the leadership that it showed, the cross-party consensus that it represented, the diplomatic weight that it carried—tells us everything we need to know about the ideology behind the decision to walk away from the 0.7% target and slash spending by over £4 billion. It has nothing to do with the pressures of covid on the economy and everything to do with an ideological distrust of what aid is supposed to achieve.
But aid works. Aid saves lives. The 0.7% was not a magic number; it was agreed by developed countries in the 1970s as the result of working out how much was needed to address global poverty at the time and how much those who could afford it should contribute. It helped to shape the goals of those days that eventually became the millennium development goals and the global goals for sustainable development—goals that the UK helped to devise.
Jonathan Edwards
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those in Wales and Scotland who believe in an ethical foreign policy and who support humanitarian aid will see this as skewed priorities? When over £200 million is to be spent on a royal yacht and yet there is a cut to international humanitarian aid, what message does that give to the people of Wales and Scotland?
Patrick Grady
Absolutely. Aid was supposed to be one of the great benefits of the Union. DFID in East Kilbride and the UK’s global leadership were presented to people in Scotland in 2014 as a reason to vote to stay in the United Kingdom, so I do not know what message the Government think they are now sending to people in Scotland by slashing aid. I noticed that a high proportion of Members of Parliament from Scotland and Wales are down to speak in this debate. Perhaps the Government, if they want to protect their precious Union, should reflect on that as well.
Aid is not a cash machine in the sky. It cannot be turned on and off like a tap without consequence. Cuts and closures today simply cannot be undone tomorrow or when the fiscal situation allows, whatever that is supposed to mean. The abrupt end of many projects, not least those supported by the British Council, will do long-term damage that is not easily fixed. Indeed, to undo the damage or restart the programmes will end up costing even more in the long run.
A recent cross-party meeting hosted by the STOPAIDS campaign heard from incredibly brave activists and service providers from Kenya and Indonesia whose projects are at risk from these cuts. That means more people at risk of contracting HIV or going without treatment. The Government’s own Aid Match programme, which they get plaudits for and which allows charities to put the UK aid logo on their publicity, is under threat. Many projects are on hold. Members of the public have donated in good faith to charities such as War Child and Mary’s Meals, thinking that every pound they donate will be matched by another pound from the UK Government, only for those charities to be told that they and their partners delivering projects overseas will have to wait for the money and wonder whether it will arrive at all.
Just today, the former President of Malawi, Professor Arthur Peter Mutharika, who the all-party group on Malawi hosted here in Parliament in 2018, has joined 32 other former Heads of State and Heads of Government from Africa in calling out the very cuts to neglected tropical disease funding that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield spoke about. The WHO said about the cuts that there is no obvious alternative source of funding and that they will literally lead to tens of thousands of otherwise preventable deaths.
In my constituency, at the University of Glasgow, Professor Alison Phipps and her collaborators working to tackle violence against women in Ghana, Palestine and Zimbabwe have had their work paused, again without notice. Professor Phipps said that
“people were in tears…we are being offered advice from people in other countries who have experience of working with governments who are corrupt or cancel contracts with impunity.”
Well, so much for the soft power superpower. In the year that it hosts the G7, the UK is the only G7 country cutting its aid budget. In the year that it hosts the global climate conference, it is stepping back from global leadership, but it can always find money, as my friend the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) says, for a new royal yacht. There is also always money for weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde.
The Government have been boasting of late about vaccine stocks, ventilators, and certain amounts of funding they are making available to developing countries to fight covid. It would be helpful to hear from the Minister today whether this is additional to the aid budget, because if it is not we will diminish the small pot that is there for the aid budget anyway. If it is additional, then will it get classified as ODA, and how does that work in the overall accounting of things? [Interruption.] The Minister can address this in his summing up, but it would be interesting to know exactly what effect this covid assistance will have on the overall aid budget.
As we have said, debating estimates on estimates days is an improvement on the previous scrutiny, but the Government should be relieved that these motions are not amendable. If there were a votable amendment today to recommit the Government to the 0.7% target, everyone knows that it would be carried by the House. Perhaps this is just another example of where the Government do not really want Parliament to take back control after all.
As we have said, this was supposed to be one of the great successes of the Union. It has been a pledge of the SNP ever since the target was set that an independent Scotland would meet, and even seek to exceed, the target of 0.7% GNI for aid. In the recent Holyrood manifesto, the SNP Government have pledged to increase their relatively small, but highly effective, international development budget, which, incidentally, the UK Government then quite merrily account for as overall UK ODA spend.
Even in the face of economic difficulty and the global pandemic, the Scottish Government and we in Scotland recognise our responsibilities to those less fortunate than ourselves. That is the difference between the inward, introspective little Britain attitude that this Government’s aid cuts demonstrate, and the outward, internationalist vision that more and more people in Scotland have of their country as a good, independent global citizen.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) [V]
May I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this aspect of today’s debate on the British Council, and, indeed, all those who supported our application?
Parliament will know that, since 1934, the British Council has promoted British culture and education and the English language abroad, and in doing so it has fostered good relations and trust between the British people and people from other countries. It was the first and remains the world’s pre-eminent cultural relations organisation. For example, prior to covid, it directly connected with nearly 800 million people. It is a key reason why the UK is considered a soft power superpower, and on behalf of the British Council all-party group and of Parliament as a whole, I thank all employees, both past and present, for their excellent work. It is both recognised in this place and very much appreciated.
Governments of all persuasions have got it. The Prime Minister has told me personally that he gets it. The Defence Secretary, earlier this year, said that there was not enough British Council in the world, but actions speak louder than words. Our campaign, which has included a letter to the Prime Minister signed by well over 100 colleagues, which still has not been answered, relates to the fact that, despite generous Government support to see the British Council through the pandemic, it is still £10 million short of what it requires to keep or maintain its international network of offices, and this will result in the largest single set of closures in the British Council’s proud 90-year history.
This Government’s support is needed, because in any normal year the British Council is almost self-funding, courtesy of its commercial activities, including, typically, teaching English in China. Last year, these commercial activities dried up. The cash reserves were used and no commercial loan was available, because of the nature of the British Council’s relationship with the Government. Yet the FCDO maintains that it has increased its support to the British Council by around 27% on last year. Last year was an unusual year. A more accurate and fairer comparison is with the last normal year, 2019-20. The 27% increase claimed by the Government actually represents a cut in FCDO support when compared with that last normal year. In addition, a chunk of this year’s support is earmarked solely for restructuring, typically redundancies, and cannot be used for programming or keeping offices open. As the Government will not close this £10 million shortfall, office closures and programme reductions are to follow.
Let us be clear that these closures are not operational matters left to the British Council. As the Foreign Secretary’s letter to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee confirmed, these closures have been required by the FCDO and have been the subject of close ministerial involvement.
Indeed, the FCDO has listed the 20 offices to be closed, as defined by the removal of a country director and staff. They come in three categories: there will be a complete cessation of in-country activities in Namibia, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, the United States and Uruguay; there will be a remote presence over the internet or via local third parties, but no British Council staff, in Afghanistan, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile and New Zealand; and, finally, there will be hub and spoke operations, directed from London, essentially covering the Balkans but also including Malta and Switzerland. In all 20 countries, a physical, recognisable and distinctive British Council presence will cease.
I briefly draw particular attention to our withdrawal from Afghanistan. As an ex-soldier, I supported the initial well-resourced mission to rid the country of al-Qaeda in 2001, but thereafter I opposed morphing the mission into one of nation building. I believe the British Council’s withdrawal compounds that error. Over the past 20 years, Britain has invested heavily in Afghanistan, in every sense. We made a promise to the Afghan people that we would not abandon them and, almost in one fell swoop, we are withdrawing our military support as well as our British Council offering. This will live long in the memory.
Let us also be clear that, although the FCDO is right that we should be alive to innovations such as remote working and digitalisation, the British Council would not be going down this road on this scale but for the current financial situation. The fact that other countries are increasing their global footprint indicates that they believe there remains great value in having a presence on the ground. China, for example, is planning to open a further 1,000 Confucius Institutes over the coming years. There is no better substitute for a physical presence on the ground, to understand the country in question, and such a presence might have averted some of our foreign intervention errors.
I believe this retreat from the world will be noted by other countries, and it is not compatible with the vision of a global Britain or with the ambitions in the integrated review. I ask the Government to think long and hard about this error, particularly when it comes to the comprehensive spending review.
Yesterday I received an answer to a written parliamentary question confirming there will be no further closures. I ask the Minister, when he speaks at the Dispatch Box, to confirm that remains the case.
Finally, I thank the many colleagues who have supported our campaign to get the Government to think again, including the hundred who signed our letter. I ask the Minister to bear this in mind in future considerations with regard to the British Council.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab) [V]
Like many others, I want to speak because I deplore these cuts in aid, which have been discussed this afternoon with so much analysis and eloquence. These cuts will have consequences; these cuts will cost lives. I like the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), a lot, but I thought he was being almost ridiculously polite about the strategic incoherence that we now confront, because these cuts in aid deface, they demean, they damage the global Britain strategy that was set out just a few weeks ago in the House of Commons. We cannot have a Prime Minister who asks for a rules-based order and then orders the Treasury to break the rules and cut what we actually helped construct—the 0.7% aid target.
As chair of the international Parliamentary Network on the World Bank & International Monetary Fund, I just wanted to throw three points into this debate. First things first: we must reverse these cut because they are damaging the global effort to vaccinate the world. The Prime Minister sallied into the G7 talks in Cornwall with grand talk about getting the world vaccinated by the end of next year, but when the dust had settled on the G7 communiqué, the IMF revealed that we are two-thirds short of the grant finance that we need to vaccinate the world—that is $23 billion. When I asked the Prime Minister a week or two ago where that money was going to come from, he just brushed it off. That is not good enough; we need answers, and reversing the cuts in aid could help us to provide those answers.
The second point is that we need these aid cuts reversed because we need the Foreign Secretary to reacquire some credibility in order to rally the global resources that we need to tackle the pandemic and its aftermath. The World Bank thinks that we need about $200 billion extra to tackle covid-19 around the world, and $250 billion extra to reinvest in climate-friendly infrastructure in poorer countries. This week, we took a big step towards finding those resources. The executive board of the IMF basically signed off on a plan to issue $650 billion of special drawing rights. That would channel about $27 billion in extra resource to the poorest countries. But the real prize is the $623 billion of SDRs that go to richer countries. We need to recycle them; we need to revise the old voluntary agreements that entail half of that money being held back; and we need to maximise the amount of money that goes into grant rather than soft loans. We need Britain to be a force helping to lead those debates.
Furthermore, we have a big decision to make, as a world community, on replenishment of the International Development Association. IDA20 replenishment has been brought forward. The framework that was published last week has significant changes that involve prioritising investment in human capital—absolutely critical when we hear what is happening to education and girls’ education around the world. We need the Foreign Secretary to have credibility in those talks, and reversing this cut would help give him that credibility to rally resources around the world to do what the world needs to do to reverse the first rise in extreme poverty that we have seen this century.
The final point is that we judge a nation’s values by the numbers in its budget. Right now, we are putting up defence spending by something like £24 billion; we are cutting development spending by £4 billion. We are cutting the budget to prevent conflict and increasing the budget to prosecute conflict. We are even cutting aid in places where we drop bombs, like Iraq and Libya. That is just morally wrong.
I know that these things are a balance, but right now we have got the balance wrong. We need the Foreign Secretary to do a better job of fixing that imbalance now, in the comprehensive spending review. If he cannot do that, he needs to hand the task to the House of Commons. Let us have a vote and we will fix it for him.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). He is, as he so often is, absolutely on the nail with his speech. It is all well and good our sitting or standing here, talking about the percentage cuts here and the percentage cuts there, but we are all clear on this: these cuts will kill. In Whitehall, the savings that the Government say they will make are rounding errors in their accounts, but in Syria, Yemen, Somalia and the Sahel, these “small savings” are a matter of life and death. It is that simple.
In the horn of Africa, the epicentre of instability may be Ethiopia at the moment, but it threatens to ripple through Eritrea and Somalia into Kenya and Tanzania because the virus and locust plagues have ravaged livestock and livelihoods there—fertile ground for the terrorist organisation al-Shabaab to thrive and recruit and to revive its murderous endeavours. To the west, across the Sahel, droughts in the summer and floods in the winter have already caused conflict over resources, and in northern Nigeria, Boko Haram’s reign of terror persists.
The fact that these events are not on the evening news does not make them any less of a threat to us. The tragedies at home—covid-19 deaths, job losses, loneliness, mental health problems—may be our primary concern, but the fact that something is not happening here does not mean that it is not happening, or that it does not matter here.
In the Sahel, 270,000 people a year get life-saving medical support. That is going to be cancelled this year. In Syria, funding for the International Rescue Committee is being cut by 75%. That means that 100,000 Syrians will be without life-saving services, including health clinics to support women and children traumatised by war. In Nigeria, the International Rescue Committee will see the budget for its programmes fall from £15 million two years ago to just £2.8 million this year, which will leave women, children and disabled people who have fled the conflict with Boko Haram without life-saving support. The UN has told us that in Ethiopia, 350,000 face imminent starvation.
Let us put this in context. The four-year Bosnian war—a brutal, devastating war that saw Europe’s first genocide since world war two—left 100,000 people dead. These cuts will result in a death toll equal to or higher than that war’s. In the words of the Secretary-General of the UN, they are “a death sentence”. He is right. We have arbitrarily and unilaterally turned our back on victims of war in the middle of a global pandemic. It goes against every value that we promote as global Britain, and it is happening against the will of the British people and the British Parliament.
The Government may think that they are appealing to some populist vote on this issue, but even there they are wrong. Polling since the decision now shows that 53% of the public support foreign aid. Let us be clear: a majority of the public support the arguments that we are making today in this Chamber. The public in this country are caring, compassionate and principled, and our foreign aid policy must reflect that. It is perfectly reasonable to ask questions about how aid money is spent, whether or not we should have a fixed target and how big or small it should be, but there is a time and a place to ask those questions. Now is not the time, and this is not the way.
Listening to the debate, I thought that there was a risk for all of us. I think it is asserted that Stalin once said that a single death is a tragedy and a million deaths is a statistic. We have been standing here talking about 100,000 deaths here and 100,000 deaths there, so I will finish by drawing attention to the nature of what we are talking about. We are talking about miserable deaths for babies and children from starvation, diarrhoea and dysentery. We are talking about women dying in childbirth or shortly after. We are talking about the sort of cruelty—although it may be cruelty by neglect—that, if put in front of any ordinary constituent of ours, would draw both their compassion and their generosity. That is what we want from the Government, either today or when they come to make their proper decision on this policy.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
It is a genuine pleasure to follow the very powerful speech from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on introducing the debate.
It is incredibly moving and, I think, poignant just how much agreement there is across the House. When does it happen like this? It is rare, and so is the absence of dissent from those on the Government Benches. Usually, someone will intervene to bolster the Minister—for whom I have a lot of sympathy for having to defend this stuff—but now the silence is deafening, and the reason is that the Government know this is not the right thing to do. The Government would be defeated in a vote and that is why they do not want to give us one, to put it bluntly.
This also matters because of how ordinary people across the country are seeing the effectiveness of Parliament. They also have genuine concerns about the effectiveness of this Government. My constituents in Oxford West and Abingdon care deeply about this, as one might expect, and many of them work in this area. Keith Hyams, for example, is a researcher and member of the Global Challenges Research Fund’s strategic advisory group, which is UK Research and Innovation’s main funding vehicle for ODA research. He wrote to me to outline the projects that he is involved in. They include youth groups based in slums in six African cities, seeking to understand how covid is affecting life in the slums; a project in Cape Town, with the city’s local government, looking at how climate adaptation can include some of the most vulnerable populations in the city; and a large project tracking the effect of covid on indigenous peoples.
Keith Hyams writes:
“It is difficult to imagine that project partners will be willing to trust UK collaborations again, having invested heavily in existing projects only to have funding pulled out midway through with very significant consequences for organisations reliant on the funding that they receive.”
He says that he does not want to see GCRF funds rescued at the expense of something else, but that
“there are better ways to implement these cuts than abruptly ending”
live projects. Why end live projects? Why not let the projects run their course and then look at how we can find savings down the line? The taxpayer value question, which the hon. Member for Rotherham raised, is very important. Why do it this way?
Talking about covid, Oliver Pybus, an epidemiologist at the University of Oxford, received an email to say that funding for his project is to be cut. His project helps track genomic variants in places such as Brazil—the P.1 variant, which emerged in Brazil, now has its own name; it is known as the gamma variant. How on earth is cutting that funding in our interests, when we know that the biggest strategic threat to our recovery from the pandemic, now that we have hopefully broken the link between covid infections and hospitalisations, is a new variant that will most likely emanate from somewhere where the people have not been vaccinated? How will cutting the funding for such projects help us? It is foolish and pointless.
People out there—our constituents—are beginning to notice. The last time I spoke about this matter in this place was on 15 June, days before the Chesham and Amersham by-election. Like many on the Opposition Benches who take an interest in foreign affairs, we accept that this is not always the most relevant concern on the doorstep—I occasionally hear it, but potholes and planning reform often take precedence. I was therefore genuinely surprised, in a good way, when aid cuts spontaneously came up on the doorstep in Chesham and Amersham as an example of why this Government could not be trusted.
One could be forgiven for thinking that those people were just Lib Dem or Labour voters anyway, but they were not. They were angry—an emotion I was also not expecting—because they were Conservative voters who had voted for the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) in 2019, giving him the benefit of the doubt, and now they felt that their vote was being taken for granted, and that this was as sure a sign as any that the Tory party had moved so far away from what they considered to be their roots that, for the very first time, they were planning to vote Lib Dem.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Perhaps Chesham and Amersham is a little unusual, but certainly that is not the message I am hearing from my constituents in South West Wiltshire. Neither was that the message given to YouGov in its polling of last November, which showed that 66% of the public were in favour of the temporary cut from 0.7% to 0.5%.
Layla Moran
Yes, that may certainly be the case, and I will come to polling in a moment, but the right hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that other polling that has been done—the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden referred to it—shows that if we ask the question, “Do you think aid spending should increase or decrease?”, the proportion of people who think it should increase has leapt nine percentage points this year, to 53%. The direction of travel on that question is upwards.
Layla Moran
No, I will continue, because this is the important point. To be perfectly honest, as a Lib Dem looking to take seats off the Conservatives in the blue wall, I welcome the Government’s complacency. The Coalition for Global Prosperity has done polling in those seats, and I know that this is not the sole issue—it is not even the top issue—but it is an issue, and it is one that many Conservative voters, especially in those areas but, actually, across the country, care about. When I raised that with the Foreign Secretary the day before the by-election, he said of voters in Chesham and Amersham:
“I do not think that they will be that daft”.—[Official Report, 15 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 122.]
Well, they did vote Lib Dem, in quite surprising numbers.
The ink will dry on the PhDs that will be written about what happened in that seat, but the point I am trying to get across to the Government is that this matters. This is not just about the spending on one project here or there. It is the moral thing to do and it is the smart thing to do, but it is also the right thing to do, not just for the country but for their seats. People in those areas understand the interplay. They understand the link. They understand that if we want to sit proudly on the world stage and lead at COP26 but say to other countries across the world, “Do as we say, but don’t look at what we do,” then we are going to lose credibility. I urge the Government: please do not be complacent. Give us our vote, or even better, give us the assurance that 0.7% will return next year—no ifs, no buts.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this afternoon’s debate.
Let me start by anticipating some of the things that my hon. Friend the Minister may choose to say at the end of the debate. I have no doubt that, as my excellent successor, he is extremely well briefed on some of the points that he will choose to make in response to the points that have been raised by so many colleagues this afternoon.
I first want to say, in my most understanding mode, that I understand that when we have the sharpest economic contraction for 300 years, it is necessary to review aid spending that is linked to the size of the economy. The £2.9 billion that had to be removed from the budget as a result of that economic contraction is something that I can understand. It is unfortunate, but I can understand it.
I can also understand the defence, which the Minister will no doubt put up, that there is a clause in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 that says that, under extreme circumstances, the Government can come to Parliament and outline an explanation for why they did not meet 0.7% in a particular year.
I anticipate that the Minister will also point to the fact that the UK continues to spend £10 billion this year in overseas development assistance. Any one of us would accept that that is a very large amount of money, and when we are spending a large amount of money, it is always important to review it and see whether we are spending it wisely. A zero-based budget exercise, looking at every line item of expenditure, which is effectively what the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has just gone through, is something that any prudent Government should do from time to time.
However, where I begin to depart from agreeing with what my hon. Friend is likely to say at the conclusion of the debate is around the change to 0.5%—going into a financial year and deliberately changing that percentage—without testing the will of Parliament to agree to it. That is where I think we are getting on to rather difficult legal and constitutional ground, because we all went into the last general election with a pledge to meet 0.7%. It was something that 100% of MPs were elected on. The law does state that 0.7% is what we should be aiming to achieve, apart from when there is an inadvertent inability to meet that due to economic circumstances.
I feel very passionately that those of us who are expressing concerns this afternoon are really expressing the concerns of those who are most affected, who are unable to voice their opposition. Of course, when a party breaks a manifesto pledge, it is usually voters at the next general election who are affected by it who will vote them out, but in this case, those who are most affected will, according to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), very likely be dead by the time of the next election and not able to lobby a UK Member of Parliament.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) was saying about polling—no doubt the Minister may also allude to this—the fact is that this policy does not poll badly in the United Kingdom, because those affected are not themselves being polled and those being polled are not themselves affected.
Mr David Davis
There has been lots of backwards and forwards on this, but the simple truth is that the polling depends very much on the question asked. One of the effects of these cuts falls on starvation relief, drought relief and on medical support. If it is put to the public, “Do you want to give emergency aid to people starving to death?”, we get 92% in favour.
Harriett Baldwin
Indeed, that is an excellent point. People are very strongly in favour of vaccinating the world, and that is why I very much welcome the pledge made at the G7, which I understand will be in addition to the 0.5%. No doubt the Minister will confirm that.
Dr Murrison
Just on the subject of polling, the British Foreign Policy Group, which is hardly a right- wing organisation, polled this issue earlier this year. Some 72% of people would like to see a cessation or reduction in aid until the financial situation is resolved. We are in danger of batting these figures backwards and forwards. We must rely on what we hear on the doorstep. I do not know what my hon. Friend’s doorsteps are like, but mine are quite unequivocal on this matter.
Harriett Baldwin
What I would say is that there is one poll I would like to take—it is the one that Mr Speaker has asked us to take in this House—and that is a vote on whether the 0.7% should be changed to 0.5% on a forward-planning basis. That is the poll I would like to take. Last week in Prime Minister’s questions, in response to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), the Prime Minister indicated that today’s debate on the estimates was that vote.
I have looked into the matter, and I understand that if we voted down today’s estimates, not only would all diplomats stop being paid immediately, but a vote against estimates can only be done to reduce a budget, rather than to increase a budget. That is why I am perfectly happy to support today’s estimates, but I would like to see a separate, stand-alone vote on whether we should go from 0.7% to 0.5%. If this House agrees that, I do not have any problems with the constitutional situation. I think that would override what is in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015. We need to see a test through a poll of the Members of this House.
I am delighted to see that the economy is recovering very fast at the moment here in the UK, which I hope will mean that next year’s budget for overseas development assistance can start to increase once again. I am also delighted that the UK and Kenya are jointly co-hosting the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education at the end of July. I very much welcome the £430 million that the Prime Minister announced at the recent G7 towards global education. It is the single best investment we can make in the future of our planet in terms of making sure that every child gets 12 years of quality education. We all know how much that unlocks in terms of economic prosperity, a better climate and a healthier society, so that is an incredibly important thing to be doing.
Can I suggest to the Minister that, in encouraging a successful replenishment of the $5 billion that the Global Partnership for Education is seeking, we offer, as our economy grows, to match fund contributions from other donor countries around the world? I think that would be a really positive way of saying, “If you’ll put in more money, we’ll put in more money here in the UK.”
I would like to see a reversal of the 85% reduction to the United Nations Population Fund for family planning. I want every girl in the world to be able to access the same choices in family planning as we were all able to access in our lives. Of the countries around the world, one of the most alarming anecdotes I have heard about the impact of this reduction in aid spending is that in South Sudan the World Food Programme is saying it is now having to choose between feeding hungry children and feeding starving children. I would urge the Minister to put that very much at the top of his shopping list for his budget increase next year.
In conclusion, let us not argue about which poll says what. Let us have a poll in this place on this issue. Tonight’s vote is not the vote on that. Let us have a separate one.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I also congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), on securing this debate and on an excellent speech, which I very strongly agree with. I am glad to see there is such consensus across the House on this issue, because it is too important for knockabout or Punch and Judy.
Save to say that the SNP has a different world view from that of the United Kingdom Government. We have a very sharp sense of who we are and what we are trying to do. We are a northern European country aspiring to statehood to represent ourselves in the fora of the world that matter—the EU, NATO, the UN, the Council of Europe and others—and to be that good global citizen and that force for change in the world.
Government Members would say that we are already represented in those fora by the UK. We know that; our contention is that we could do it better. I would caution Government Members that doing what the Government are doing at present is making our job easier. I acknowledge that this is something the UK did well, but they are taking something the UK did well and excelled at in international development and international aid, and replacing it with something smaller, meaner, more politicised and less effective on the ground.
What we are seeing post Brexit is breathless rhetoric about global Britain, but the reality on the ground is that we are seeing retreat and diminishing horizons. The cuts to the aid budget, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) outlined in a very powerful speech, are a betrayal of trust and a breach of trust—a betrayal of a manifesto promise, but worse than that, a betrayal of the poorest in the world. This is at a time when they are dealing with covid too, so to claim covid as the excuse or the political cover for this act of betrayal is a desperate act of cynicism.
The UK does remain a significant donor of aid—of course it does—but on top of the cuts that we oppose, we are equally concerned about the politicisation and diminished effectiveness of the remaining spend, because of the changes of priorities we have seen. We are seeing in greater and greater detail where the cuts are actually falling, and it tends to be on the programmes that do most good and effect most change overseas, so we object to this policy and we oppose this policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) is going to focus on the cuts to aid in his remarks, so I will focus in mine on the British Council.
It may seem counterintuitive for an SNP politician to praise and defend the British Council, but I will, and I will gladly. I am a big fan of the British Council’s work. I have myself used its services over the years in overseas engagement. In Scotland, as an independent state, we will create something along those lines because we take cultural diplomacy seriously, and we will have an opportunity as an independent state to market our presence in the world as well. The British Council is in crisis, partly of course, as we have heard, because of covid, but in a more fundamental way, I believe, because of the political interference that I mentioned earlier.
The British Council has a funding shortfall, and that has been partially addressed by the Government, which is to be welcomed of course, but that support has come at a significant cost to the effectiveness of the organisation. It has concerned us for some time, but in a letter of 24 June, the Minister for Asia, the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), has confirmed 20 office closures. They are closing offices in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, the US and Uruguay; grant in aid activity will cease in Namibia, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile and New Zealand; and a hub and spoke model— I hope that came from an expensive management consultant—or, essentially, a remote control model will be implemented for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Malta, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland. The letter goes on to outline other ways in which I believe the organisation will be politicised to align better with the aims of the UK Government, rather than for the betterment of the world as a whole.
Taken together, I cannot see these changes as anything other than a retreat. Hon. Members might disagree, but I cannot see how shutting 20 offices increases the outreach of an organisation. Nothing says “engaging with the world” like closing offices down, closing doors and saying, “We will deal with you by fax or Zoom.” It is a perfect microcosm of post-Brexit Britain: scaling back on the granular, in-country effectiveness of the organisations promoting real change overseas, and focusing instead on gimmicks and baubles for domestic consumption. I am afraid that no amount of prime ministerial planes, royal yachts, or bluster and bombast can disguise the diminishment that is occurring under this UK Government.
It is not our agenda—I think Scotland can do this better—but, as a friendly neighbour of the UK, I do not want to see the UK make a mistake. I do not want to see the UK walk away from the world’s poorest, and I do not want to see Scottish taxes spent on yachts and planes when the global south needs us more than ever, so I hope that the UK Government will change course.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con) [V]
I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who chairs the International Development Committee, for securing this debate. I concur with practically every single speech that we have heard today and agree with almost everything that everybody has said.
I am particularly concerned that, despite girls’ education being a stated priority of the Prime Minister, the overall budget for it is estimated to have been cut by at least 40% in 2021-22 compared with 2019. He wants 12 years of quality education for girls. I am not sure how that is going to happen, because it is estimated that 700,000 fewer girls will be supported by UK aid for education between 2019 and 2022 compared with between 2015 and 2018.
Additionally, in April 2021 the United Nations Population Fund—the UNFPA—announced that the UK Government would be reducing their contributions to the UNFPA supplies programme, which is responsible for 40% of the world’s contraceptives, by 85%. Without contraception, many of those girls will not be able to go to school. UNFPA executive director Dr Natalia Kanem described the cut as
“devastating for women and girls and their families across the world.”
I agree. The funds that the UK has cut would have prevented around 250,000 maternal and child deaths, 14.6 million unintended pregnancies and 4.3 million unsafe abortions. Yesterday in the International Development Committee, we heard that in Pakistan alone more than 30,000 unwanted pregnancies would arise, and more than 8,000 illegal and unsafe abortions would be undertaken—rather than by Marie Stopes, which has been operating in that field for many years.
I feel as if this whole budget process has been flawed. Much of what has happened has been, “Well, I don’t think we need to bother with that”, “No, we won’t worry about that” and “Let’s just reduce this”. To ensure that these cuts to aid do not further impact the world’s most marginalised communities, I urge the Government immediately to confirm that the ODA budget will return to 0.7% of GNI in the next financial year. They also need to publish a gendered equality impact assessment of the cuts to ensure that gender equality is not further reversed.
The decision will equate to about £4 billion of cuts from 2020 aid levels, which is huge for developing countries. Women and girls suffer disproportionately from funding reductions in critical sectors, which will result in an estimated 20 million women and girls who will not be reached by programmes. Some 2 million fewer women will be supported by humanitarian assistance, and 8 million fewer women and girls will be supported by nutrition interventions. We know that nutrition interventions help to stop stunting and help people in developing countries have fewer problems with malnutrition than they have already, so we need to restore funding for nutrition. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin) talked about nutrition and the fact that agencies have to decide if they are going to feed the starving or the hungry, which is not acceptable in this day and age.
What is really shocking is that in a global pandemic the amount of money being cut means an estimated 9 million fewer women will be supported to access clean water and sanitation. We all know that we have been urged to wash our hands, to be much cleaner and to worry about hygiene, but we are going to prevent 9 million women from accessing clean water and sanitation.
Government officials estimate that bilateral funding for water, sanitation and hygiene programmes will be cut by 80% from the £176 million spent in 2019. A 64% cut in WASH spending overall is predicted. At present, budgeted activities for WASH this year are 47% less than in 2019-20. During a pandemic it is essential that more washing facilities are available and hygiene levels are higher than they have been before. These cuts will put women’s and girls’ lives at risk and threaten to undo progress towards gender equality at a time when the pandemic has already rolled back women’s and girls’ rights by a generation.
We have heard about 12 years of quality education for girls. The recent G7 girls’ education pledge committed to support 40 million more girls into school and 20 million more girls to read by the age of 10 by 2026, but, despite that, aid cuts to education programmes that target gender equality have been higher than to those that do not. The overall aid budget for girls’ education is estimated to have been cut by at least 40% in 2021-22, compared with in 2019. It is estimated that 700,000 fewer girls will be supported by UK aid for education between 2019 and 2022, compared with in 2015 and 2018. Ironically, the first confirmed programme to be cut was a £12.5 million girls’ education programme called “Investing in Adolescent Girls in Rwanda”, a country in which we as the Conservative party have worked extensively. That programme had planned to support 200,000 11-year-olds over eight years.
Girls’ education programmes are vital because investing in girls during adolescence has profound effects on their own future wellbeing, including delaying marriage; reducing the risk of HIV/AIDS; increasing family income; lowering eventual fertility; improving survival rates, health indicators and education outcomes for future children; increasing women’s power in the household and political arenas; and, very importantly, lowering rates of domestic violence. What will happen to the girls and their futures now?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has significantly exceeded her time. I am afraid I have to stop her. I give quite a lot of leeway, but perhaps the clock is not working on the hon. Lady’s device.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
As this is the second time I have spoken on this topic recently, I do not want to repeat everything I said first time around, other than that I still believe that it is morally reprehensible that the Government have reneged on their commitment to spend 0.7% on aid and are prepared to override by backdoor means the will of the House, which voted in 2015 for that commitment to be enshrined in law.
The global pandemic has been used as an excuse for these cuts, but we are the only G7 country that has resorted to such measures. We know that there is an underlying agenda and it is not just because of the pandemic. It has been evident for some years that many on the Government Benches have been trying to undermine the case for aid spending for a long time, either because they do not believe that helping those in extreme poverty around the world should be a priority or because they believe that voters do not believe that. Until now, that agenda has been a matter of some subterfuge, but with the spending review of 2020 it burst out into the open. Of course, not all Government Members think in the way I have described, and I am pleased that by virtue of this estimates debate we have had the second opportunity this month for them—including the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—to make that very clear.
When we talk about reducing 0.7% to 0.5%, it may sound like small numbers, but the reality is that £5 billion has been cut from our aid spending since 2019. The Government have tried to mask the impact of the cuts by combining previous DFID budget subheadings into a single line in the estimates, strategic priorities and other programme spending, but they cannot hide what the headline numbers say: both capital and resource spending under that subheading have been drastically slashed. Although we have not had transparency from the Government, we have heard today and in the debate earlier this month about the impact the cuts will have on our overseas aid programmes in respect of health, education, livelihoods, gender equality, water sanitation and much more. We should be talking about not the impact on programmes but the impact on people. There are real people out there who will not get the healthcare, education or family planning that they need, who will go to bed hungry each day, and who will die, because of the Government’s decision.
Saving people’s lives and lifting them out of extreme poverty, particularly in the wake of a pandemic that has had a huge impact in less-developed countries, absolutely must be a priority, but submissions to the International Development Committee’s inquiry show that aid cuts have also harmed numerous environmental charities. Climate Action Network said that there was a lot of uncertainty, with the organisation not knowing where the cuts to climate and environmental programmes were going to fall. Yet it looks as if CDC Group, with its £700 million fossil fuel portfolio—which Tearfund highlighted in its submission to the Committee—will be unaffected. That shows completely the wrong priorities from the Government in the run-up to COP26.
Another charity, Temwa, had a project ready to go in Malawi to fund more sustainable farming practices, only for the Government to axe a £250,000 grant at the very last minute. I have been to Malawi and seen the long-entrenched poverty there. Of all the countries I have visited, it was the one that it seemed most difficult to help. It is not a country that is rich in natural resources and it does not have many routes out of poverty. I have been to Kenya and Rwanda with the all-party group on agriculture and food for development and seen at first hand just how much difference agricultural programmes can make with even small-scale funding, so £250,000 in Malawi could be absolutely transformative.
MPs have been contacted by the Galapagos Conservation Trust, which says that grants to the trust to conduct research on the prevention and removal of plastic waste were cut by 64% this year, and that funding for future years is not guaranteed. Fifty jobs are now at stake. Each year, 1 million tonnes of plastic waste leak into the ocean from the Pacific coastline of central and south America, and without action that amount will double by 2025, threatening an area where more than 20% of unique marine species live.
I refuse to believe that the people in this country do not want the UK Government to take action to stop plastic pollution on the horrendous scale I just described, or to help Malawi to improve its farming sector. I refuse to believe that people are happy to support cuts that will deny people in developing countries vaccines, maternal healthcare, family planning services and education for all. I just do not believe that this country is like that. I hope the Government will realise that, too, and restore spending to where it should be.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate, but it is actually quite painful as well, because none of us want to see a cut in the assistance that we give to other countries that are less well-favoured than we are.
This debate covers pages 183 to 196 of a meaty document that runs to 680 pages, and we have mainly focused—and correctly so—on international development. Other elements of the document will sadly be glossed over in our enthusiasm to debate this particular issue, but it is right that we should do so.
To those who have contributed so far, who I think have all been critical of the decision to go to 0.5%, I say that we should never make the excellent the enemy of the good. We should celebrate the good that UK aid does. An important point to make is that what the Government are charged to decide upon has real-life consequences, no question about it. If that were not so, we would be wasting billions of pounds every year, and manifestly we are not. The question is: how much should we be spending on international development in the longer term? If we are arguing for a reduction of £4.5 billion for this year but we are doing £4.5 billion of good work, perhaps we should be spending more in the future, rather than less, That point has been made by only one contributor today, from the Scottish National party.
I am not advocating that, because we have to make a judgment about what is a proper amount of our national income to spend on international development. Notwithstanding all the polling data cited today, when I am uncertain I have to listen to my constituents. I did so the last time I significantly rebelled against my own party, which was in 2003, over the Iraq war, and I would do so on an issue such as this. The message I get from my constituents on this issue—perhaps they dramatically differ from those in Chesham and Amersham, but I have no way of telling—is that this is something they are relaxed about, at best, on public spending. I get it in the neck for spending on education, healthcare, law and order, and all of those issues time and again. When I say, “Where are you going to find the money?”, nine times out of 10 the response, “International development” comes back at me. I have to justify this spend, because I do believe, as a former Minister in the then Department for International Development, in what this money is able to achieve. But we have to take the public with us, which is one reason why I was pleased about the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and DFID. As a joint Minister at the time, I was very pleased to see those two Departments joined up because it seemed to me that that was one way of convincing the public that the international development work this Government do also achieves foreign policy goals; I see no problem with that at all, and neither do the overwhelming majority of other countries, particularly European countries, which do not separate the two functions.
I also welcome the fact that this move is temporary. I will be supporting the Government on this, but that is conditional on this being temporary. When that pledge was made, the UK economy and the prospects were not looking very good at all. I am happy to say that they have brightened up significantly since then,
Dr Murrison
One year is temporary; that is the pledge that has been made. I think that is a perfectly reasonable commitment to hold Ministers to. It could be that there is something else around the corner that can be interpreted as force majeure, as set out in the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015, but in the absence of that my belief is that this, as a temporary measure—one year—is acceptable. I do not like it—I loathe it and I accept my responsibility for some of the consequences—but it seems to me to be reasonable.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that this temporary cut will have lifelong consequences and life-ending consequences for the people we have it for?
Dr Murrison
Yes, I do. Anybody who comes here thinking that somehow this is not going to have real-life consequences is delusional, and I made that point in my opening remarks. Otherwise, we would be wasting billions of pounds every year in the money that we have talked about—£4.5 billion in this case. I have never said we waste money on the good works that we do, although others take a different view for some of the fine detail. I believe it is good—it does good things, and we should be proud of and celebrate that. In supporting the Government on this measure, however, I have to accept my part of the responsibility for the fact that it will have real-life consequences.
I also welcome the Government’s focus on their seven priorities outlined in the integrated review, and I very much support its emphasis on Africa, which is absolutely right. Contained within it is an admission that going forward we cannot do everything and that as a middle-ranking country we now need to focus on what we do well. I urge Ministers to be very careful about the Daily Mail test in respect of the reputation of international development. Some legations abroad are tempted, with small pots of money available to ambassadors, to do what they think look like good projects on the ground. It is usually those projects, in my experience, that bring the whole thing into disrepute, and it is not worth the candle because it profoundly influences the views the public take of international development. It completely trashes the undoubtedly fantastic work done with the money that we allocate to international development, and it removes public support for international development, making it very difficult on the doorstep. To ensure that that does not happen, we need to take oversight.
We need to look again at the OECD straitjacket. I touched on some of this in my intervention on Lebanon. In my first-hand experience, we do great stuff on things that are not currently ODA-able, and we need to ensure that is, in some way, counted.
I praise the Government for their leadership on vaccines and COVAX, which is the issue of the moment, but I also sound a cautionary note. There is no point wheelbarrowing vaccines to countries that do not have adequate healthcare systems to deliver them. I do not want to see our vaccines simply used to vaccinate the elite in capital and regional cities. We need to be careful of that. What will the Minister do to improve those systems and the logistics behind them, perhaps using some of our very good assets such as armed forces medics and logisticians—I refer to my interest, as laid out in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—because it seems there is a real role for them to play?
I support the comments made by the British Council. We do not do cultural imperialism, as several hon. and right hon. Members have mentioned. We get very close to it, but we do not have an Institut Français and we do not do Francophonie. We should be robust in defence of our values, as inculcated in the British Council.
I emphasise the importance of the English language, which is one of the best weapons and ambassadors we have. We do not own it. It is not exclusively our language any more, but we are its custodians, and the British Council propagates it in a way that cannot possibly fulfil the demand.
I hope very much that the loans extended to the British Council by the FCDO can become grants, which would be helpful and would enable it to do the great work it does, particularly on the English language.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), although I respectfully disagree on some issues, particularly the focus on polling. On an issue this serious, leadership is about doing what is right not just what is popular. There are political points in my speech, because this is a political issue.
Poverty is a political choice, and cutting aid to the world’s poorest at this time is a very poor political choice. The last Labour Government’s commitment to the world’s poorest is one of our proudest achievements. On this side of the House, we have more that unites us than divides us, and this is something on which we can say we are truly united.
What we have is a divided Government who cannot decide whether charity begins at home or they want to build a global Britain. It is a totally incoherent position. I completely agree that we should be doing more to look after the poorest in our own country, so let us never forget that this is the Government who were so embarrassed by their record of increasing child poverty in our own country that they once tried to abolish its very definition in law.
Those pushing this cut tell us that charity begins at home, so why are they content with over 7,000 children living in poverty in Luton North? If charity really begins at home, why was the Conservative party, during the pandemic, okay with sending a single cheese slice, a few bits of ham and a couple of slices of bread and calling it a week’s worth of food for a child? And if charity really begins at home, why are we allowing as many as 3,500 veterans in Britain today, people who fought for our country, to go without a home? Is that really looking after our own?
Let us never forget what looking after our own has looked like under the Conservatives over the past 11 years. Let us never let the Tories forget that that is their record when they say they want to cut aid to the most vulnerable people in our world.
The Government are not just on morally dangerous ground, they have seriously misjudged the British people on this issue. When people in Luton North, and I am sure in all our constituencies, saw that children were going without food, laptops or school uniforms during the covid crisis, they clubbed together. We do not turn our backs on people in their hour of need. The patronising attitude, frankly, of Ministers cutting aid because they think it is popular in Labour heartlands or goes down well with certain media outlets, is completely mismatched with my experience of people in our country. I see people banding together to raise money and giving to people and causes both in our own communities and when disasters happen on the other side of the world.
I wholeheartedly agree with Gordon Brown when he says that the decision to gut the UK aid budget is a life or death situation for so many people across the world. Our collective aim should be to end the wars, the climate change, the poverty and the tyranny that leave people across the world poorer and in search of safety, but when we see the Government failing on our global commitments, taking a step back and lowering our standing on the world stage, our collective aims grow so much more difficult to achieve. Until we have a Prime Minister with a sense of moral and collective responsibility, and until we have a Government who truly live up to the promise of a global Britain—where we are all proud of taking our obligations and responsibilities seriously and standing tall on the world stage again—the least we can do is give our fair share of international aid.
If we are to end the cycle of dangerous new variants entering this country, we need to provide the support and the vaccines to the world’s most vulnerable. None of us is protected until we all are. That applies not just during the pandemic and to vaccines, but to general health, too: sanitation, safety and education, particularly for women and girls. As a country that wants to stand proud at home and abroad, we have a moral obligation to the world’s poorest. We should leave this global pandemic even more connected and even more committed to seeing every corner of this world safe and thriving, not less.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
First of all, and rather unusually, I pay tribute to some Members on the Government Benches. They have kept the flame alive, if I can put it that way, of the 0.7% share that should be paid. It is never easy to speak out as a Member of the governing party. I have been in that position. It would be churlish to say that it is down to patronage or threats. Ultimately, it is about loyalty to a cause that you stand by, so I pay tribute to those Members who have spoken out against their own Administration and, in respect of their own principles, have supported what was not just principle but a manifesto commitment. It cannot have been easy, but they have the power to change. We Opposition Members have the power to protest and to hold to account, but the fundamental change required cannot come today. That must come from those on the Government Benches. I encourage them to keep the faith, and I pay tribute to the efforts they have made to date. It is essential for the reasons that others have mentioned: it is a moral necessity; it is an economic imperative; and it is a health and wellbeing requirement, not just for ourselves but for the entire world.
Only a few weeks after the Prime Minister’s trumpeting of this issue at the G7 summit, it appears that we are going into reverse. I accept that there is a logic and a rationale in what the Government argue. The 0.7% commitment is met by only two countries—Denmark and France, if memory serves—but that does not mean that we should seek to follow those other countries. This is a time to take a lead, because it is a necessity not only for others, as has been said by almost every speaker, but for ourselves. I ask the Government to stick to the principles that were stood on and supported by all parties in the last election, and that remain in their manifesto.
Of course, it is in our own economic interest. There are those who trumpet Brexit as part of a new global Britain of free trade around the world. Let us remember that there can only be free trade if we can stimulate demand. If countries are too poor to be able to buy our goods and services, then we cannot generate the work here. We have to use some Keynesian logic and economics to ensure that they have the resource available to acquire things from us; and we must support, as many Members have said, measures to address starvation, flooding and all the dangers that too often blight so many lands. We will benefit economically from giving aid and we will face consequences if we do not, so it is in our own interests.
It is, however, also primarily a moral necessity. It is an unfair world. The opulence in this House, and most especially in the House just along the corridor, confirms the wealth that has been generated over many years. We see it north and south of the border; we see it in every city. We have benefited from it over many years. Of course, in those years, people have worked hard and have shown endeavour and risk, but let us also remember that one reason we have this wealth here—not just in this city, but in Glasgow, Edinburgh and across the whole of this country—is that we have exploited; we have enforced deals on colonies and on other nations. We have taken from them. We made sure that we stripped them of their natural resources and that they had to buy the product that was created from ourselves.
Giving development aid is not simply about charity; it is about taking responsibility for actions that this country participated in, along with others in the developed world. We did it, the French did it, the Dutch did it, the Belgians did it and on it went. The western and developed world accrued their wealth at the expense of what is now the developing world, because we took from them and insisted that we benefited from their natural resources. This is not about giving charity; this is about their right. It is our obligation to give back and to try to provide that fairness.
The Government talk about a levelling-up agenda, and they are right; there has to be a levelling-up agenda not simply in the north of England, but, indeed, across the border between Scotland and England. Fundamentally, though, there has to be a levelling up across this globe between the northern and southern hemispheres. The wrong and the poverty that exist, which manifest themselves in the UK in the north-south divide, exist on planet Earth in a north-south divide and it is our obligation and a necessity that we take action to reverse that.
This is also about health and wellbeing. Some statistics I saw yesterday showed that 85% of shots or vaccinations have been carried out in upper and middle-income tier countries. A total of 0.3%—not even 0.7%—has been carried out in lower-income countries. We have already seen what has happened with the delta variant. If we want to make sure that we do not face a further variant that will not be dealt with by our vaccines—as epidemiologists fear—then we must take steps to ensure that we support the health and welfare within those countries. That is why it is in our own interests to ensure that we provide that 0.7%.
Finally, in the short time that I have left, I want to comment on the position being taken on women and girls. That is fundamental. As a former Justice Secretary, I recall dealing with violence reduction. We made great progress in Scotland in tackling violence reduction. There is still a long way to go, but I say this because it is a microcosm. We were doing youth five-aside football at night to stop young men drinking and participating in gang violence and whatever. The lightbulb moment came for some police officers when they suddenly realised that they were keeping the lads out of trouble, but standing around waiting to speak to the lads were all the young teenage girls. The officers realised that if they did not deal with these teenage girls, they would be dealing with their children in 16 years’ time. Anybody who has seen the Justice Analytical Services’ correlation between youth offending, criminal offending and teenage pregnancies will know that it is stark. That is a microcosm. If we want to make these countries better, we must pour resources into women and children, as we do to make a fairer country in this land. As I have said, it is for these reasons—for our own economic wellbeing, for our moral purpose, and, equally, for our own health and wellbeing—that we have to have 0.7%.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is a first for me to follow an Alba member in this Parliament. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) may have changed parties, but he has not changed his passionate delivery, and I thank him for that contribution. I thank, too, the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the Chair of the International Development Committee, for her part in bringing forward today’s important debate, although, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) made clear in her very forceful speech, it will not lead to a vote on the restoration of the 0.7%. I have made it very clear that I want to see that restoration.
It is vital that our aid budget, whatever it is, is spent efficiently and with maximum impact. That is why I find it inconceivable that the rumoured cut of 80% to the nutrition budget can be true. I say “rumoured” because of the difficulty in establishing the facts, as others have already set out.
As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on nutrition for growth, I have no doubt that the commitments to nutrition to date have achieved a great deal. Nutrition is like rocket fuel for our aid budget. Our interventions in health, education and emergency humanitarian response are all the more impactful when coupled with long-term interventions that improve nutrition. That is because children can develop healthy and robust immune systems only if they get the right nutrition. A strong immune system is the first line of defence against illness. It is essential for a healthy and productive life.
According to the World Health Organisation, 45% of all deaths among the under-fives are linked to malnutrition and, heartbreakingly, as a result of covid-19’s disruption to food systems, an estimated further 433 children are expected to die of malnutrition every single day. Malnutrition not only costs lives; it drives absence from school and reduces concentration, thereby preventing children from learning and reaching their full potential as adults, which perpetuates a cycle of poverty. As well as the impact this has on individuals, malnutrition prevents economic growth and, as a result, puts our own aid budget under even further strain. All of what this Government say they hope to achieve through the aid budget and the seven principles—be it girls’ education, women’s health or economic development—is enabled and enhanced through nutrition.
I recently chaired an APPG meeting with the aid watchdog, ICAI—the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. It reviewed the FCDO’s nutrition work and gave it a green/amber rating. Green ratings are very rare, but it said that the rating was more green than amber. That is because this work represents fantastic value for money, with every £1 invested yielding, on average, a £16 return. Our failure to sufficiently support nutrition comes at a cost of some $3.5 trillion, with some countries losing 11% of GDP each year to otherwise avoidable healthcare costs and reduced workforce productivity. As well as having exceeded its target of reaching 50 million people with nutrition interventions, the FCDO has a strong track record of reaching the most vulnerable people and delivering high-impact interventions based on evidence and science. I do not want to see that success thrown away.
In addition, ICAI praised the FCDO for raising global ambition for improving nutrition. By hosting the nutrition for growth summit in 2013, which mobilised over £17 billion for nutrition, and stepping up as a major donor to nutrition ourselves in the years since, the UK has developed unrivalled convening power and is able to catalyse funds for nutrition from other donors and domestic Governments. We must build on that influence, not take actions that diminish it.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend talks about the convening power of the British Government, and he is absolutely right, but does he also think that by breaking our promise, and being the only one of the G7 to do so, we will fundamentally cut away and undermine that convening power?
David Mundell
I agree with my right hon. Friend. He has referenced the cuts; it is important that the actions that we take build on our influence and do not diminish it. His point is well made.
I believe that the FCDO’s work to date on nutrition represents global Britain at its best, and that is what I want to see continue. I want the Government’s excellent track record on nutrition to be maintained and therefore, to me, as I have said, it would be inconceivable that the budget could be facing a cut of roughly 80%.
When the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), winds up the debate, will he confirm that the Government are not going ahead with the rumoured cuts of that level to the budget, for the reasons that I have set out? I also want confirmation that the Government will attend the nutrition for growth summit, hosted by the Japanese Government in Tokyo at the end of 2021. The summit comes at a critical time, midway through the United Nations decade of action on nutrition, but with only five years left to achieve the World Health Assembly targets on maternal, infant and young child nutrition, and 10 years to reach the strategic development goals. Finally, will he assure the House that whoever represents the Government can make a generous pledge at that event, and in so doing, demonstrate to the world that Britain really is a force for good and takes its international obligations seriously?
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). I agree with him that it seems inconceivable that the UK could move away from its commitment of 0.7% of GNI to the world’s poorest.
The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) reminded us, when she introduced today’s debate, that it was so important to follow the money. It worries me that we still have a lack of transparency on which programmes will be cut. I hope that the Minister will lay out some more details this afternoon. The hon. Lady has a strong reputation for standing up for women and girls, and so much of that has come out in our speeches this afternoon about the impact of this cut to the budget on women and girls throughout the world.
We know also that the UK’s soft power will be severely affected by the proposal to cut back the amount that is spent on overseas aid. The BBC World Service could be at risk. When I was living in Nanjing in China, working as a teacher, I knew the importance of tuning in to listen to the regular news, because it was one of the only things that I could trust, knowing that it was coming essentially from high-quality news sources in London.
I must mention the importance of the British Council in promoting values and promoting the exciting and wonderful offer that the UK has in its university sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke extensively of his experience in Russia, working for the British Council. It gave him an incredible insight into the importance of culture and the importance of soft power in changing minds and being persuasive.
The importance of the English language has been mentioned during the debate this afternoon. We know that people often have their first encounter with the English language through the English language examination system administered by the British Council. We know also the importance of language learning for our students here in the UK, whether that be community languages, modern foreign languages in secondary schools—the number of students taking them is at an all-time low—or undergraduate and postgraduate language learning promoted by the Erasmus and Horizon schemes. That is all part of the UK’s soft power and contributes to the effectiveness of persuasion in winning arguments in terms of our values, the importance of democracy and the rule of law.
I wanted to devote my last couple of minutes to the importance of the global health research and development elements of ODA funding. Dame Sarah Gilbert received an enormous ovation and applause at Wimbledon yesterday—why? It was because she is one of the inventors of the AstraZeneca vaccine, and she and her whole team have given us a glimpse of freedom. Where did her learning come from? It developed in research to create the malaria vaccine. Research and development is so important because although there may not be a specific application that very day, it will come in very handy in the future.
The idea that we would cut back now on global health security is just nonsense. For example, we know that reducing the price of viral load testing for HIV by 40% in sub-Saharan Africa, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and Lord Herbert in the House of Lords have said, is an important CDC innovative financing approach. Crashing that infrastructure, which has been built up over a number of years, would do immense damage to HIV research.
Furthermore, we know that such cuts will have an impact on our own regional universities; Professor Gilbert is just one very high-profile example. In research around genomic work, we are still in the foothills of understanding the important links in the work done in developing countries on new zoonotic diseases that come through the animal kingdom to human beings. We have excellence, and we must not get rid of our excellent science research and development links with developing countries in a bid to be populist.
Scientists, mainly in sub-Saharan Africa but across Africa and in Asia as well, are working together in a sense that is equal to our British scientists. That is the model of aid that we want to see, where the scientists are on an equal footing and have a collegial approach. British science is at its best where it is not a patronising hand-out, but collegial with other scientists across the globe, particularly in Africa and Asia.
This is an important year for the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. Malaria eradication is one of its key aims. Prince Charles has just become the president of Malaria No More UK, which is attempting to promote the importance of strengthening health systems across Africa and supporting research and development with a results framework that incorporates progress against malaria and other neglected tropical diseases, as well as improvements in key indicators of community-level service provision, as core metrics of success.
I hope that the Minister will respond to those points. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I welcome the chance to speak on the estimates for spending on official development assistance. I wish to take the opportunity, as other hon. Members have done, to question the Government’s decision to cut the aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI. I understand the points raised by the Treasury about the need to make savings, given the financial strain caused by covid-19, and I understand that difficult decisions must be made. However, as has been said in this House, the cut of approximately £4 billion in aid is worth only about 1% of what the Chancellor has borrowed to protect us from covid.
I take issue with any cut to our aid budget, but I take even more issue with where the cuts appear to be falling. If we absolutely must cut aid, we need to investigate very carefully where savings can be made. I question whether the Government should have done more to manage the reduction of the budget without slashing funding for lifesaving programmes. The cut from £15 billion to £10.7 billion is a cut of about 30%, so why have we cut 60% of the UNICEF budget, 85% of the United Nations Population Fund’s, and 80% of our funding for water projects? Clean water is life itself.
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. Friend is making an important point. One of the bigger issues is the speed at which the cuts were announced, which did not give time for any of the organisations that saw those cuts to be able to prepare for them—to be able to put in mitigating circumstances to allow them to run programmes on a skeleton staff, or whatever it may have been. We have not given the right amount of lead time for these businesses and organisations to be able to prepare for the cuts. If we wanted to make the cuts, we should have delayed doing it and put them into another year altogether.
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend; he is right. There seems to have been very little planning generally in both the speed of the cuts and where they have fallen.
Why have we not looked at the administration costs in this budget? Why have water projects and UNICEF projects, in particular, been cut so drastically? We need to pause and think for a moment. Let us try to rectify much of the damage that has been done, because these things can be brought back into place. I have given just a few examples, but it seems that the most vital programmes have taken a disproportionate hit. Cutting the budget for the UN Population Fund from £154 million to £23 million will have a devastating impact on the ground. Likewise, our commitments to water and sanitation projects will be cut from £176 million to about £35 million. We are not talking about billions of pounds. These are relatively small amounts of cash, especially in the grand scheme of £400 billion that we have borrowed to battle covid-19 and save lives in this country—which I very much support. I therefore question whether the money for these programmes could have been cut in other areas instead.
I have been to Bangladesh and seen for myself the needs of people there. They are people with very little or nothing who cannot rely on a generous welfare state when things go wrong as we can here in the UK. It is easy to forget, as we live in a prosperous country, that there are people in the world who do not have access to clean water. As I said, water is life itself, and so slashing our capacity to provide clean water to the poorest will cost lives. We must ask ourselves what we would do if our children and grandchildren were in that position and reliant on the generosity of foreign Governments to provide clean water. Would we actually stand by and see our children and grandchildren dying for lack of clean water? We would not.
For better or worse, we have a colonial past, and in many cases the poorest nations are former colonies. We cannot turn our back on them now. We must help people in these countries and others who need it who are reliant on aid. This would be true at any time, but in the midst of a pandemic depriving people of clean water when it may be their only defence against the virus is catastrophic. Some people may say that we are doing our bit by supplying vaccines to the developing world as part of COVAX and other schemes, which is true, but mass vaccination programmes are not delivered overnight, and humans need clean water every day to survive. Likewise, cutting funding for family planning is counterproductive when the population in the poorest countries is already greater than their resources, including food and clean water. Preventing access to contraception will cause families to spiral into even greater poverty, putting thousands of lives at risk.
There is a broader problem of the signal that this decision sends to the rest of the world on climate action. The cuts will diminish the ability of the world’s poorest to cope with climate change, and those people are often the hardest hit by it. Taking the water cuts, for example, there is the context of increasing droughts. We need to strengthen the resilience to drought of communities in poor countries, not weaken it. This aid budget cut also means a cut to the UK’s highly effective programme to prevent deforestation in Indonesia. The green economic growth programme focused on providing sustainable livelihoods for local populations who often end up working in harmful environmental practices such as deforestation due to the lack of alternative ways to make a living. The UK programme was changing that; now it has abruptly been cancelled, despite its success.
The Environment Bill is currently going through the Lords, and promises to be world leading on climate change and deforestation. It will be completely undermined if we are cutting funding to tackle deforestation abroad at the same time as making commitments in legislation. There does not appear to be any joined-up thinking—dare I say it—across Government. We are taking strong domestic action on the environment, but these cuts signal that we are not serious enough about tackling the issue globally.
I regret any cuts to our overseas aid budget and cannot see how they deliver tangible benefits to our national finances. I therefore hope that the Government come forward with a method of restoring the budget, whether that is very quickly or more gradually over a longer period of time. In the meantime, these cuts have landed disproportionately and hit the most needed humanitarian programmes. Whatever path the Government choose to take, those programmes must be the first to be restored. I hope that our Ministers can soon bring forward exactly the way in which we are going to reinstate the 0.7% of GNI in the very near future.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
It is an honour to speak in this important estimates debate and to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish).
The British Council works with more than 100 countries worldwide, with programmes promoting greater cultural understanding, and wider knowledge of the English language and of the culture of the nations of the UK. Its work in education, arts and local development has changed the lives of millions of people. Its English language teaching and examinations include the International English Language Testing System, which is run jointly by the council with Cambridge Assessment English and IDP Education Ltd, and has allowed hundreds of thousands of international students to pursue a tertiary education in the UK.
We were promised that Brexit would not mean the end of UK engagement with the world, but here we see the UK Government presiding over yet another retreat. Twenty office closures have already been officially announced by the British Council; grant in aid funding for British Council projects in 11 countries will cease altogether, while, in another nine, grant in aid programming will be delivered through offices in other countries. According to the official British Council press release on the subject, job losses across the organisation appear to be “unavoidable”.
Afghanistan is one of the countries affected by the decision. British Council projects there over the last decade have included training thousands of English language teachers and promoting the revival of Afghan arts. Its English for Afghans programme, which fosters training in greater English language skills in schools, the civil service and among religious leaders, was invaluable in furthering Afghan economic self-reliance and combating political extremism. The British Council also runs Active Citizens training packages in Afghan universities that facilitate community engagement, active citizenship and youth exchanges. Young people on these courses develop a wide range of skills in leadership, communication, citizenship and volunteering, and address unique local priorities through social projects in their own communities.
The work of the British Council is therefore critical to building cultural understanding and international partnerships between the people of Afghanistan and the wider world. Given the deep military and political involvement of the UK and our allies in Afghanistan over the past two decades, and historical ties between the UK and Afghanistan going back over an even longer period, this disengagement from British Council activity constitutes nothing short of a betrayal of our commitments to the Afghan people.
Malawi will be greatly impacted by the UK Government’s overseas development cuts. It is a country with which Scotland has long-standing bilateral links, as does Blantyre in my community. If the Government plan to maintain many existing bilateral commitments, there is a specific concern that countries such as Malawi that are small, peaceful and habitually overlooked in UK Government aid policy, may disproportionately bear the brunt of the cuts.
The Prime Minister, in previous remarks in this House, has characterised overseas development aid as a
“giant cashpoint in the sky”.—[Official Report, 16 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 670.]
That is not the case in Malawi, where overseas development assistance means clear water, primary education and the most basic healthcare provision for millions of the poorest in the world. Water, food and education—this is not a cashpoint, or a tap that can be turned off and on as seems politically opportune 5,000 miles away.
I turn to Sierra Leone, another country where cuts to the British Council will be harshly felt. The British Council, jointly with local NGO AdvocAid, runs Justice Matters, a project supporting vulnerable women and girls in conflict with the law. Justice Matters provides legal aid to women and girls, literacy training and welfare support to women and girls in prison, and information to the wider community about the legal rights of women and girls.
According to AdvocAid, in 2014, a third of the female inmates in Sierra Leone said they had never been to school, while 83% had a salary of less than $1 a day. Poverty and lack of education leads women and girls to conflict with the law, admitting guilt inadvertently or being forced to pay bribes because they do not understand their rights. Very few can afford lawyers, minors are rarely treated differently from adults by the courts, and the reasons behind crimes are rarely taken into account in the legal process.
In that light, the work of the British Council in Sierra Leone is invaluable. The Prime Minister has asserted many times that he considers the education of women and girls a personal priority for international aid in developing countries, but it is precisely that education on their legal rights that these cuts will affect.
Aid should not be a tool in the Foreign Secretary’s toolbox as he looks to influence other countries to take actions that benefit our own wealth, security and political ends. In that light, it would be good if the Minister would clarify that he understands the severity of these decisions. Will he say by how much the overseas development budget will be cut in Malawi, where those cuts will fall, and what impact the UK Government foresee them having? How are the Government mitigating the impact of the 20 British Council closures around the world?
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I rise to address the priorities of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office over the coming year. However, in this debate, we must all be cognisant of the fact that the unparalleled support provided by the Government during the coronavirus pandemic has come at an immense cost to the taxpayer. We have set a record for peacetime borrowing—a grim statistic. That high rate of borrowing means that, unfortunately, savings have to be made somewhere.
Let me make this clear: as the Member of Parliament for Rother Valley, I do not want any budget cuts to affect my constituents. I have been vocal about the need to level up left-behind and disadvantaged communities such as my towns of Dinnington, Maltby, Thurcroft, Swallownest and all the rest. My constituents have been ignored for far too long over the decades, but things are now starting to change for the better because of the election of this Conservative Government.
That is why the official development assistance budget must be reduced. We should not be sending vast sums of borrowed money abroad to foreign powers at a time when we can least afford it. I am firmly of the view that we must always look after our own first and foremost. My constituents have endured real hardship during the pandemic, not to mention that Rother Valley already had some of the deepest pockets of deprivation in the country. That is where our aid money should be going during this national emergency.
We are forced to cut aid because of the prevailing circumstances caused by the covid pandemic. Nevertheless, the UK remains a world leader in international aid, delivering more than £10 billion this year alone, which places it as one of the G7’s biggest donors. Britain’s heroic contributions to the global coronavirus vaccination effort are a testament to our status.
In the light of that, we must think carefully about where to direct the Foreign Office and aid expenditure for the year ahead. The Government have been proactive in co-ordinating our diplomatic, defence, trade and aid networks as part of an overarching global Britain strategy. That is vital if we are to maximise our soft power and ensure value for every penny of taxpayers’ money.
We must complement our new approach by taking full advantage of our exit from the European Union and pivoting back towards the Commonwealth. I am incredibly passionate about Britain’s re-engagement with the Commonwealth. The Foreign Office must spend our money on re-establishing deep links with the countries with which we have long and meaningful ties by way of language, shared values, legal systems, governance and traditions. One of the many crimes of our entry into the Common Market was our move away from the Commonwealth, which has stayed by our side in times of war and difficulty over the centuries. We abandoned and subsequently neglected the Commonwealth for more than 40 years. Now is the time for us to reignite the flame and retake our position as a committed and equal partner to our brothers and friends.
Of course, what the left will not tell people about the Commonwealth is that we have far more in common with Singapore than Slovenia, with Australia than Austria and with Ghana than Germany. Contrary to the little Englander narrative, our embracing the Commonwealth embodies a truly global vision—one that is ethnically and religiously diverse and includes developing countries. Unlike the failed French Community, which existed for all the wrong reasons, the Commonwealth of nations is not an anachronistic throwback but a balanced and fair organisation in which every country has a voice, regardless of its size or wealth. Other Commonwealth countries are enthusiastic about their membership, and it is great to see countries such as Rwanda and Mozambique take advantage of the opportunities presented by the political association of 54 diverse countries by joining us. Many other territories are desperate to join this great unity of nations, with Somaliland and South Sudan having also applied.
Anthony Mangnall
I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend reassert the values of the Commonwealth, and I totally agree, but perhaps I should point out to him the fact that these cuts are going to hit our Commonwealth friends—that is where the money is being spent. He started off by saying that we were making cuts because we had incurred such great costs; perhaps he might tell the House where else cuts have been made. The only cut that has been made in the past 13 months is to the foreign aid budget.
Alexander Stafford
It is always a pleasure to take an intervention from my hon. Friend. He made two points. First, where should the cuts go? I say that the very first place cuts should be made is to foreign aid and the last place they should be made is anywhere that affects the people of Rother Valley and the people of all our seats. So, in the first place, it is correct that that is where the cuts should go.
On my hon. Friend’s point about the Commonwealth, I completely agree. It is right that we are giving aid, and we should direct more of that in a better way to deepen our ties with the Commonwealth. For me, this debate should not just be about 0.5%, 0.7% or perhaps 0.3%; it should be more about where that percentage is actually going. I argue that it should go towards our friends in countries with which we have deep historical links—to the Commonwealth; to those who have stood by us in good times and bad through hundreds of years, rather than to a political union that was brought about post the second world war in Europe.
It is clear to me that the best use of Foreign Office expenditure is investment in the Commonwealth rather than aid spending in countries outside the Commonwealth. This will allow Britain to maintain its place in the world, grow its footprint in the economies of the future and turbocharge global Britain post Brexit. Even more importantly, in the context of aid, our engagement with the Commonwealth can make the greatest difference to the most people in developing nations. Let me be clear about aid: by engaging with the Commonwealth we can help more people and more of the poorest people. That is very important.
The Commonwealth citizens with whom we have so much in common need our support, and we must now prioritise them. Our neglect of the Commonwealth—and we have neglected the Commonwealth—has unfortunately seen us abdicate responsibility for encouraging good governance and high standards in much of the world. If we reconnect now, it will allow us to speak up for the persecuted anglophone community in what was formerly the Southern Cameroons; to assist in the fight against Islamic extremists in east and west Africa; and to provide comprehensive support to the millions of British nationals in Hong Kong. Such issues must be front and centre as we pivot back towards the Commonwealth.
As I draw my remarks to a close, I emphasise that a cut in the aid budget does not mean a smaller, less influential Britain; it is simply fiscal common sense, allowing us to reduce our borrowing while protecting our constituents from the impact of the cuts. We are still left with a huge Foreign Office and aid budget, which should be redirected to fully embrace the Commonwealth of nations. If we do that, we can spread the benefits of global Britain from Barbados to Botswana, from India to Fiji and from Kenya to Malaysia. That will be a better world for us all.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
The decision by this Government to take essential, life-saving money away from the world’s poorest people is absolutely shameful. The fact that the Government of one of the richest countries in the world have decided arbitrarily to reduce the help that they give to the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet, particularly in the middle of a global health pandemic, simply beggars belief. It must be the final abandonment of what little was left of the UK’s reputation for moral leadership.
The Government know, and any Member, such as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who intends to support these cuts should know, that this is not a consequence-free decision. Taking away more than £4 billion of life-saving aid guarantees that tens of thousands of the world’s poorest people are going to die. Everyone should also be aware of the consequences of what they are signing up to, because this is not like pulling the plug on the building of a new school. This is not putting off the construction of a new bypass because money is tight. This is not suspending the restoration of the Palace of Westminster because we can no longer justify the cost. This is a decision that will kill people. People are going to die as a direct result of this decision, and there is absolutely no running away from that reality.
This is also the ultimate betrayal of the thousands of people who work in our NGOs and our charity sector—people who strive day in and day out to alleviate suffering and to deliver food and bring comfort to the world’s most marginalised communities. At a time when charities such as the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Compassion UK, the wonderful Mary’s Meals from my Argyll and Bute constituency, Oxfam, Plan International and so many others are being asked to do so much more with so much less, this is a kick in the teeth that they neither needed nor deserved.
I still find it utterly bewildering that the confirmation of slashing aid for the world’s poorest was in the integrated review of security. The idea that by making the world’s poorest people even poorer we will somehow make ourselves safer is an absolute nonsense. Are this Government really asking us to believe that the best way to make the people of the United Kingdom safer and more secure is to slash vital humanitarian aid, particularly to parts of the world that are already riven by conflict, war and famine, thereby forcing tens of millions of desperate people to uproot themselves and their families and go in search of a better, more secure future? It is a ridiculous notion, and they know that it is a ridiculous notion. But what makes this betrayal of the world’s poorest utterly grotesque is that, having announced that they were taking away billions from those poor communities, the Government announced that they are to spend it on increasing their stockpile of nuclear warheads. We all know that they will always find the cash for their weapons of mass destruction.
Some might not like it, but the country has a fundamental moral obligation to help those in what we now call the developing world, not just because we can afford to help them, which is reason enough in itself, but primarily because this country is in no small way responsible for the situation in which many now find themselves. For more than a century, the United Kingdom grew rich and powerful on the back of the world’s poor. The British empire invaded, conquered, divided and plundered half the world and very often left behind it an impoverished wasteland, so it is about time that this country woke up to the fact that it has a moral responsibility to assist those abandoned to live with the consequences of British imperialism. It should not be running away from that responsibility.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this debate, and I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) at the start of the debate that this is not the vote that we were promised on the specific issue of the cuts to 0.7% foreign aid spending. I sincerely hope that the Government do not try to spin that it is, because we know that it is not.
We must have a vote on the cut to the foreign aid budget, because every Member of this House must have the opportunity to register his or her approval, or otherwise, of that decision. Members cannot be allowed to hide behind crocodile tears or meaningless words of regret, and no longer can they hope that, by choosing to stay silent, they will not be asked to come off the fence.
Everyone in this House must have the opportunity to go on the record and say yes or no to cutting the overseas aid budget; to say yes or no to the stark humanitarian costs of the decisions they make. When that vote does come, no one in this House will be able to pretend that they did not know or understand the consequences of their actions.
Finally, this Government love to talk about global Britain and the role that they see for the UK on the world stage. If the UK decides to cut overseas aid, we have to assume that global Britain has, in reality, become drawbridge Britain.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Foreign aid spend has frequently been a way for politicians to compete for moral righteousness in the public eye. My Dudley residents care not for this type of posturing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—he is no longer in the Chamber—who is a near neighbour of mine, referred in his closing remarks to his electorate, implying that they agree with his stance on foreign aid. I would make two points on that. First, my constituency is literally just down the road from his, and I can categorically assert that a significant majority of my residents do not agree with him. Secondly, I gently point out to him that, on average, two thirds of all people polled in this country very recently did not agree with him either. Just the other day, on GB News, he used the majority view argument to support assisted dying, so perhaps he might consider being consistent with his rationale, instead of imposing his moral virtues on the country’s majority view.
Anthony Mangnall
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend. It is fine if that is his argument, but surely he believes that it is right for this House to have a vote on the issue, because we are all representatives of our constituencies, and of the views of our constituents. Forget the polling and allow this place to have its say. Does he not agree with that sentiment?
Marco Longhi
I might refer my hon. Friend to votes on Brexit in previous years, when a significant number of elected Members did not represent their constituents and voted the opposite way to them.
Labour will always oppose what the Government do, even if they tripled foreign aid. Having only ever averaged a maximum spend under 0.4% of national income when it was in office, compared with the 0.7% that we achieved, Labour’s protestations are somewhat shallow, if not risible. People will see Labour for what it is: out of touch with working-class people and totally clueless about their priorities.
I am concerned about some of my colleagues. They are being so generous with other people’s money—a notable socialist behaviour, I might add. Perhaps they can explain to my Dudley North taxpayers why we should spend £15 billion overseas when my residents cannot find council houses and when we still have homeless people on our streets, some of them brave veterans.
Marco Longhi
I would like to make progress, please.
Covid has given rise to exceptional circumstances, and the Government were entirely right to reduce aid and focus on rebuilding our country. Charity begins at home. That said, I do not agree with reducing the foreign aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5% of national income; I would scrap the target altogether. Foreign aid should be and needs to be completely reformed. A fluctuating number each year that bears no real link with need, priorities or actual outcomes is no way to plan or act strategically. It is not how a household would budget, it is not how a business would budget, and it should not be how a Government budget. Which other Government Department do we fund as a percentage of national income?
Anthony Mangnall
It is on that point—I can give the answer. We committed in our manifesto in 2019 to funding research and development at 2.7% of our GDP. We commit to NATO spending at 2% through the Ministry of Defence. The list goes on.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Member for Dudley North responds to that intervention, it might be helpful for the House to know that so many colleagues have decided at the last minute not to take part in this debate, having originally asked to do so, that there is actually plenty of time. It is quite historic for me to say that; I would normally be saying, “I urge the hon. Gentleman not to take time on interventions”, but he is at liberty to do so.
Marco Longhi
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I will respond by saying it is not the way we fund policing, education or health here at home. Surely a more sophisticated approach that is outcome-focused and delivers measurable change in very poor countries by employing some of our own local and UK-based companies is a far better approach than the arbitrary and unaccountable system that we continue to virtue-signal about.
I would ask two things of colleagues wanting to reinstate the 0.7%: let us focus efforts on achieving much better outcomes by reforming foreign aid, and, while we are at it, focus on challenging the EU and other wealthy countries that consistently fail to meet their own targets and do not measure up to what the UK is certainly doing.
Anthony Mangnall
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Marco Longhi
No thank you.
By any measure, the UK already does far more than most, both in cash terms and in areas not captured by our foreign aid spending. Certainly my constituents know that very well.
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) [V]
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was taken slightly on the hop; I was expecting another colleague to be called before me. May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this important debate?
In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) reminded the House that this is a debate about FCDO estimates; it is not a proxy vote for a reduction in overseas aid. We do not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) reminded us, normally vote on estimates, because to do so would simply be disruptive in parliamentary terms, but we still need a meaningful vote. To try to suggest that this is somehow a vote on the overseas aid issue is simply disingenuous, and it will not wash.
In breach of an Act of Parliament, the Government are seeking to reduce our overseas aid budget from 0.7% to 0.5%. That in itself is significant, but that figure is based on gross national income. The net effect of that is that because gross national income has also fallen, it is a cut upon a cut. It is a cut in provision for some of the poorest people in the world. I listened with sadness to the comments of a couple of my younger friends in the House, who seem to think only that charity begins at home and that because of the pandemic we cannot afford to fund overseas aid at the legal rate. We are and remain, thank God, one of the richest countries in the world.
In the context of the national budget, the amount of money spent on overseas aid is pitiful. I would ask my hon. Friends to think again about whether we should in fact be reducing the money that we spend on, for example, the education of young women, which the Prime Minister hailed triumphantly at the G7; whether we should cut funding for the provision of clean water, particularly for young people who sometimes have to walk for miles to draw such water as is available from infected streams; or whether we should cut the funding for sanitation of a kind that no Member in this House would wish their children to experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, reminded the House that we are cutting the funding of our tropical diseases programme from £115 million to just £17 million. That tropical diseases programme, that life-saving programme, that potentially pandemic-preventing programme was—I think the expression is—world class, and that is what we are about to cut.
We are also going to reduce the funding for the British Council, a source of soft power that enhances our reputation around the world, and for Voluntary Service Overseas, which provides so much opportunity for British volunteers who wish to help those in developing countries. We are going to cut the international community service programme—a programme involving very many young people from the United Kingdom who have been going around the world—which was instigated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he was the Secretary of State. That is going to go.
These programmes are trailblazers for global Britain—or were. They are not projects that can be turned on and off like a tap. They involve real people, real expertise, real time and real effort. By cutting the funding for this year, we are probably setting back each one of those programmes, even if the money is reinstated next year, by five, six or seven years, because it will take time to rebuild from the rubble that is left and to get those programmes up and running again, if ever. Is this global Britain? Is this really what we want? Do we really want to break the trust that we have built up internationally for fair dealing, generosity and an understanding of what our place in the world really is? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said in a very powerful speech, these cuts are about real people. They are about life and death, and what we are choosing to do means death for some of those people.
I hope that the Government will either implement the Speaker’s instruction and allow this House of Commons to have a vote—a meaningful vote—on a substantive motion on the reduction of our overseas aid from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, or give an absolute cast-iron guarantee from the Front Bench today that the money will be reinstated in full next year.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba) [V]
I would like to begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for keeping the pressure on this matter with the Government. I thank Mr Speaker for recognising the importance of this debate.
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) and his remarks about how we would do things differently in Scotland. We may have aspirations to do things differently, but judging by this debate and its tone, I would suggest that this place speaks strongly and in unison on this matter. As the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) so eloquently illustrated, it is the Prime Minister and his Government who are the isolated outliers forcing this matter through. They clearly fear a meaningful vote in this House.
The importance of meeting a 0.7% GNI target has been accepted by successive UK Governments since the UN target was established in 1970. It was first achieved in the UK in 2013 and the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 established a statutory duty to meet this target. That is something the Government are prepared to break. It is an effective cut of up to £10 billion.
Significant portions of the funding cuts are targeted against sexual and reproductive health and rights programmes globally, resulting in the closure of services and a disruption to supplies and programmes. The president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Mr Edward Morris, called the cuts
“an unconscionable attack on…women and girls”.
The impact of these cuts is immediate. Funding for healthcare that was providing critical, life-saving support has already been terminated, often with little explanation to local government and NGO partners. The cuts will inevitably lead to an increase in maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity.
At a time when the most disadvantaged across the world face the peril of poverty and covid, many countries are expanding their support, such as Canada, France, the United States of America and others. During the emergency debate on 8 June, the Government were warned that this cut would embarrass the UK at the G7 summit and later this year at COP26. The Prime Minister did not account for his lacklustre performance that overshadows even this. A cut of 0.2% may sound tiny to most, but the impact is the difference between life and death for so many. At that time the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said the economy was doing well, so why the cut, forcing austerity on those who can least withstand it?
Sadly, this is well understood in my Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency and by people who rely on foodbanks; I echo the words of the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on this point. This is coupled with the questionable achievement of the Prime Minister in the chair of the G7 summit, where less than a tenth of the support needed is being provided in covid vaccines and financial support.
The disparity was highlighted powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill). Eleven billion vaccines are needed; 1 billion have been promised. Fifty billion dollars is needed; $5 billion has been promised. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury was able to point to the paragraph of policy that facilitates this cut, but can the Prime Minister, or anyone in this Government, set out the moral justification? Failure to do so reads like a dismissive ignorance of the human cost.
From the protection of women and girls to global infection control of covid, neglect of tropical diseases, and clean water and hygiene across the conflict zones of Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, all are losing over half their aid funding. It is not a question or an issue that exists over there. Global health is now a shared responsibility. It is both a moral imperative and in the national interest, something I would ask the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) to ponder on, rather than put forward narrow and dangerous populist views.
This Parliament is speaking clearly. A meaningful vote is of urgent importance. This is an investment in tackling conflict, building prosperity, promoting good governance and reducing poverty, and will secure our own health into the future.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I express my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for campaigning on this important issue. I also pay tribute to all the organisations and individuals who have provided support to countries across the globe, including Save the Children, the Red Cross, Oxfam, Global Justice Now and others.
I draw the House’s attention to the British Council, which works hard to encourage cultural, scientific, technological and educational co-operation with Britain. This week its CEO wrote to its Public and Commercial Services Union representative, warning that it intends to make 15% to 20% job cuts over the next two years. This is a disgrace. The programmes that the British Council undertakes internationally ensure global friendship with the United Kingdom. The Government must urgently intervene to save jobs and make funding available to plug the shortfall in the organisation.
The world has faced a catastrophic pandemic and, unless we take an internationalist view, we will never overcome this tragedy. Pulling up the drawbridge and hiding away from the rest of the world is never the answer, but that is exactly what the Government did when they made the political choice to abolish the Department for International Development and merge it with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the height of this pandemic. DFID was an international leader on development issues, and one of the best examples of global Britain.
During these pandemic times it is often said that no one is safe until everyone is safe, but the Government’s actions speak louder than words. They have cut vital coronavirus research, including a project tackling the variant in India, by 70%, and recent media reports have informed us that the Treasury delayed plans to send surplus PPE to India over a dispute regarding its allocation towards overall aid spending.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Gentleman mentions so-called cuts, but will he acknowledge the vital role this Government have played in delivering vaccines and oxygen to countries like India? Actually, this country has given a lot to many other countries during the pandemic.
Navendu Mishra
This Government were one of the few to oppose the proposal from the South African and Indian Governments for a TRIPS waiver that would have resulted in vaccines, medical equipment and medicines related to covid being produced licence free. That would have led to much more vaccine being available, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to lobby his Front-Bench team to make sure the UK reverses its position on this important issue. We know that President Biden of the United States has reversed his position, having initially blocked the waiver proposed by India and South Africa. The unnecessary delays to PPE going to India have deeply negative consequences. Cutting aid will have almost no impact on the UK’s finances, but it will heighten poverty in some parts of the world.
In addition, there has been a £48 million cut to the NHS overseas training scheme, which trains medical staff in some of the poorest countries. The scheme works with 500 health facilities across Africa and Asia, in places that suffer a deficit of medical staff. The Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine would have seen NHS staff provide training to 78,000 healthcare workers in Nepal, Uganda, Ethiopia, Bangladesh and Myanmar. The UK has 820 Bangladeshis, 118 Ethiopians, 572 Ugandans and 1,988 Nepalis working in our NHS.
The CDC Group, which promotes privatisation and unaffordable private hospitals in the global south, is due to receive £779 million this year. It seems that cuts apply only to projects that support development. Disgracefully, aid spending targeted at meeting strategic priorities will be cut by only 37%, and funding for the much-criticised conflict, stability and security fund, which last year was found to have supported brutal police squads in Nigeria, has fallen by only 19%.
This multibillion pound cut to overseas development assistance has a momentous human cost. There is no question but that these cuts will result in thousands of unnecessary deaths. Cutting programmes including humanitarian aid, global health, girls’ education, water and sanitation, food insecurity and malnutrition, and sexual and reproductive health have real consequences. The UK must return to 0.7% of GNI on ODA, under the internationally agreed definition, and the Government must bring a meaningful vote to the House on this important decision.
Finally, I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham thanking all aid workers across the world and the excellent FCDO staff. They do an important job in extremely challenging circumstances, and they deserve our support and gratitude.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I should like to begin by saying that although I may disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) and for Dudley North (Marco Longhi), it is welcome to see a debate taking place in this Chamber. This is a small step forward to returning to normal, when we can look beyond these pandemic measures and have proper, right and rigorous discussion about how we can reform and improve things in this country and across the world. As we have a bit of time, I thought I could start with a bit of rebuttal. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley talk about how we should focus our spending in the Commonwealth, but I respectfully say to him that aid goes where it is most needed. If he wants to have value for money, it cannot be directed specifically to a cultural, historical, political trading organisation. That is why we must make sure we have an aid programme that delivers for the people, be it in Syria or any Commonwealth country.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is already making a brilliant speech. Does he agree that vast amounts of our humanitarian support and development aid do go to Commonwealth countries, because British aid goes above all to the places where we have a historical connection?
Anthony Mangnall
I totally agree. The point I am trying to make is that although we should use aid to support the Commonwealth and to enhance our ties, allowing them to see it directed as something that benefits because of our history, it is also an opportunity for us to look beyond that.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as it is always a pleasure to follow her in her debates and to listen to her speak on a host of different issues. We have heard a number of hugely impressive speeches, including from my right hon. Friends the Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), to mention just a few. They have all stood up and spoken about the value of international aid from this country to others and what it does to motivate, save and assist. The point was made at the beginning that the International Development Committee has not been given the true and accurate figures it deserves. I stood up and spoke on retaining that Committee, as I believe it has a value in scrutinising our foreign aid budgets and it must be secured. If it is not getting the correct information, I hope we might hear more about this, because it is essential that the Committee is given the tools to do its job.
The problem with estimates debates is that they take away from the reality of what we are actually talking about. We are standing in this Chamber talking about the vaccinations donated, the school books gifted, the sexual violence perpetrators brought to justice, the deradicalisation of terrorist organisations, all of which happens through our aid budget—it all happens through that 0.7% budget. So to talk about estimates takes away from the reality of the extraordinary work that we do across the country. Members may disagree with that and suggest that their constituents are not supportive of it, but when we stop polling and start asking them about international security, women’s education, vaccinations and justice for those who have committed rape in conflict zones across the world, we get a very different answer from that given in the polls that are put out.
Alexander Stafford
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as he always does, on an issue of importance, and I agree with what he says about what happens when we ask residents about sexual violence in conflict—people do want answers. But when I speak to people in Rother Valley about these issues, they say, “What about the sexual violence in Maltby? What about the conflicts in Dinnington—the gangs and the knifings?” We have to be realistic; there is only so much money in the budget. If the budget is not cut here, it will be cut somewhere else, and residents of Rother Valley do not want it cut there.
Anthony Mangnall
With the greatest respect, the policing budget is not being cut. In addition, my hon. Friend is trying to make the point that by cutting the international aid budget he is going to see that money in Rother Valley—he is not. That money will go back into the Treasury. I go back to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield about how small this is in terms of Treasury percentages and spending.
I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) earlier what temporary would look like and he said a year. I respectfully say to the Government that if they come to the Dispatch Box and say that it is a year I will acquiesce, I will sit down, and I will accept that a year’s cut is what needs to be done. I would argue that many other Members would do so, too. Unfortunately, we have found ourselves in something of a predicament. The announcement of the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was made off the cuff at such rapid speed that organisations such as War Child and the HALO Trust, to name just two out of many hundreds, had their budgets cut and their international programmes jeopardised.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the speed of the cuts announcement, which is compounded by the cut due to the decrease in GNI. This has been a tremendous cut affecting the most needy across the entire globe. Like he said, if we can have a commitment that this is for one year and one year only, many, including Members from the 2019 intake, will sit down and back off.
Anthony Mangnall
That is incredibly welcome to hear. My hon. Friend is right: there has been a double whammy in the reduction. International organisations have to deal with not only the cut itself but the overall GNI reduction. It is in place to make sure that in good years more money is available and in bad years less, thereby making the argument that we take stock of the economic situation. The point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who made the suggestion about the WaterAid programmes.
I am not against reform. I believe that we should be able to reform the ODA rules. I would love to see it spent in different ways that are more transparent and accountable. Many Members have made that point. Let us not take it down to 0.5%, but look at how we can reform it. Taking it from a single calendar year to a multi-year funding period of three or four years would give us the opportunity to look at different options so we can justify it to our constituents.
I believe that global Britain is about four things: defence, diplomacy, trade and development. All four are integrated. Failure to act and to work on one impacts the other. Our two aircraft carriers sailing around the world are hopefully unlikely to see conflict, but there is a humanitarian assistance vessel right there that could be used within our ODA budget. We must look at the impact on those different areas. Our aid pays for our security, as I have already mentioned. It is what stops terrorist organisations from across the world being able to flourish unencumbered.
We heard many from across the House say that if we led on this issue others would follow. They did. Many European countries have followed and are now reaching 0.7% targets. Canada has increased its target. America has increased its spending by £16 billion. We were leading. I ask about the message it sends to the world. In a year in which we host the G7 and COP26, and will have a good presence at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, we have the opportunity to lead by example.
Alexander Stafford
My hon. Friend asks what message it will send, but what message does it send to my constituents that overseas lives are more valuable than lives in this country? We have to be realistic about this—[Interruption.] It is not shameful. We are talking about messages and I ask him: what message does it send?
Anthony Mangnall
I would respectfully say to all of my hon. Friend’s constituents—I am happy to speak at any association event in the future—that their lives are no less valuable. What we are doing here is taking money from Peter to pay Paul. We must be honest about the value.
Christian Wakeford
I cannot speak for the people of Rother Valley, but to me going back to the people of Bury South and saying we support this says that we are compassionate and kind, and that we keep our promises. That is something I am proud of. That is something I want to stick up for. I want to go home and be able to tell my daughter that I did the right thing.
Anthony Mangnall
Quite right. If I had children I would be going back to say exactly the same thing—all to come, I am sure.
The debate is also about the British Council. I have lived in Singapore and I have worked in Nigeria. I have seen the value of these organisations. I have seen the value of soft power for the United Kingdom. I look back on 2012, a moment in which the UK exhibited its global superpower soft power. We were able to show that we were leading across the world. I hate that we are going down this route and reducing the two things that promote us in the best way.
Navendu Mishra
Does the hon. Member agree that using an us and them attitude is not helpful? The UK is one of the richest countries in the world and has a proud record of supporting projects across the world, and dividing people into us and them is not helpful at all in this debate.
Anthony Mangnall
The hon. Gentleman makes a fantastic point, and it is one that I will end on. If we are uncomfortable with how people view 0.7%, it is down to this House and to us as Members to explain it properly and show them the true value of what Britain does in a globalised world.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) for the passion that he displayed in making his argument just now. I imagine that he will not be terribly happy with the comments I am about to make, but I have the greatest amount of respect for what he has just articulated. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who made a powerful speech earlier. He was the individual who got me to Africa in the first place. I remember us talking in 2008—he probably does not remember—when we were in the eastern province of Rwanda on Project Umubano. Although I am not particularly loud on this subject, it is of interest to me, and it has been so ever since he had the courtesy to take me there a number of years ago.
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), one of my near neighbours. She speaks with such force on this, and I have such respect for the work that she is doing in her Select Committee—
Lee Rowley
But. The hon. Lady anticipates me, but perhaps I can start with some shared principles.
I shall start my contribution today by reaffirming some of the things that have already been spoken about with some eloquence—namely, that support for those in need is part of what makes us human, that aid has the most enormous transformative power for those who are less fortunate than us, and that the UK has a proud history of offering other countries a hand up. I do not doubt the resolve of the many Members who have argued the case for higher aid spending with energy and clarity—and with repetitiveness, based on the last few weeks of discussions in this place. I also accept the challenge from some of them today that we do not always simply accept polls, we do not always accept what people tell us and we do not always work towards certain instincts that may be out there, but by the same token, we would be wise to heed them at certain points. The debate is, if I may say so, running the risk of projecting a uniform consensus that there is some kind of mandatory, almost quasi-religious, commitment to a single venerated number.
Sarah Champion
I want to make two points. The first is that we all have a manifesto pledge to 0.7%. The second is that the most recent polling shows that 53% of the population support our commitment to UK aid. That is the evidence.
Lee Rowley
On the hon. Lady’s second point, I hope she will accept that different polls are saying different things. I may just leave that one there. On her first point, I absolutely accept that I stood on a manifesto commitment. There is a broad philosophical discussion to be had with every Member of Parliament within and without this building about the manifestos that they stood on, some of which have been discarded more extensively by other Members on other Benches than the particular principle that we are talking about now, on a temporary basis. As politicians, we always seek to agree to the manifesto on which we have the greatest consensus and with which we have the greatest affinity, but that does not mean that we cannot accept challenges to it or that changes will not be appropriate or necessary in extraordinary circumstances.
My concern—I say this gently and with caution—is that this place is becoming fixated on a single number, and while the consensus may be in place here, I hope that even if people disagree with it they will accept that that is not the case outside these walls. It is the duty of any Government to make decisions on spending based not simply on the transient allure of consensus from this usually fractured body, but also with regard to the much less exuberant considerations of our national finances, or perhaps even to the views of those who put us in this place. That is before we even reference the millions of people who have never, ever been reconciled to a single arbitrary figure.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend is making an interesting speech. I am not absolutely certain that he absorbed all the lessons from our visit to Rwanda, on which I remember that he was a tremendous colleague to have along. We are not delegates here; we are representatives. Our constituents send us here on the fine Burkean principle of exercising our judgment. When my hon. Friend says that the whole House seems to agree on this point, he is right: very large numbers of people in the House agree about it and the Government would not win a vote, I assert. Will he join me, at the very least, in saying that the House should have an opportunity to vote on this important matter, on which he and I both stood in the general election?
Lee Rowley
My right hon. Friend raises an important point, which I know he has pursued relentlessly; I am sure that he will continue to do so beyond the confines of my very limited contribution to today’s debate. I am sure that he can take the point up with a representative of the Executive, and I hope that he is successful in his course.
Lee Rowley
If I may, I will make some progress, but I would be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend in a moment.
Probably what makes today’s debate so frustrating for people out there who may be watching and who do not share the consensus that is generally coming across is that in certain speeches—none of which was recent, I might add—it was as if we were arguing about whether to end aid in its entirety. Effectively, we are arguing today about whether we are going to spend an extraordinary amount of money on international aid or an incredible amount of money on international aid. We are allowing a debate to become skewed by a skirmish over an arbitrary percentage that was agreed back in the 1950s by the World Council of Churches on a basis of which I am still not 100% sure.
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. Friend is making a tremendous speech, although I happen to disagree with all of it. He is showing his true parliamentary skills, but the point is that we have arbitrary numbers all over the shop when it comes to politics, from the 2% in NATO to the 2.7% R&D commitment. It is a misnomer to suggest that we have them only in foreign aid. They are therefore not something that we should shy from introducing.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have arbitrary targets everywhere; I do not doubt that. One reason that I sought election to this place was to try to get under the skin of those arbitrary targets. Some of the shibboleths that have not been challenged for a number of years have aspects that we should perhaps look at. We might wish to retain them, but we should never be shy of reviewing them again.
I am not saying this to be sharp with hon. Members, but it cannot be that the only approved manifestation of compassion is via a single monetary figure, free from the realities of any vague financial responsibility or even a semblance of fiscal rectitude. That is before we even get into the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes quite rightly brought up about value for money. I sat on the Public Accounts Committee a couple of years ago and some very interesting reports came through on value for money in this area. I accept that it is a very difficult issue to judge, but we may wish to turn to it with as much frequency and as much depth as we talk about this single percentage.
Lee Rowley
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I will try to make a little more progress.
I do not think that righteousness should be outsourced to an international sector that I have been really disappointed in in recent weeks as regards this debate. All the emails coming into my inbox, far from acknowledging the UK’s continuing commitment to those in need across the world, seem to be trying to create a frame that turns the UK’s huge generosity against itself and seeks almost to sting us into immotive or silent acquiescence.
It really must not be that virtue can be found only in criticism of one number owned by one country, when that country will still spend proportionately more this year than Switzerland, Belgium, Finland, Canada, Ireland, Japan, Austria, Iceland, Hungary, New Zealand, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, Poland, Slovakia, South Korea, the Czech Republic, Greece, Australia or the United States did in the previous year. I say that not just to make a rhetorical point, but because it is important that we understand the context within which we are debating this important point.
I absolutely acknowledge the strength of feeling in today’s debate from those who take a different view from mine. I hope and am sure that hon. Members who do not take my view will acknowledge that people who, like me, do not necessarily speak as loudly or as frequently on the subject, but who also feel strongly about it, also look to such signals as what people think around the country. I am afraid that in my view this debate is moving a little away from the people who placed us here. It is our job, or the job of some of us, to bring it back into balance. We all want to help lift up our fellow man, and it is not disproportionate that some of us want to do that in a way that increases the likelihood of our being able to continue to do so in the future.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I pay a warm tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who is doing a superb job as Chair of the International Development Committee. I agreed with much of what she said this afternoon. I also pay a warm tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for the way that he is leading his campaign on international aid.
I find myself in some difficulty this afternoon, because the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) who is responding to the debate, happens to be my parliamentary neighbour and a good friend of mine. I also backed his boss, the Foreign Secretary, to be leader of the Conservative party. I do not want to fall out with either of them.
Other colleagues have been far more eloquent on international aid than I could be, so I really want to talk about the British Council, which is absolutely fantastic. Wherever I go throughout the world, I always ask to see the British Council contact. The British Council deals with overseas trade and it is marvellous. It is the oldest cultural relations organisation in the world, and the Prime Minister and Defence Secretary have both given their support to the excellent work that it does. I very much support the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) as chairman of the British Council all-party group. I was very pleased to sign a cross-party letter to the Prime Minister on that issue.
There are so many reasons to be proud to be British—my goodness, I was proud to be British last night when we beat the Germans—and one of them is our soft power and how we use that to help those internationally who are less able to help themselves. The British Council represents the best of Britain overseas through educational and cultural successes. However, it is a two-sided relationship; it works both ways. Before the coronavirus pandemic, as chairman of the all-party group on the Philippines, I attended a Philippines independence day event in Southend. There I met a talented artist who wanted to have her work displayed in the Philippines, and thanks to the British Council that was made possible. That is one small example of how the British Council helps to facilitate a sharing of the culture and history between our two countries. It was also fantastic to have a local Southend artist have her work displayed internationally, and just one further reason why Southend should be the next city of culture and a city.
I and my team have also contacted the British Council over the years about educational links with the United Kingdom. One of the most important things that this historic institution does is connect the United Kingdom with the rest of the world through the teaching of English. As a result, it provides a lifeline for people to advance their career and to continue doing what they are passionate about.
I went on a wonderful trip to the Philippines to assist the Philippine Nurses Association and saw at first hand how the British Council and the Voluntary Service Overseas have helped many Filipino nurses by providing affordable education. British institutions such as Voluntary Service Overseas have offered young people opportunities to volunteer overseas—I was not that young when I did it, but anyway I really enjoyed it—so I ask the Government to commit to the reinstatement of international youth volunteering, so that, once conditions allow for safe international travel, young Brits can benefit from the same opportunities as their predecessors.
In 2014, on a trip to Egypt organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I met young people involved in a British Council project to learn about their opportunities to develop the skills that they need for the future. They were especially appreciative of the opportunities to learn English, participate in our workshops, and visit the United Kingdom.
As chairman of the all-party group on Qatar, I welcome the strong bilateral ties that we have with Qatar, especially in terms of energy, our cultural links and our economic partnership. Those ties demonstrate what a true partner we are with that country, and I hope that its World Cup next year will be very successful.
I mentioned the Maldives, and I have declared my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Maldives economy is effectively based on two things: tourism and tuna. The coronavirus pandemic has ruined the tourism industry and the 20% import tariffs that we impose on tuna are harshly damaging the economy—I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister might mention that, but if he does not have time, perhaps he could write to me about it. As chair of the all-party British-Maldives parliamentary group, I think we should be helping the sustainable line and rod-caught tuna industry by significantly reducing tariffs, especially as we hosted the G7 and will be hosting COP26 in Glasgow later this year.
We must protect the British Council in order to follow the Government’s global Britain agenda. Soft power is a vital component of that plan. Soft power should be at the heart of our policy making, with a focus on international trade deals and tackling climate change. It therefore comes as a great surprise and disappointment that the British Council has been forced to close in 20 countries including Australia, after agreeing the provisional terms of the UK-Australia free trade agreement and after the UK hosted the G7 summit in Cornwall, which was attended by world leaders from countries affected by the British Council closures, including the United States of America.
It is obvious that the British Council does not have enough funding to run programmes in every country in which it is currently present. The cuts will prove to be a false economy. I therefore urge the Government to rethink the allocation of resources to enable as many countries as possible to benefit from the irreplaceable services that the British Council provides, and to give others internationally the opportunities to learn, share and succeed.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
May I start by referring to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this debate and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on the fantastic contributions that he has made to this debate over many, many years. I have to confess that I was not expecting a full seven minutes. I have three points to make, although I will pad them out slightly more than I might have done in the three minutes that I was expecting.
My first point is about the way in which we conduct foreign policy in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, referred to this issue earlier. If the UK wants to have a policy-based foreign policy that is led by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is now the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, it needs to include within that the trade policy and defence policy. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office was a very good policy Department; it was excellent at policy. The old Department for International Development was an excellent delivery Department, as are the Department for International Trade and the Ministry of Defence.
I can well understand why a Prime Minister would wish to restructure our approach to foreign policy; having a Foreign Secretary who is responsible for all areas of foreign policy makes an enormous amount of sense. But government works by having Ministers with different responsibilities and having tension between those Ministers. A Minister—particularly a Minister at Cabinet—responsible for international development focuses their efforts on that, and the Foreign Secretary could consider the whole range of foreign policy with the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for International Trade and that Secretary of State for International Development. Not having that seat at the Cabinet table, not having that dedicated Department and not even having a dedicated Minister within the Department is a mistake from the point of view of the United Kingdom, because that political tension makes for better decision making.
Sarah Champion
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for the point that she is making. Does she agree that there is also a trickle-down of that tension, in that we now have ambassadors who are having to make cuts to programmes in the very countries where they are trying to negotiate the trade deals, diplomatic relationships and complex human rights issues that this country is so good at trying to navigate?
Karen Bradley
I absolutely agree; that is my point. If our ambassadors are responsible merely for diplomatic relations, that is one thing, but if they are to be responsible for making decisions around international development, they should also be responsible for decisions around defence and trade, because it is all part of one policy area. It is actually much healthier for government—[Interruption.] The Minister looks like he wants me to give way. Does he wish me to sit down? I will.
James Duddridge
I cannot contain myself. Ambassadors are responsible for the whole of Her Majesty’s Government.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend, who is one of my oldest friends in this place, makes a very important point. However, the hon. Member for Rotherham also makes the point that if ambassadors are having to make decisions on cutting programmes at the same time as developing diplomatic relations and representing every bit of HMG, that will make their jobs that much harder.
My second point is about the 0.7%. I listened to my hon. Friend, and I have great sympathy with the fact that he feels that he is in a den of people who disagree with him. I do not actually disagree with him that much. I think he would be surprised to discover that I accept that we are in the most extraordinary times. I do not like anything about this pandemic: I do not like the fact that this House is empty, I do not like the fact that I cannot see my loved ones, and I really do not like the fact that we do not have the money that we should have and would like to have. I would much, much rather we did have that money, but I accept that we do not.
However, the programmes and the organisations that rely on British aid need to know that the money will be restored next year. I have spent significant time talking to the Global Fund to End Modern Slavery. The programmes it will need to cut if it does not have certainty about spending next year will really damage the work that it and the organisations that it supports have spent years doing. The problem is that someone else will move in and take that space. Someone else that we may disagree with will start to move in those circles and take on projects, and years and years of building up relationships will be wasted. It is all part of soft power: the power that being a permanent member of the Security Council gives us; the power that being a country that meets our NATO commitments gives us; and the power that meeting the 0.7% commitment gives us. It may be an arbitrary target and there may be a debate to be had about whether it is the right target, but that is not what we are debating today. We are debating whether we meet the manifesto commitment and whether we are going to return to that manifesto commitment. I ask my hon. Friend, who, as I say, is one of the greatest men that I know—he has whipped me and then I have whipped him in the past—please to confirm that he will return to the 0.7% commitment next year so that we can hold our heads up high in the world. It is imperative that, if the Government cannot give that commitment, this House has a vote on the matter.
A small amount of money spent at source makes an enormous amount of difference to the people at home. We have heard talk about whether we choose between people at home or people elsewhere. There is no such choice. The migrants crossing the channel from Calais are getting on those unsafe boats because organised criminals have told them that there is a route to get to the United Kingdom if they do so. In spending overseas development money, I suspect that not as much money needs to be spent at source to try to deal with that organised criminality as we are spending trying to send those dinghies back. I say to my hon. Friend: let us think about how we can make sure that we spend that money in the right places and do what we need to do.
Sarah Champion
On the right hon. Lady’s point about the migrants in the channel, the director of the World Food Programme said to me, “You are removing money from the areas in Africa where the terrorists are recruiting. Do you not think that they will be using the exact same routes to get into the UK that the migrants looking for work are using?” I agree with him.
Karen Bradley
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady. This is not an either/or. Money spent there will save money upstream. I know that the Treasury scorecard is very difficult to comprehend and that this is not necessarily how it works, but that relatively small amount of money will save enormous amounts of money at home and will make the world a better place for all of us.
My final point is on the British Council. I am disappointed by the situation that we have arrived at. I know that the Government have put an enormous amount of money into the British Council. The British Council is normally pretty much self-sustaining. Its language schools and language business mean that it pays for about 85% of its costs in normal times—but, as I have said, we are not in normal times. Like so many other organisations, the British Council has not been able to deliver the services that it would have delivered and therefore make the income that can and needs to make. We are talking about money for two years so that it can get back on its feet. The price that we will pay for not meeting that request by the British Council is that we will see the closure of offices around the world, including in the US, Afghanistan and other places.
I said in respect of international aid that other countries will move in; there can be no doubt about the significance of the British Council and its offices, and about the idea of another power moving into those offices where the British Council has been. Yes, the British Council sells language services to the public, but the service it provides to the United Kingdom is about far more than just language services. The British Council is about Britain’s place in the world and is perhaps the most visible part of our soft power that anyone sees in any country they have visited. I was able to travel the world as a Minister at many levels and as a Select Committee member, and the British Council was always present, promoting Britain, British values and British interests. I say to my hon. Friend the Minister: please try to find a way to support the British Council so that we do not have to see the closure of posts. Once we have moved out and those relationships are lost, they will never be regained; someone else will move in and we will be a poorer country for it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The time limit is eight minutes. I call Sir Edward Leigh.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and to have watched her whip the Minister into submission even before he has given his speech, which I look forward to hearing because he is a most effective Minister.
From a right-wing point of view, the point that my right hon. Friend made was very effective. My constituents in Lincolnshire are absolutely grinding their teeth at what is happening at the channel and want the Home Office to be far more proactive. This is not the right place to talk about what the Home Office should be doing, but why are people coming here? These are not nasty people; they are desperate people fleeing the most appalling war, poverty and deprivation. The channel is proving completely ineffective. In the second world war, we held back the Nazi hordes with the RAF—we stopped them, but we cannot hold people back. We are one world. If there is dire misery and poverty in the world, it will wash up on our shores.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend says that comments about Dover are not applicable to this debate, but I argue that they absolutely are. We do not explain to the British people how this money can be spent and that it does affect them directly. If we did, we would have more support for confirming the 0.7% commitment, rather than old-fashioned views about where the money has been spent—and I agree that some of it has been spent badly in the past. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on this issue, because when international development money is spent correctly, it will be supported by the British people.
Sir Edward Leigh
I am sure that is right. I accept that if we took an opinion poll in the Gainsborough constituency, a majority—perhaps even a strong majority— would be in favour of these cuts. I accept that, but if for a moment the Government explained what the money is spent on, they would find that the British people are kind and humanitarian. People in Lincolnshire often say to me, “Why are we giving money to India? They have aircraft carriers and a space programme.” I shall leave aside the utter poverty of hundreds of millions of people in Uttar Pradesh; why are we living through this horrible lockdown? Why are we spying on Ministers with cameras and having a complete moral void? Because of the delta variant, which has come from where? India. Whether it is the pandemic or migrants, we cannot insulate ourselves from the world. That is why we have an overseas aid programme.
Karen Bradley
A point that I wanted to make—I ran out of time despite the fact that I had more than three minutes—is that actually, for many people 0.5% is the wrong percentage as well; the amount of aid that they wish to be spent is zero. So actually the Government, by going from 0.7% to 0.5%, are not achieving anything in terms of popularity.
Sir Edward Leigh
That is precisely the point that I wanted to make.
By the way, I am proud of the work that we did on the Public Accounts Committee to get an estimates day debate that actually discusses estimates. In the past, before our successful campaign, the one thing we were not allowed to discuss was estimates. Indeed when one of my colleagues, the then MP for Southport, stood up and tried to discuss estimates he was ruled out of order by your predecessor, Mr Deputy Speaker. So we are talking today about money, and this is precisely the point I want to come to.
I am No. 39 on the call list. I could devote my entire speech to the humanitarian arguments, but I have listened to previous speeches and I associate myself with them entirely. I just cannot for a moment understand why we are cutting aid to Yemen by 50%. The scenes there were appalling. The Chancellor very kindly paid me in the summer to go to Doddington Hall and have a very nice meal with my family under Eat Out to Help Out. Was that money well spent? Then I look at what is happening in Yemen, where some poor boy goes out and his leg is blown off, or the father goes out and he is never seen again. This is dire poverty, war, deprivation. Leaving aside whether this problem washes up on our shores or not, do we not have a duty to these people?
I so well remember talking to a woman in northern Iraq. That very thing had happened to her—one day her husband had gone out and he was never seen again. So of course we have very serious problems in Lincolnshire, but not compared to what is happening in Yemen. We just cannot turn our back; we cannot walk down the other side of the road.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend mentioned his constituency, where he has been and is much loved for many, many years, and he says that he thinks that his advocacy may or may not convince his constituents. I have to tell him that he is the last Thatcherite—or possibly one of two—left in this House, a point that the House will award him, and I have to tell him that what he says in his constituency on this matter, and what he says to Ministers on this matter, is having a very significant effect.
Sir Edward Leigh
My right hon. Friend is very kind. I suppose being the last Thatcherite is better than being the last Majorite.
Actually, funnily enough, according to the latest opinion polls, opinion is changing, because people are waking up to the fact that in the middle of a global pandemic it is probably not a very good time to cut aid—all these problems are now coming back to bite us.
Navendu Mishra
Does the UK not have a special responsibility when it comes to Yemen, as a permanent member of the Security Council but also as one of the largest suppliers of weapons to Saudi Arabia, which has a big role to play in the Yemen conflict?
Sir Edward Leigh
The UK does have a role, and I fully accept the point about the Commonwealth. We have heard that we should prioritise the Commonwealth, but as we have also heard, where are these cuts falling? On the Commonwealth. But we cannot just direct our aid to the Commonwealth; we have to direct it where it is most needed.
On the Thatcherite point—and this is not the humanitarian point, because many people have made the humanitarian point, which I associate myself with—I remember, in my first Parliament, listening to Enoch Powell. He sat over there on the Opposition Back Bench. In fact, my first rebellion was to force the Government into requiring workplace trade unions to hold postal ballots, while the Minister defended workplace ballots; but I leave that to one side.
Now, what would Enoch Powell have said on this subject? He would not have liked the 0.7%, but he would have said it was ridiculous to have an arbitrary limit of 0.7%, to reduce it to another arbitrary limit of 0.5% and then to promise to increase it back to 0.7%. As he would have said—I cannot do the Birmingham accent, unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield—“It is a logical absurdity. It is a nonsense built on stilts. It makes no sense” that all these civil servants, in the middle of a global pandemic, are running around cutting all these programmes, and next year, if we believe the Government—and of course the Government would never tell an untruth to the House, would they, so this is only a temporary cut—all these programmes, after this pandemic, are going to be restored. [Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head. So are they not going to be restored?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
We will return to 0.7%, and we will do that in the most effective way. I would hope to build back better.
Sir Edward Leigh
When, we ask—what does “temporary” mean? Surely temporary only means temporary.
Being helpful, I want to give the Government a way out. We have the Budget coming up before the end of the year. Why cannot the Chancellor of the Exchequer address this issue and explain how he is going to restore the 0.7%? We live in a parliamentary democracy. I will leave aside the point about the manifesto. I know that circumstances change, and I know that we are strapped for cash, but I follow the point that this is a relatively small amount of the total budget. However, the Minister has now confirmed that we are going to return to 0.7%.
Here is one way out—I am trying to help the Prime Minister. When it comes to vaccines or tropical medicine, where there is a real problem, he could, week by week or month by month, release more money for a particular programme in addition to the 0.5%. He would get enormous public credit, there would be good publicity for him, and gradually we could restore what is being cut.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer could then announce, in the Budget, “We have now come out of the pandemic, the country is fully vaccinated, the economy is growing very well again, and I can now increase this back to 0.7%.” Or he could do the honest thing, if that is not his view, and say, “I believe this 0.7% target in a year is arbitrary; I think it should be phased in over three years,” or “I believe that we should preserve it in real terms.” He can make any argument he wants and we will listen to it, and then we should have a vote on it and either approve what he suggests or deny him.
Surely, what is completely unacceptable in a parliamentary democracy is for a Government to make a manifesto commitment, to make a cut and say it is temporary, but to avoid any vote—to prevaricate—just because they think they might lose the vote and, worse, just because they think it is popular. Is it so popular? Is it the right thing to do, or should we not do the right thing?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
I support the Government’s estimate and I look forward to its passage. I also back the Government’s judgment at this very difficult time, when so many economies, including our own, have been badly damaged by responses to the pandemic. But I also understand the mood of the House and I understand that a number of my hon. and right hon. Friends whom I respect have misgivings about all this. I would just like to make a few remarks in the spirit of trying to build some bridges between the Government and their critics, who have been very wide-ranging in this debate.
The first point I make is that I do not trust the figures. I think that the Government understate just how much we already do and how much we already spend. We are much more cautious about what we regard as aid expenditure than some other countries we are compared against, even though we usually spend more than they do as a percentage.
Let us take, for example, an area that colleagues have already mentioned. This country has received a very large number of economic migrants and asylum seekers in recent years. In the year to March 2020, the last for which we have official figures, 715,000 people came to live in our country, and many of them came from poor countries that have qualified for overseas aid. We do not fully account, in the way that one might, for the first-year set-up costs—the housing, the public service provision, the top-up benefits and the other assistance that people are rightfully given when they come to live with us and we wish them to live to a reasonable standard. Surely, helping people who wish to come here because they find their own countries so disadvantageous is a very important part of our overseas aid.
We are also too cautious about all the expenditure we make through the Ministry of Defence. Why were we in Afghanistan? Afghanistan is one of the main recipients of our aid, and in recent years we have been spending considerable sums of money on support through our military and the advice we offer. Those things should also be taken into account to get a realistic picture of just how much the Government are spending on necessary assistance abroad.
The second issue that has been raised in the debate is that colleagues fear a loss of influence. I would like to reassure them that surely this year, of all years, is when we have seen a major advance in British influence. We have just taken our full seat with a vote on the World Trade Organisation, and we are busily signing off a number of trade agreements around the world that we could not have done in previous years. The Prime Minister has just very successfully chaired the G7 and has helped to bring together the seven most powerful western democracies in terms of economic strength to reach important agreements to improve the world outlook. We have COP26 coming up, when I trust that British chairmanship will be astute and helpful in order to agree something that many Governments in the world talk a lot about, though not all of them do as much as we do to try and see things through. We are very much the second most important member of NATO in terms of contribution after the United States of America, and we are a force within NATO to make sure that it is used for the good, as a force for peace.
On the 0.7% target, I make no secret of the fact that I do not like targets like that. I did not feel at the time it went through that there was any point in trying to persuade Parliament because Parliament was very hooked on such a target. The difficulty with a target like that is, as we have seen, that national income can change quite rapidly in ways that people did not predict—if something like a pandemic strikes, in particular—and it is not always possible, when we get the recovery, to build up the spending as quickly as the GNI, and it would be silly to have to spend money when we do not have really good projects.
Nor do I like the idea of Governments passing legislation to bind themselves. It seems to me completely pointless. What matters is the word of the Government. If circumstances change, they may have to change, and all the time that the Government control a majority, the fact that it is in legislation does not make any difference. The Government still have to decide whether to keep their word or whether force majeure or force of circumstance requires some temporary or permanent change.
In this debate, I think lots of colleagues have all decided to duplicate and replicate one another’s speeches by saying how much they dislike any kind of cut in our immediate aid programme. I would like to have heard, from all those who are understandably enthusiastic about the good that aid could do, rather more discussion of what works best when we have limited money—as we always will, whether the limit is 0.5% or 0.7% of our GDP—so that we can do the most good with it. We have had several years of 0.7% but we still have the same list of main countries needing aid, so we know that this is not a simple fix, that we are one of many and that we need to work with other partners around the world. We need to harness the private sector and the charitable sector; it does not all have to come from British taxpayers.
When we are looking at progress, we first need to establish a peace. Quite a lot of the countries that need a lot of aid still do not have a peace; they have a civil war going on. That means that any particular projects may just be damaged or wasted because of the lack of that fundamental condition. It is best if there is a decent Government who can deliver and who are not corrupt. To what extent are we allowed to try to influence Governments in the right direction, because we do not wish to become a neo-colonial power?
We need to harness the private sector more so that the money that our taxpayers and other advanced countries’ taxpayers put in is multiplied several times by getting that investment in the water systems, the communications systems or the food systems that are needed, which should come more from commercial work. Above all, I think our message should be that trade is often more effective as a means of promoting economic growth and prosperity than aid. We, above all, should believe that, now that we are leading advocates of freer trade around the world and back there in the WTO. Is it not much better that we help to offer contracts to people who can organise economic activity, which creates better-paid jobs and things to do, rather than just having one-off amounts of aid to ease the particular problems of not having a decent economy?
This year, above all, surely is the year when Britain can be truly proud of its achievements in this area, because, thanks to our scientists, the NHS and the Government, we are giving to the world the cheapest vaccine, the one non-profit vaccine—often a free vaccine, because our taxpayers are standing behind that offer. This surely sums up the generosity of spirit of the British people, and the success of the British economy and our world influence: that it will be a British vaccine that is so often deployed, and that it was a British vaccine at the heart of the Prime Minister’s successful negotiations at the G7 to get other rich countries to get on with the task of vaccinating the world.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
The Government would have us believe that the backdrop to this debate is the impact of covid, with the knock-on financial pressures requiring departmental budgets to be cut or correspondingly slimmed. There are indeed unprecedented financial pressures, but the overseas aid budget has a built-in mechanism to cater for any financial challenge, as we all know, because it reflects the GNI of the day. Yet here we are, the only G7 country to cut its aid budget, with dire consequences for programmes across the world and, as a P5 nation, a huge hit to our soft power credentials. We will be leaving vacuums to be filled by nations with very different agendas, or indeed by extremist groups exploiting the lack of governance.
The messaging has already been touched on, but I will just repeat the point that the Government should lead the narrative, not follow a populist and dated view of ODA spending. Let us explain to the British people what this is all about. This is what we are good at—we excel at it—and when we do well, other nations follow.
Christian Wakeford
Part of the problem with judging by a poll is the language used. If it asks, “Do you want a cut in international aid?”, people will say yes. However, if it asks, “Do you want to feed the world’s hungriest and support those most in need?”, I am sure that, being a generous and kind country, we would also say yes.
Mr Ellwood
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and indeed I would go further and say that not only is that what we do, but it is required.
I come to this debate today to add a defence and security perspective. Hard power and soft power cannot be seen in isolation; they are two sides of the same coin. If our failure in Afghanistan, where we are now essentially giving up and going home, should teach us anything, it is that we cannot build and maintain peace by military means alone.
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech on the link between defence and development. In the case of Yemen, we have a very complicated relationship, because of course we are part of the coalition that is bombing that country back to the stone age, but we are also trying to help those caught up in the conflict. Does he not think that the one thing we ought to be able to agree on is that we should not, at this stage, be taking food from starving people there?
Mr Ellwood
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I congratulate him on the work that he is doing. There is a great example of where British leadership can be seen on the international stage. Yemen requires leadership. We have been there for some time and have not utilised our relationship with the Saudis to prevent them from doing what they have been doing. We could have better harnessed our friendships and capabilities in order to bring a conclusion to that particular challenge.
I worked as a Minister in both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it then was—I was Minister for the Middle East and North Africa—and the Ministry of Defence, and I can confirm how siloed our Whitehall Departments still are. I concede that things are definitely getting better, but if global Britain is to have meaning, exhibiting increased resolve to play a role on the international stage, it will require greater cohesion between our internationalist-facing Departments, which even today remain too siloed.
I would go further than the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee and introduce the role of a Deputy Prime Minister, with the arc of responsibility to co-ordinate the MOD, DFID, FCO and trade initiatives, so that we can develop grand strategies to tackle some of the global hotspots that we are engaged in. We do need to expand our Whitehall bandwidth.
Navendu Mishra
Does the right hon. Gentleman share my view that abolishing DFID at the height of a global pandemic was a backward step, and that the role of development is far too serious to be left to the now much larger FCDO, and without a dedicated Minister at the top table?
Mr Ellwood
My biggest criticism about that is what is done in practice to the Department and the important voice at the Cabinet table and at the National Security Council. Now we have only the Foreign Secretary there, not another voice, and that is what we have lost.
We absolutely need to expand our Whitehall bandwidth to be able to recognise the current challenges to which we could provide solutions and also the looming ones that are coming over the horizon. This is the point I hope the Minister will listen to. The real backdrop to this debate that we must all recognise is where our complex and dangerous world is heading. If there was one welcome outcome of the G7 summit, it is the realisation that unless the west becomes less risk-averse, regroups and reunites, the next decade will get very bumpy indeed.
I have been consistent in my clear message to this House: over the next five years, the world is getting more dangerous, not less, and more complex, not less. Authoritarianism is on the rise, new power bases are emerging, and states are starting to rearm at an alarming rate. To compound matters, we now have the growing challenge of climate change, which is already having an impact on security and governance in some of the world’s most vulnerable regions. Storms, floods and droughts will affect agricultural productivity, damage economies and lead to mass migration, most notably from Africa to Europe. This goes back to the point about where the challenge is: it is not in Dover; it is actually in Africa. Simply put, global security in our ever complex and confusing world is on a worrying glide path, and right now there is no grand plan to alter the current trajectory. The threat picture is greater and more complex than during the cold war, and it requires addressing.
The political scientist Joe Nye introduced the term “soft power” a decade ago. It is the ability to influence the behaviour of others to get the outcomes we want by attracting and co-opting their support. However, in the spirit of Sun Tzu, who said:
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting”,
I argue here today that a new global soft power war or soft war is already at play, but we in the west have yet to wake up to its reality.
China is weaponising its immense soft power to significantly advance its influence and reach, and to promote its own interpretation of the international rules-based order. We are seeing this gathering apace across Africa and Asia through its one belt, one road infrastructure programmes and its gifting of 5G networks and military support to ensnare dozens and dozens of countries into its sphere of influence. It is also securing senior leadership positions in international organisations such as the United Nations to neutralise any criticism of its errant behaviour, and is now contributing ever more significant Chinese military forces to UN peacekeeping missions. As we have heard today, it is using its Confucius centres—now over 600 across the globe—to advance its message.
This will be China’s century, as it eventually overshadows and overtakes America as the dominant military, economic and technological superpower, yet here we are in Britain still failing to put two and two together. For a nation that usually prides itself on its place and influence in the world and its grasp of global situational awareness, I am genuinely baffled to understand why it is not reading and responding to this bigger picture. China is offering a competing authoritarian ideology and is leveraging its colossal economic growth to undercut western competition. On this current glide path, the world will splinter into two spheres of competing influence. Now is not the time to cut our defence budgets or our aid budgets as these threats increase, yet here we are doing both.
There is a phenomenal opportunity for British leadership here, made all the easier with the new US Administration, to craft a post-Brexit international role at the very moment the west is required to regroup. I urge this Government to listen to the voices here today in this Parliament and see the bigger picture, recognise the scale of the threat we face, invest in the statecraft and the hard and soft power tools we need, and expand Whitehall’s international bandwidth, for the actions we the west choose to take over the next few years could have implications for how the next few decades play out.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), I anticipated having three minutes and, somehow, I now have eight minutes. Unlike her, I have since written more notes and now have the difficulty of trying to read my own writing.
I rise to recognise the UK’s global reputation for delivering life-saving aid, to warn of the risks resulting from a reduction to the 0.7% target and to offer ideas for maximising the UK’s support for the world’s most vulnerable through the next decade and beyond. However, I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), who made the important point that it is about the four aspects of defence, trade, development and diplomacy all working together. Like four wheels on a car, we cannot get to our destination without all four working at the same time.
We need to consider the impact of development on trade, the impact of development on defence and the impact of development on diplomacy, and likewise in reverse. There needs to be a more holistic view of what we can do to be a truly global Britain.
Aid is a British success story. We are recognised as global experts and have achieved incredible results. Since 2015, we have helped 14 million children access education, and we have helped 6 million girls. When leadership was needed to address covid-19 in poorer countries, the UK stepped forward, committing over half a billion pounds and 100 million vaccine doses to the COVAX initiative. We have led the world in tackling violence against women and girls, by launching the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative—again, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes—and funding innovative new programmes.
Aid spending is also an investment in our global reputation. It establishes us as respected and trusted international partners, which can only help in our mission to secure trade deals that will benefit the constituents of every Member in this House, including mine in Bury South.
With generous and effective aid spending and a global diplomatic presence comes our soft power and soft influence, which places the UK at the heart of critical debates and gives us the legitimacy and ability to guide international action on key global challenges such as climate change. When the UK speaks on such issues, the world listens.
It is with concern, therefore, that we witness the slashing of aid budgets, eroding this proud legacy and, ultimately, costing lives. We have made a commitment to ensuring 12 years of quality education for girls and, as a founding member of the International Parliamentary Network for Education, this is something of which I am immensely proud, yet our aid cuts leave 700,000 girls without access to education.
We have pledged to prevent 20 million people from experiencing catastrophic famine, but we have cut our funding to Yemen, a country on the brink of famine, by nearly 60%.
The cuts are not going unnoticed by our friends or, more importantly, our adversaries. The UN Secretary-General has described the aid cuts as a “death sentence”. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said that the recruiting sergeants of Hezbollah, al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, ISIS and other armed militia across the globe will be the immediate beneficiaries of the cuts to the UK’s humanitarian programmes. China and Russia are watching, and they will not hesitate to fill the vacuum we are creating and destabilise more regions across the globe.
With an eye on the development of the UK’s new international development strategy, I will finish with three recommendations. First, let us use the strategy to announce a return to spending 0.7% of GNI on aid and to signal to our G7 and G20 allies that Britain can be a force for good and a trusted international partner.
Secondly, let us focus our aid on where it is needed most. The International Rescue Committee’s analysis shows that 20 countries, mostly conflict-afflicted, currently host 85% of the 235 million people in need of humanitarian assistance globally. Maintaining our commitment to spending 50% of ODA in fragile and conflict-afflicted countries provides the greatest opportunity to drive down humanitarian need and ensure value for taxpayers’ money.
Finally, let us unleash the power of integrating diplomacy and development. We are permanent members of the UN Security Council, NATO, the G7, the G20 and Five Eyes. We have a global diplomatic network. In short, we have clout. When we speak, the world rightly listens, but our world-leading diplomacy should lead efforts to reduce suffering, to foster peace in conflicts like Yemen, to remove barriers that deny humanitarian aid to those who need it, and to hold to account those who attack civilians and violate international law.
I am proud of Britain, and I am proud of a global Britain, especially in a post-Brexit world. I am proud of the values we stand for and the progress that we have made through our aid spending, and I am sure I will be proud of what we achieve in future years, too, as soon as we go back to 0.7%. As we recover from covid, the next big thing to focus on is climate change. Again, 0.7% is fundamental to addressing climate change.
These results will come only if we retain our aid spending. Restoring the budget is not just the right thing to do morally, it is the right thing to do for the UK’s national interest. Let us return to 0.7% and return to doing what we do best.
I close by saying that Britain keeps its promises; let us do so again. In this House we often say anecdotally that it is country, constituency and then party. This may not be the popular thing in the country, in my constituency or in my party, but it is the right thing to do.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the wind-up speeches and, by video link, Chris Law.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for bringing this important debate to the House. She is a colleague on the International Development Committee and I also consider her to be a friend. I have listened carefully to the debate over the course of today and the direction seems to be going in one way, which is that these cuts are abominable.
For millions of people throughout the world, the issues that we have discussed are not a matter of political debate. They are a matter of life and death. After a year of immense hardship, suffering and death in these islands and across the world, it is deplorable that this Government are selfishly intent on abandoning their responsibilities to the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world.
The world’s most comprehensive study on increased demand for aid since the pandemic revealed that 19 million more people are now in need of humanitarian aid and the gap on reaching the sustainable development goals is widening. Now is the time to be stepping up, not stepping away. Yet, unlike other nations throughout the world and against all logic, this UK Government believe that the correct response to this global crisis is to prematurely end life-saving projects with their £4 billion plus-cuts to the aid budget.
Mr Deputy Speaker, make no mistake: these cuts are a death sentence to millions of our fellow global citizens. Estimates suggest that more than a million excess child deaths alone could occur as a result. We have all been children and many of us have children—this is a truly horrifying figure and one we should all reflect upon.
It should shame the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and this Government, but as their behaviour has demonstrated since they began their assault on international development by abolishing the Department last year, they have scant regard for the facts and the consequences of their actions. They are determined to pursue this callous policy, even if that means running scared of a parliamentary vote and, of course, breaking the law.
The FCDO spending plans give barely any detail on where these cuts are falling and how spending compares to previous years. They are trying their very best to make scrutiny almost impossible and hide these cuts. Charities are still in limbo as to whether their immediate and future programmes can even go ahead. Unable to plan properly, domestic and international NGO recruitment has been paused and skilled and experienced staff are being laid off, losing decades of institutional memory. This is an appalling way to conduct Government and an unsustainable state of affairs. The NGO sector is a success story for Scotland and the UK more widely, but the UK Government are intent on trashing that. As news emerges of each project either cut or cancelled, the devastating reality of this Government’s decision becomes clearer.
Let us begin with the most basic of needs: food. Malnutrition contributes to nearly half of all deaths in children under 5 globally, and yet this Government have opted to undermine recent G7 initiatives to prevent famine and laid waste to years of UK expertise by imposing cuts to nutrition programmes—wait for it, Mr Deputy Speaker—by up to 80%.
Another obscene example of this Government’s little Britain approach to the world is that despite the past year being a stark reminder of the need to prevent disease, nearly 300 million doses of medicine for the treatment of neglected diseases in Africa are at risk of expiring and being destroyed because the FCDO has announced that it is withdrawing nearly all its funding. The UK Government could not confirm that expiring medicines will be distributed urgently, rather than destroyed, and the World Health Organisation has warned that because of these cuts 30,000 individuals are likely to die needlessly.
Furthermore, these cuts are not only needless, but they are completely incoherent. For example, there will be almost £1 billion of cuts to the UK Government’s work on preventing conflict—conflict being the very source of many of the crises happening at any one time across the world—yet in Yemen, where the world’s worst humanitarian disaster continues, we see a cut in aid of nearly three quarters compared with 2019. In addition, the Government have decided to slash aid to Syria and, for the first time since 1991, will provide no bilateral aid whatever to Iraq.
If I needed to drive the point home harder, let us return to Scotland, where COP26 will be hosted. I was shocked to learn that just weeks after the UK’s COP26 President, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) visited Indonesia and called upon it to “move forward” with plans to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050, the Foreign Office cancelled with immediate effect a green growth programme designed to prevent deforestation, three years into a five-year programme. If that is not bonkers, I do not know what is.
This UK Government are fooling no one when they pretend that they have no other option but to reduce spending due to economic restraints. It was a political choice that shows exactly where their political priorities lie. Covid is affecting every single nation on Earth, and it is now that we should be pulling together through this awful pandemic.
In September, The Times reported that the Chancellor was looking to defer billions of pounds from foreign aid to pay for upgrades to British intelligence and defence capabilities. Without any attempt to disguise it, in the same month that the cut from 0.7% to 0.5% was announced, a windfall was delivered for the defence budget. Money that should have been spent on preventing famine, malnutrition and needless loss of life is now being spent on enhanced cyber-weapons. Money that should have been spent on conflict prevention is now being spent on AI-enabled drones. Money that should have been spent on protecting our planet and marginalised communities from the devastating effects of climate change is now being spent on increasing stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Last month, the Prime Minister then confirmed that while the fiscal situation does not allow him to maintain international development spending, somehow he does deem it financially prudent to waste £200 million on a new royal yacht Britannia, despite the royal family’s displeasure. Despite my writing to the Prime Minister, he has still given no assurance that he will not try to claim that money from spending and on the backs of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable, as MPs and Ministers have previously suggested.
Despite the bluster of global Britain, the facts speak for themselves. This is a UK Government who would rather spend money on nostalgia-driven vanity projects and weapons of mass destruction than on saving human lives. This is cold, hard and brutish. During my Spirit of Independence campaign in 2014, I often argued that voting for Scottish independence was paradoxically a vote to protect what many understood as traditional British values: fairness, justice and inclusion.
As successive UK Governments have moved away from or abandoned those principles, the case for Scottish independence to protect them has only become stronger. That becomes even more apparent as the UK becomes increasingly insular and diminishes its role in the world. Indeed, in 2014, the Better Together campaign told voters in Scotland that being part of the UK ensured their place at the top table as a global leader, yet since then we have seen the UK leave the EU and break international law. Now, during a pandemic, and when every other G7 country has increased its aid contributions, they have broken their promises on international support.
While the UK Government are abruptly ending deforestation prevention projects vital to global climate change efforts, the Scottish Government are doubling their world-leading climate justice fund. While the UK Government are alone in slashing their international development spend by a third at this critical juncture for the world, the Scottish Government are working with their partners worldwide and increasing their international development fund by 50%. While the Scottish Government fulfil their role as a good global citizen, this little Britain approach of the UK Government does not even blush at the evidence that millions of lives will be lost by their incoherent, unnecessary and, frankly, callous cuts.
Finally, when the people of Scotland have the choice on their future, as they have democratically demanded in the recent Scottish election this year, I have no doubt which option they will choose.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who chairs the International Development Committee, and the Backbench Business Committee for securing this debate, and all Members across the House who supported the application. It has been a very good debate, with some powerful contributions from across the House. It has been good to be back in this place actually having a proper debate, with people engaging and asking questions. We hope to see more of that in this place as we go forward.
We heard powerful comments from the Chair of the Committee about the lack of transparency over these cuts, their public financial illiteracy and their impact.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), spoke powerfully about not looking at things in silos, how things such as modern slavery and girls’ education are intimately connected, and the impact of these cuts on the UK’s clout on the world stage.
The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), said that these cuts will undermine Britain’s bilateral ties and are a mistake when we should be making an impact around the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) spoke about the impact of the cuts on food insecurity when famine is on the rise, and on the joint economic and health crises that the world faces. I will return to that point.
The former International Development Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), made an extraordinarily powerful and persuasive speech. He was absolutely right to say that the Government are, in fact, the ones rebelling—against their own manifesto commitments. He spoke about the absurdity of cutting organisations such as UNICEF and UNFPA, and the work on neglected tropical diseases, at a time when that work is more crucial than ever.
The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) made a powerful case about the absurd closures that the British Council now faces, leaving it £10 million short; my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke powerfully about that issue the other day.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) talked about the incoherence of the cuts, and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) spoke about their stark impact on our fellow human beings in some of the worst humanitarian catastrophes, and said that polling shows that the British public want us to support action in those circumstances.
The hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), who is a former Minister, said that the most powerful poll that would matter in this place would be having a meaningful vote, as Mr Speaker and as so many Members across the House have requested. That meaningful vote is not tonight, despite what the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House tried to suggest the other day.
The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) spoke about the powerful and damaging impact that the cuts will have on women, family planning, water and sanitation, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said that the cuts were morally reprehensible.
I was proud to have my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in my team for a while. She made a powerful and passionate speech, making it clear that poverty is political and this is about political choices—not party political choices, but choices that this House should be making on issues of such national and international importance.
The former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), spoke about the impact of the cuts on nutrition—the 80% cuts to malnutrition programmes. In the other place, my noble Friend Lord Collins has been speaking passionately about this issue for so long, and I know that he works with the right hon. Gentleman on it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) talked about the impact on global health research. How absurd to be cutting global health research, given the benefits not just of finding a vaccine for covid, but also of the work on malaria, HIV and neglected tropical diseases. The role that British universities and British health science are playing in that research is now being put at risk again, and that is absolutely absurd.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) spoke about the tiny amount that this money represents compared with the total borrowing that we have seen, for example, to deal with the covid pandemic. He said that we have to look at wider health systems globally to deliver beyond vaccines, including on issues such as clean water.
Again, another Government Member, the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), spoke incredibly powerful. He asked why on earth we are cutting pandemic-preventing programmes and spoke about the literally life or death decisions that are now being made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) made a typically strong speech about the job cuts at the British Council, and the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) gave a fantastic and incredibly well informed speech about the practical implications of the cuts. He rightly challenged some of his colleagues, including the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), on the impact that the will have on the Commonwealth; these cuts are going to have an impact on Commonwealth countries and on countries that want to join the Commonwealth, such as South Sudan. They will have an impact on places such as Rwanda, on which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield ran a fantastic programme over many years, which many of his colleagues attended.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) rightly said that the British Council represents some of the best of Britain—why on earth are we cutting it? And the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) absolutely nailed it on the head: British people are kind and humanitarian. Why on earth we would want to make cuts when we see the scenes from places such as Yemen? I have friends working out there at the moment for the United Nations and Médecins Sans Frontières—British citizens out there on the frontlines, taking that action. How on earth are we cutting such provision at this time? It is unbelievable.
The Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), gave a very powerful speech. He rightly pointed out the damage to Britain’s strategic interests in the world. That is space that will be taken by others—our adversaries, those who wish this country ill and have a very different vision of how this world should be. Why on earth we are retreating when they are advancing is beyond me.
The hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) gave an absolutely excellent speech.
Christian Wakeford
I intend to be helpful, but also to correct my own record: although I paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), I failed to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), not only for introducing this important debate, but for all the work that she has been doing on preventing sexual violence against women across the globe.
Stephen Doughty
I completely concur. Drawing on what the hon. Gentleman said, I want to be absolutely clear that the Opposition believe that global Britain can and must be a force for good in this world, doing our fair share and our moral duty but also acting in our common and national interest, particularly given the rapidly changing and volatile global power dynamics.
I am proud to have worked at the former Department for International Development and with some of our leading British humanitarian organisations. I have seen the incredible work that our aid and our organisations have done around the world; I pay tribute to all of them. I am deeply saddened that they are now having to scrabble around to deal with the cuts, which are being introduced in such an irresponsible way. I will give two contrasting examples.
We have done incredibly positive work on vaccines. I welcome the incredible work of our Oxford and AstraZeneca teams in developing that vaccine and the fact that we are delivering vaccines around the world, although far more are needed, as we said at the time of the G7. However, those vaccines can be delivered effectively only when they have strong health systems behind them—when we have surveillance, when we are looking at genomic sequencing, and when we are supporting nurses, doctors and those who put those vaccines in arms around the world. Doing the one without the other is not enough.
We have just done fantastic work supporting the elections in Somaliland, which was mentioned earlier. The Minister knows of my strong connections with Somaliland; I declare my interests. There is fantastic work supporting democracy and development there, but I want to see it go further—I want to see a British Council office opened in Hargeisa. That seems pretty unlikely, given the cuts to the British Council across the world at a time when we should be increasing our influence in countries where we have strong historical ties that are also of key strategic importance.
The impact of the pandemic is absolutely immense, in this country and globally. Let us be clear: not just poverty is on the rise, but all the other misery associated with it. The World Health Organisation reports that 70% of surveyed countries have had significant decreases in the number of routine immunisations other than for covid. Some 80 million infants are at risk of missing vaccinations for measles, polio and diphtheria. We will see 6.3 million more cases of TB, adding 1.4 million deaths from that terrible disease. It is likely that 50 million children in Pakistan and Afghanistan will now not receive a polio vaccine. STOPAIDS has stated that 11.5 million people have now had inconsistent access to crucial antiretroviral treatments and therapies, which has put their lives at risk—as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do much work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on HIV and AIDS.
Gender-based violence is on the rise, with an additional 31 million cases predicted. Some 9.7 million students are at risk of dropping out of school, and 11 million girls are at risk of not coming back to school because of covid. The UN estimates that 132 million people could fall into food insecurity and famine. That will only be exacerbated by the climate crisis that we already know is having an impact and is coming.
For those reasons, not one of the other G7 nations has decreased its official development assistance. In fact, most are increasing their spending, including France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Canada and Finland. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) gave a long list of countries; I could give a long list of countries that are doing the exact opposite of what we are doing at the moment and that look aghast at it.
Let us look at one of the situations we face. The Minister knows of the very serious situation in Ethiopia, which I have raised with him. There have been some very volatile developments in the past few days. Millions are at risk from famine and conflict and there are some truly horrific reports, yet we do not have clarity on what is happening with UK funding to Ethiopia at this critical time. The Minister spoke the other day about diversion of funds, but we are not clear whether UK funding will be increasing in response to the demand or decreasing. I hope that he can clarify that.
I note that the Minister has a Ghanaian flag on his mask. What will happen to programmes in Ghana? An organisation called Tools for Self Reliance has told us that it is losing a three-year programme that would have helped 1,000 women in Ghana, because of the cuts being introduced by the Minister’s Department. We see the LGBT+ community under attack in Ghana. What will happen to our human rights programmes supporting marginalised communities across the world? What will happen, for example, to the crucial replenishments on global slavery that the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, mentioned? I will also mention the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Will we keep our commitments going forward?
We have heard again and again from those on both sides of the House about the damage that these cuts will bring, and I want to commend those who have spoken out. It is always difficult to speak out against your own Government and your own party. I have not been afraid to do that when I think we have got things wrong, as the Minister will know. But it is right to do that, and this is Parliament at its best. That is why we need to have a vote on these issues: these voices need to be heard.
I want to talk briefly about the public financial illiteracy of this. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact, set up by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, has rightly pointed out the absurd way in which the cuts were brought about. One paragraph from its report paints a perfect picture. It states:
“Value for money risks were further exacerbated by the speed at which the Star Chambers process took place…aid-spending departments were given five to seven working days to prepare proposals for the 30% budget cuts. The proposals were reviewed, revised and approved by ministers over four virtual meetings totalling just seven hours. One of the officials we interviewed described it as ‘like doing a handbrake turn with an oil tanker’.”
That is not a sensible way to be handling hard-earned taxpayers’ money or the public finances of this country. Whatever we think about the amounts, that is not the way we should be doing things. It is simply absurd.
We have also heard about the contradictions relating to other areas of international policy, including defence, trade and diplomacy. It seems absolutely absurd, at a time when British troops are on the frontline in the Sahel working with our allies to defeat jihadist extremists, that we would cut aid from that region, which will only fall into further crisis in the months and years to come. That is absolutely absurd.
Lastly, I want to turn to the British Council. It has rightly been referred to as one of the most vital components of UK soft power, working in over 100 countries and reaching 80 million people a year with arts, culture and education programmes. For much of the world, the British Council provides the first direct relationship with this country and with our values, our culture and our language. It attracts students, workers, future business leaders and even future leaders. That represents incredible soft power, and incredible relationships and partnerships. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay spoke powerfully about this, and he has also said in the media that reducing the British Council’s international presence and retreating on the global stage will do damage to our soft power, which is not compatible with the Government’s foreign policy priorities as set out in the integrated review. I urge the Government to think again.
I want to conclude by asking the Minister a few crucial questions. He says that we are going to reverse this and go back to 0.7%. Well, when are we going to do that? Answer that question, Minister. When will we get transparency on the individual cuts to individual programmes in individual countries? We have put down parliamentary question after parliamentary question, but they have been completely blocked by Ministers refusing to answer and refusing to give clarity. Many countries and organisations are unable to plan or to think forward because the Government are not clear about what is happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill), the shadow International Trade Secretary, has written today to the Foreign Secretary asking for clarity on a whole series of measures and on when that information will be made available to the House. When will we have that meaningful vote that the Speaker rightly called for and that Members across the House have called for today? It is crucial that we have that vote so that the House can have its say.
In conclusion, let us be clear that this is a double whammy. Our aid would have gone down anyway because it is a percentage, so, as the economy shrank, the amount we were giving would have been reduced. But the Government have doubled down on that; they want to go even further and do even more damage. This is morally wrong, and it is financially illiterate. It is damaging to our soft power reputation while others are on the rise. It is reversing at a critical time for the world, and it is out of step with the House, with those on the Government’s own side and with the public, according to the most recent polls. Britain is and can be so much better than this. This is one of the things that could unite us in this House and unite us as a country at a time when critical threats and challenges are facing the world and facing all human beings, whether they are British or from other countries. I urge the Government to think again on these cuts.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
This has been a passionate and informed debate with more than 38 Members speaking. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for introducing the debate and for her work with the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee to attach all the right documents. I know that many Members of the House are passionate about development and passionate about 0.7%—myself included, which Members may find surprising, given the defence that I will go on to make. I think we are all extremely proud of the UK’s leadership historically on development and on everything we have done.
I started my career as a lending banker in the developing world. I have done two tours of duty, if we can call them that, on the DFID Committee, coming back for more. I have served on these issues in a non-integrated FCO across a number of areas, and in an integrated FCO-DFID, where I had an office at one end of Whitehall to do part of the job and another at the other end of Whitehall to do the other part of the job, and spent most of the time wandering between the two or in the House of Commons for votes. Now I have seen the FCDO together, and it is a model I prefer, because I can draw on all the issues and complexity and make the tough decisions. They are incredibly tough and serious decisions that are not taken lightly and take an immense amount of time. A number of colleagues mentioned the time process being too small or too quick. None of the timescales I saw, or the flippancy with which they indicated decisions were taken, reflects the way we took decisions in Whitehall, let alone in-country and thematically.
The UK, looking back, has met the target of 0.7% of GNI on ODA every year since 2013, so it is with great caution that we fall short of that target now, but no other country can match that record. I am proud of that. I know there has been some debate over whether 0.7% or 0.5% is right, what is ODA-able or what is DAC-able, but the Government are committed to getting back to 0.7%. There has been debate over how many times one can have hypothecated expenditure or a percentage limit. The default, clearly, should be not to run everything on a percentage basis, but we have made a commitment that helps to encourage our compatriots around the world to get to that point. We should be proud of the fact that in the G7, comparing GNI, we are in the top three. We are doing much better than our American colleagues, by way of example.
Right at the outset, before I get into the meat of my speech, I would like to talk about when more information is on the way. There has been some criticism of the Government for not giving more information, although recognition that it is good that we are now debating estimates on estimates day. The annual report for the integrated Department will come out in September. That will have all the financial information up to the end of March. In addition, it will give a forward look to 2021-22. I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Rotherham felt that we had not given her all the information in her Committee. I am more than happy to come to the Committee again. I know the Foreign Secretary and a number of other Ministers have been at the Committee.
Sarah Champion
It is always a delight to have the Minister at the Committee, but what we are actually looking for is the hard data. We want a proper breakdown of where the money is being spent: the countries, the projects, the priorities. Can he give me assurances that the document coming out in September will have that very granular detail? We are all charged to scrutinise it, but we are unable to do that with the data that is being given.
James Duddridge
I will look over that document carefully. Clearly, I am not writing it myself. I always find the annual report to be very fulsome and would intend that it is fulsome, if not more fulsome, given the transition of the two Departments. I am very open to that.
We should also remember the numbers. A couple of Members referred to £4.5 billion as a rounding error. I understand the point they are making in relation to the deficit of £300 billion that we are running. It is a smaller number, but it is a massively significant number.
There have been a number of comments on polling. We are not led by polling. I was unaware of some of the polling that Members have talked about. Governments should not be led by polling, but I am conscious that as Members of Parliament we should be in touch with our constituents. A number of Members have said unpopular things on both sides of the argument, although surprisingly one said we should not be populist. I thought that was rather electorally successful, but people on both sides of the argument described their points of view as being populist. We are ahead of the US, Japan, Canada and Italy, so we should hold our head high, although I appreciate that most speakers in the House want us to do even more.
As Minister for Africa, I am glad to say we will be spending over half our bilateral aid budget in the African continent, focusing on key issues. Rather than going to just Africa, I thought it would be useful to explain the process the Foreign Secretary and his Ministers took. The Foreign Secretary outlined seven priorities to the House on 26 November. Underlying all of them—or overarching them—is the aim of reducing poverty. First, there is a focus on climate and biodiversity, particularly because of COP26. There was a focus on a flagship target of £11.6 billion of international aid on international climate finance. Our second priority is global health security, for obvious reasons, given the pandemic. A lot of our programmes have been repurposed towards covid, although we focus on a number of other areas, preventable deaths of mothers, newborn babies and children—
James Duddridge
I will, but I am not going to be very generous in giving way, because I am conscious of the time.
Patrick Grady
I understand that. The Minister was bringing us back to the point I made in my speech about the Government’s expenditure on covid-related activities. The Prime Minister has said that some of the vaccine donations and so on are additional to current aid flows. If the Minister cannot answer at the Dispatch Box now, I would appreciate a detailed response on exactly how money or in-kind support that is being provided to tackle covid in developing countries is to be accounted for. Will it be counted as ODA towards the target or not?
James Duddridge
The early announcements were part of existing ODA—they are repurposing. The 100 million doses are classified as ODA and will be in addition to the £10 billion ODA point that we had. So the most recent money is additionality, although my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made the strong point that there are a lot of areas that we do not count, partly because of the rules.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) talked of girls’ education, and we are increasing our pledge to the Global Partnership for Education by 15%, to £430 million, which is our largest pledge ever. Our G7 partners promised £2.7 billion to this cause, and the Prime Minister is hosting the global education summit with Kenyatta here in the UK in July.
Our fourth priority is humanitarian preparedness and response, where we will spend more than £900 million, although my opposite number, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) rightly raises concerns about places such as Ethiopia and working out where we spend the money. Yes, we should get humanitarian access and we need to deliver that access—I made reference to that in an earlier debate in this place —but bringing peace and security to that country is the most critical thing, which helps the fusion with diplomacy.
James Duddridge
I am not going to give way yet, but I will come back to the hon. Gentleman if there is time.
Our fifth priority was science and technology. The sixth one was open societies and conflict resolution, which drives some of these problems. All too often we spend our money on problems that could have been solved early on. The final priority is economic development and growing GDP per capita in the developing world so that they pay tax and get functioning systems as we would have. In that light, we are supporting the continental free trade area, which will drive growth in countries, and we are expanding our diplomatic network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, mentioned Niger, Chad and Djibouti, all of which I will be hoping to visit in the near future, and a number of people mentioned the large number of multilateral bodies we are and will continue to be pre-eminent in.
The British Council is the second leg of this debate. We are strongly committed to the British Council. We have allocated more than £600 million since the pandemic to secure its future, which includes a 27% increase on funding this year. I know hon. Members wanted more, but in the context of an aid cut the British Council has done incredibly well out of the settlement, because of the value people see in it—we have seen that across the board.
Let me address some more specific comments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) talked about the linkages. One thing an integrated Department allows is for us to look at the linkages between modern slavery and girls’ education, which is the example she chose. She criticised us for operating in silos, but, again, bringing together the Departments has helped. A number of Members expressed concerns about a loss of expertise; actually, changes to the total operating costs ratio—a bit of a technicality—mean that we can do more in-house, which should help.
An hon. Member asked about our staff in Abercrombie House; we will be increasing the number of staff in Abercrombie House and in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling criticised us for making admirals ambassadors and honourable consuls captains. I get his point, but we are not merging with the Ministry of Defence. I could talk about some of the best people in my team—for example, the director general, Africa was an economist, focused on aid, was an ambassador and is now back here doing a cross-Whitehall job. I could go on with many examples of people across Whitehall.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) asked us to support the special drawing rights. I have spoken to the right hon. Gentleman about the matter and I have said openly that we are lobbying for that at World Bank-IMF meetings. We support the recycling of SDRs to the developing world. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned IDA replenishment, which we support and are working on.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who is no longer in her place, mentioned funding for a specific project and felt there would be adverse effects if it was cancelled because of a new variant. I would very much like more information on that from her.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is an ex-Minister and clearly understands the dynamics of having to make difficult decisions, particularly in respect of balancing aid issues with education and law and order. He asked about the logistics of COVAX; I would love to draw on his resource, but we are also working with Africa CDC.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) offered an equally passionate but slightly different view from that expressed by the hon. Member for Rotherham, but it was good to see them both get praise.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) made a very thoughtful speech that challenged everyone.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) made very good points. Given his penchant for publicity and flair, I have no doubt that he will be on the front page of the Southend Echo tomorrow, not me.
The least said about the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) the better, really; certain things should stay in private.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) made a deeply thoughtful speech that he said was from the defence perspective but actually ranged much more widely beyond that.
I heard an impressive speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), whom I have not heard speak before. He went from 10 minutes to eight minutes to three minutes and back to eight minutes.
I heard my first speech from an Alba Member of Parliament. I noted down initially that the speech from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) was kind, thoughtful and well informed; by the end I put “ranting”. But it was all the better for it and when in future I see his name on the annunciator, I am going to rush into the Chamber.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Let us have the final word from Sarah Champion.
Sarah Champion
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is always wonderful to have the last word.
I thank everybody for their passionate contributions to this debate. This is truly a cross-party issue and I hope the Government are listening very clearly to the loud plea that we are making.
This debate is not actually about 0.7%; it is about how we see ourselves and how we present Britain to the world. I am proud that we have a strong history of development in this country and it pains me that, piece by piece, that is crumbling away with the decisions the Government are making. It is not the Government who are facing the repercussions—although one could look at the results of recent by-elections—but the very poorest in the world. We should not be doing this.
We need to provide clarity. We need clarity for the NGOs that have received FCDO funding in the past. Contrary to what the Minister said, they are being told by webinars and by junior Ministers, and they are being given a week to wrap up their projects. Many of the examples are on the public record, so I am more than happy to share them with the Minister, because it is shocking.
This House needs clarity on what the Government’s priorities really are, because we understand the seven priorities but unfortunately the Government keep going against them. As many Members have argued passionately, we need the Government to understand that defence, diplomacy, development and trade are all interlinked, and that weakening development weakens all those things.
I end by saying that there are threats to this country, unfortunately, but a threat such as terrorism is resolved not by bullets but by full tummies and economic potential. That is what concerns me: by weakening development we are weakening this country’s security.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
As a former member of the International Development Committee, may I say that it was some of the most valuable work that I have done over my 29 years as a Member of Parliament? I have really enjoyed the debate this evening.
We will have the Dispatch Boxes cleaned during the Adjournment debate to save a bit of time. I know the Minister will not touch the Dispatch Box until then.
Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).
Business without Debate
Outer London driving charges
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I am grateful to be able to present a petition on behalf of my constituents at Stonehill Woods Park, a park home site in my constituency of Dartford, who will be profoundly impacted on should the London congestion charge move to Outer London.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that consideration should be given to stopping the Mayor of London imposing charges for driving in Outer London; notes that if the Mayor of London imposes these charges, residents of the constituency of Dartford will be forced to pay a £3.50 fee each time they drive in Outer London.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider stopping the Mayor of London from imposing charges on driving in Outer London.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002670]
Financial Conduct Authority and Blackmore Bond plc
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
This is when the Dispatch Box on the Government side will be sanitised. I ask the Minister not to touch it until it has been sanitised.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Before we adjourn, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the collapse last year of Blackmore Bond plc and in particular to look at what the Financial Conduct Authority did, what it could have done, and what it failed to do to prevent this.
Blackmore Bond plc was incorporated in July 2016, went into administration in May 2020, and has since gone into liquidation. Between October 2016 and November 2018, it raised £46 million in loans, known as mini-bonds, almost all of it from small-scale individual investors. They were repeatedly told that their investment was guaranteed to be paid back on time with regular interest payments. By the time the joint administrators had disentangled the company’s financial affairs, it was obvious that none of that £46 million was left to repay the bond holders. Their “guaranteed” investment of £46 million had been reduced to nothing.
Obviously, primary responsibility for that must lie with the company’s directors, Phillip Nunn and Patrick McCreesh, who were also the joint owners not only of Blackmore Bond but of about two dozen related companies. I will disclose some information later that may help Members to understand just how culpable I believe those two are. However, whether their conduct is found, in due course, to be criminal, civilly unlawful or just downright despicable, the scandal yet again raises serious questions about the regulatory framework that allowed Nunn and McCreesh to persuade people to put money they could not afford to lose into high-risk investments where losing everything was always a possibility.
In fact, an experienced investment adviser, looking at the promotional material the company sent out, could only conclude that losing everything was not only a possibility but almost inevitable. That is probably why the directors of Blackmore Bond did not approach investment houses or experienced investors; they deliberately targeted people they thought would be an easy touch.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the regulatory framework, and I am sure that he will go on to say whether he feels there were also shortcomings from the regulator itself in this case. The FCA’s attention was drawn to the boiler-room tactics of Blackmore Bond and the fact that it was pretty much a Ponzi scheme back in March 2017, yet three years later the company was still operating. It is simply unacceptable that the FCA should have taken that approach and not been more proactive.
Peter Grant
For the second time in a few days, the hon. Gentleman has managed to read my notes a couple of paragraphs ahead of me. I am going to come on to that.
My concerns cover not just the Financial Conduct Authority but other regulators, such as Companies House, the Insolvency Service, the Financial Reporting Council and the professional bodies that regulate the audit of limited companies. Of those, only the FCA falls directly under the remit of the Treasury, so that is what I will focus on tonight, but I will continue to apply for debates so that the part played by other regulators can be examined.
Peter Grant
I think the sky would fall down if I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
I am sure the sky will not fall down, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s giving way.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that financial devastations such as the Blackmore Bond scandal have the potential to be avoided if there is proper scrutiny by regulatory authorities, which the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) referred to? Does he also acknowledge that, often, that work starts with us in this House making legislative change?
Peter Grant
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. Ultimately, the regulator is us. If we highlight deficiencies in the system, we must try to get them put right. That is partly why I was so keen to secure this debate.
As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned, in March 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority received information from a very reliable, experienced financial services professional that a company called Amyma Ltd was using high-pressure sales techniques to target individuals to persuade them to invest in Blackmore Bond. The source, a Mr Paul Carlier, described in detail what he had seen and heard, and explained exactly why he was convinced that it was illegal. He made a point of sending his concerns directly to the then chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, among others. As a mark of gratitude, the FCA wrote back and said that it was aware of the situation and it was being passed on to the appropriate department.
It was the end of 2019 before there was any obvious sign that the FCA had done anything. To be fair to it, when it acted, it did not hold back. It banned outright the sale of mini-bonds to the kinds of investors whom Blackmore Bond had been deliberately targeting. If the FCA had done that earlier, it could have prevented up to £26 million of the losses eventually suffered by Blackmore’s victims.
The FCA has said that the sale of these kinds of investments was an unregulated activity, that Blackmore Bond plc was not registered or approved by the FCA for any regulated activity, and therefore that the whole thing was beyond its scope. That is just not good enough. What the FCA is effectively saying is that it had the legal power to ban the sale of these mini-bonds absolutely but could do nothing to stop one rogue company selling them to one particularly targeted group of vulnerable investors. I simply do not buy that.
While the sale of these high-risk bonds to investors who wanted low-risk investments was allowed to carry on in an unregulated free-for-all, the promotion of those same bonds is a regulated activity. The FCA’s website says that all adverts and promotions for financial services or products
“must be fair, clear and not misleading”.
Blackmore Bond’s promotional materials failed all those tests—something I will return to soon. Again, it took the FCA far too long to do anything, and when it did something, it did not do enough.
The FCA will claim that at some point during 2019, it was able to get Amyma’s website taken down. It seemed less keen to be reminded that in August 2019 Paul Carlier had to tell the FCA that the website was back up again. It may be just coincidental that a few weeks after Blackmore Bond went into administration, the director and sole shareholder of Amyma placed that company into voluntary liquidation, having first reduced the company’s assets from £316,000 to nil in the space of 18 months, meaning that the creditors of Amyma, including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, would not see a penny of the £188,000 they were owed. It appears that Blackmore Bond really can pick its professional and business advisers very carefully.
Coming back to the promotional materials, though, under section 21 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, any financial promotion must either be issued by an FCA-authorised company or have its contents approved by such a company. There are exemptions, but I have no indication whatever that any of those exemptions comes close to applying to Blackmore Bond. So if Blackmore Bond issued financial promotions that had not been approved by an FCA-registered firm, that was an offence under the Financial Services and Markets Act and the FCA should have been dealing with it.
The company issued its mini-bonds in six ways. For each one it issued an “information memorandum”, which appears, as far as I can tell, to have been approved by an FCA-registered firm. But that was not the only marketing it did. My constituent, who has probably lost £40,000, provided me with a copy of a separate document that he received. It is dated 3 October 2016—the same date as the information memorandum for the first series of mini-bonds. The FCA has confirmed to me that it meets its definition of a financial promotion. It was therefore an offence that it was circulated without being approved by an authorised firm, and there is nothing in this document to suggest that it was ever approved by an authorised firm. The FCA is not convinced about that. Its view is that it “cannot categorically say” whether the document was or was not lawful when it was circulated. But if that is the case, surely, knowing what it knows now about the operation of Blackmore Bond, if it “cannot categorically say” that it was not a criminal offence to send it out to potential investors, it should be investigating it.
Then we come on to the requirement for this and any other financial promotion to be fair, clear and not misleading. I am aware of the time, so I can only give a few examples of statements in the document that are either blatantly false or extremely misleading. On page 5 it tells bondholders that their money will be backed by “100% asset-backed security”. Not true; it was never the intention that the bondholders would even be guaranteed first call on all the assets, never mind that there was never a time, after the first series of bonds was issued, when Blackmore Bond plc ever held enough assets to repay the value of the bonds it had sold.
On page 4 it says:
“Blackmore Bond is part of The Blackmore Group”—
that bit is correct—
“a multi-channel investment group with a proven track record.”
The Blackmore Group was only incorporated in February 2016; it cannot possibly have had a proven track record by October 2016. It certainly could not have realised the £22 million in profits and property development that is claimed in the same document.
On page 4 we are told that
“The Blackmore Group”
has
“assets under management of £25 million”.
So how come The Blackmore Group’s accounts for 2016, signed by the directors, tell us that the total value of their assets was £390,000, and that after allowing for creditors and other liabilities, the total value of the Blackmore Group at 2016 was £2,281? How can that have created assets under management of £25 million?
Finally, on page 18, the directors promised:
“There are no fees or charges”—
completely untrue. Page 24 of the information memorandum devotes over half a page to explaining why the company will have to pay fees. They say that they will pay fees essentially for the marketing of bonds and for investor relations, and that those fees will not exceed 20% of total bond value. They then entered into an agreement with Surge Financial Services Ltd—a company well known to those who have an interest in financial misdealings—that they would pay it exactly 20% of the total bond value.
What the directors forgot to mention in any promotional literature was that they were also going to pay themselves a management fee. During 2017, the directors of Blackmore Bond plc chose to pay £1.4 million of management fees to the Blackmore Group Ltd, of which they again were the sole shareholders, the sole directors and the sole beneficiaries. Why did they choose to conceal that information from this document, and from the information memorandum that was sent out to persuade people to buy their bonds? Effectively, the directors were making sure that their cut was cleaned out of Blackmore Bond plc’s accounts as soon as—sometimes before—it hit the bank account, so that whatever happened to that company, their money would be saved and the poor investors would be left with nothing.
Blackmore Group does not of course have to publish a profit and loss account, and even the very sketchy financial statements it does publish are not audited, so it is anyone’s guess what Mr McCreesh and Mr Nunn did with that £1.4 million, and that, as I say, was only up to December 2017.
During my investigations into this affair, I received a copy of a chain of emails between one bondholder and Patrick McCreesh, who, as I say, with Phillip Nunn, owns and runs the entire operation. The bondholder is not a constituent of mine. He was happy for me to quote at length from his emails. He is happy for me to give his full name, but I have chosen not to identify him entirely, but his name is John—and it genuinely is John.
John’s investment was with another Blackmore company, Blackmore Estates Ltd. The bond was due to be repaid in January 2020, but by March 2019 John had got worried, because he had not heard anything from Blackmore Estates for a while, and he wanted to know what had happened to his money. Patrick McCreesh advised him that Blackmore Estates was now part of Blackmore Bond plc, and set out to persuade him not to claim back the investment he was legally entitled to in January 2020, but to reinvest it in Blackmore Bond plc.
There were numerous email exchanges, but by 16 August John was really getting worried because his online account with Blackmore did not seem to show anything. There was no indication whether he had any money left at all. He then wrote:
“Patrick, I have entrusted you with my military retirement fund, my only savings. Unlike others I cannot afford to live without this money. You have had my investment since 2015 and I am yet to receive a single penny back. If things are going downhill why would you call me personally and persuade me to re-invest only a few months ago?”
That referred to a telephone conversation they had in about April 2019.
Three times further to that between August 2019 and January 2020 John reminded Patrick McCreesh in the most poignant terms that this was all he had. It was a pension he had got by serving with distinction in Her Majesty’s forces. Patrick McCreesh knew that John could not afford to lose the money, yet he deliberately set out to entice him to leave the money with McCreesh, and not to take back the money he was entitled to, but to put it into a company that by the summer of 2019 Patrick McCreesh and Phillip Nunn knew had no future. They had not published audited accounts for some time, but they had prepared draft accounts that showed that, in the first two years of its existence, one third of the bondholders’ entire money had disappeared. By July 2019, Nunn and McCreesh knew the business was dying. McCreesh still went out and deliberately targeted this poor gentleman to fleece him of what McCreesh knew was all he had.
As I say, I have pages and pages from the email exchanges between John and Patrick McCreesh in relation to, as I said earlier, whether the conduct was criminal, civilly unlawful or simply despicable. I am happy to share the remnants of my speech with anyone who wants to look at it. It makes it perfectly clear of the behaviour certainly of one of those two directors that to describe it as despicable would be excessively charitable to Mr McCreesh, and I have no indication that Mr Nunn would have been any better.
John will not ever get his military pension back, and there are 3,000 other Johns out there. They were all taken in by two individuals with a track record of dodgy financial dealing, but who are still free to go and set themselves up as directors of a different company and start all over again. That will not be by selling or mis-selling mini-bonds to people like John, because that is now illegal, but they will find another way. Until the Financial Conduct Authority and other regulators scare them out of the way, there will be another generation of Johns, and in 50 years from now or 100 years from now, our successors will be in the successor to this Parliament bemoaning the fact that billions of pounds have been taken out of the pockets of hard-working people and used to fund a luxury lifestyle for charlatans, crooks and conmen.
The Financial Conduct Authority was not the most culpable party in this. Nunn and McCreesh were, and they have to be called to account somehow. The Financial Conduct Authority was not the only regulator that failed because it did not have the powers, failed because it did not use the powers or possibly failed because it did not have the resources to deal with the amount of financial misdealing that is going on just now. But one way or another, for the sake of the next generation of Johns, the Financial Conduct Authority and the other regulators have to get their act together, and they have to do it quickly.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for their contributions. I extend my sympathies to the Blackmore Bond investors. The hon. Member for Glenrothes set out the distress that has been caused to those many individuals, some of whom are his constituents. I am painfully aware of their very challenging situation through my own conversations and correspondence, and this evening we have heard more of those troubling accounts. Given these difficult circumstances, it is only right that I explain the reasoning behind the Government’s course of action and some of the decisions that we have made so far. I will also touch on the conduct of the FCA, the independent regulator.
Let me first remind the House of the background to this situation. As Members will be aware, Blackmore Bond was an unregulated firm established in 2016. Between 2016 and 2018, it issued non-transferable debt securities, otherwise known as mini-bonds, to retail investors. It raised £46 million, involving approximately 2,800 UK investors, to be used in property development projects. Blackmore stopped making coupon payments in 2019 and administrators were appointed on 22 April last year.
The orientation of most of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks was about the failures of the FCA, but I want to try to address some of his other specific points. He asked about the way that Blackmore hid behind other regulated firms such as Amyma. It is true that although several other firms were involved in the distribution of Blackmore bonds, some of which were authorised by the FCA, the Blackmore bond itself was not regulated. Amyma was not directly authorised by the FCA. It was an appointed representative of another authorised firm, Equity For Growth (Securities) Ltd, between July 2018 and September 2019, when its status was terminated. The FCA intervened to take down Amyma’s website following further investigation. Similarly, as a result of steps taken by the FCA, Northern Provident Investments, an FCA-authorised firm, withdrew its approval of Blackmore’s promotional materials, meaning that its bonds could no longer be marketed. This is clearly a very complex area, but ultimately the FCA cannot be said to have the same set of responsibilities towards unauthorised firms engaged in unregulated activities.
Peter Grant
The Minister gave the same dates on Amyma as me—between 2018 and 2019. Did it not strike him, as it struck me, that Amyma was an appointed representative of another company, but the concerns about it arose in 2017, before it appeared to be an appointed representative of anybody? Does he not agree that there is something to be looked at there and that the Financial Conduct Authority should be asking questions about it?
John Glen
I have set out the record as the FCA has presented it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to continue correspondence with the FCA on some of those unresolved matters. However, I do make the distinction between the different responsibilities that the FCA has with regard to the different actors in this case.
It is only right that we do our utmost to minimise the chance of episodes like Blackmore Bond taking place in future, so I want to turn to the regulation of mini-bonds and the steps we are taking to safeguard consumers, which was a key focus of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. I want to be clear to the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that the financial services sector is well regulated and consumers are adequately protected. That is why in April we launched a consultation that includes proposals to bring the issuance of mini-bonds into regulation. This follows the action taken by the FCA to ban the promotion of high-risk mini-bonds. This work is the culmination of a review into the regulation of mini-bonds that I announced in May 2019, and it delivers on one of the recommendations of Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s recent report. The consultation closes next month, in July, after which the Government hope to bring forward plans to legislate in the autumn.
The hon. Member for Glenrothes also referred to the financial promotions regime, and I think that underlying that was a concern about what the Government are doing to improve the efficacy of the regime. We continue to keep the legislative framework underpinning the regulation of financial promotions under review, including whether it is suitable for the digital age. The Government have set out our intention to bring forward legislation to create a regulatory gateway for authorised firms approving the promotion of unauthorised firms. That change is designed to strengthen the regime by ensuring that the firms able to approve financial promotions are limited to those with the relevant expertise to do so. The FCA will be able to better identify when a financial promotion has breached the restriction and take action accordingly.
Kevin Hollinrake
The Minister is doing a lot to close down opportunities for these scams, but there is a further way that we could take this forward, which we have discussed. Google has today said that it will ensure that all firms advertising on its platform are regulated firms. We could require that of all platforms and all firms that provide an internet channel, for example through the online harms Bill, so that all internet advertising in this area is regulated.
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He speaks with some authority on these matters. There is a process that will continue, as he knows, through the scrutiny of that legislative vehicle. We do need to make sure that, overall, including through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport’s online advertising review, we come out at the right place in dealing with these significant challenges for consumers.
As well as introducing new legislation to protect savers, it is right that our regulator also closely examines its own operations, to ensure that it can protect consumers as effectively as possible. As a result, the Government welcome the FCA’s ongoing transformation programme, which is introducing reforms that will fundamentally change the way it works. The programme will help the regulator become more efficient and effective by, among other things, enhancing its use of technology in order to make interventions earlier, which clearly is desirable.
It is heartening to see that significant steps have already been taken. Those include important structural changes within the organisation, as well as the appointment of the FCA’s first chief data information and intelligence officer. I particularly welcome this focus on improving the FCA’s use of data and analytics, which will improve the efficiency and speed with which the regulator can act.
These are serious matters, and we have spoken about the number of our constituents who have been adversely affected. I regularly meet the FCA’s chief executive, Nikhil Rathi, to discuss the transformation programme and monitor progress. There can be no complacency. This is a complex area where financial services are evolving all the time, as are fraudulent activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned the innovation announced today by Google, which is a welcome step, but we will need to look at these matters and at the experience through different cases, such as the Blackmore Bond, in order to get this right.
I close by reiterating my deep sympathies to all those who have suffered as a result of the Blackmore scheme. As a Government, we recognise that financial services are constantly evolving and the regulatory system must, therefore, be ready to respond. As I have highlighted this evening, we are committed to a process of continuous improvement in all dimensions to ensure our regulations benefit both UK consumers and the wider economy.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Speaker started the day with some wonderful warm words in tribute to Ian Davis on his retirement after long and dedicated service here in Parliament. On behalf of the Chairman of Ways and Means, the First Deputy Chairman and myself, I wish Ian well on his well-deserved retirement and thank him. Because of the skill he demonstrated on a daily basis in Parliament, he made the work we do from this Chair so much easier. We wish you well, Ian. Thank you for everything you have done.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Compensation for Enforcement Action) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I remind colleagues to remain socially distanced and to wear their masks unless they are speaking. Any speaking notes from the debate should be sent to Hansard via email.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Compensation for Enforcement Action) Regulations 2021.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, for the first time.
The regulations were laid in draft before the House on 17 May. Before I detail the specifics of the regulations, I will briefly set the scene for the Committee. With under 13 months to go until the Commonwealth games, preparations are ramping up for the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games. They will be the biggest sporting and cultural event ever staged in the west midlands. Despite the significant delivery challenges they have faced, the games remain very much on track and on budget.
Home to more than 187 nationalities, Birmingham 2022 will be a home games for every nation. I am delighted that west midlands residents will have the first opportunity to apply for tickets through a west midlands ballot in July, before a main ballot in September. Hosting the games will bring a wealth of opportunities for people across the west midlands and the UK including through cultural engagement, business, trade, volunteering, physical activity, jobs, education and tourism. The games offer a massive opportunity for the region, and will play a key part in supporting its economic recovery.
Volunteers are also the backbone of any great games, and the Commonwealth collective will be no different. As the faces of Birmingham 2022, the collective will represent the very best of the region, the country and the modern Commonwealth. Birmingham 2022 will also be recruiting hundreds of 15 to 17-year-olds through a separate process in the near future, which will be a huge experience for those young people, broadening their horizons and giving them important life skills. The Commonwealth games are a huge opportunity for the city and the people of Birmingham.
Measures in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act, which gained Royal Assent in June 2020, include those that restrict the resale of the games tickets and prevent unauthorised advertising and trading in and around specific games locations. They also include those that ensure that tickets to the games remain accessible and affordable, that the rights of commercial sponsors are protected, and that spectators can easily and safely move to and from the games locations. To ensure swift action against breaches, the Act provides a suite of enforcement powers that build on those available under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. For example, the 2020 Act provides powers to seize and detain infringing goods or documents.
Enforcement activity can be undertaken by a trading standards authority in England or, for the ticketing offence only, a trading standards authority in Wales or Scotland, or the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. As the Minister for the Commonwealth games, I want everyone to get behind them, and the measures in the 2020 Act aim to strike a balance that ensures that people in the west midlands can support, celebrate and benefit from the games, while offering commercial sponsors the assurances they need and ensuring the economic benefits of the games are fully realised.
For that reason, the measures in the Act are intended to be a strong deterrent against anyone seeking to ambush the games or to sell tickets at inflated prices. As with previous games, we expect formal enforcement action to be taken only as a last resort. To that end, we are working closely with the organising committee and enforcement authorities to ensure that there is a consistent, co-ordinated and proportionate approach to enforcement. None the less, as a safeguard in the enforcement framework, the 2020 Act provides a person with a right to compensation in the event of property damage arising from unlawful enforcement or the use of unreasonable force in enforcement action. The draft regulations before the Committee set out the administrative process by which a claim for compensation can be made, considered and appealed. That ensures the process is clear, consistent and proportionate both for potential claimants and for the enforcement authorities involved.
On the detail of the regulations, where someone believes that they have experienced damage to their property as a result of enforcement action being unlawful or unreasonable, they will be able to submit a claim to the local trading standards authority where the damage occurred, or to the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. They are known as the “relevant authority” in the regulations. Claimants should submit a claim, in writing with the necessary information, within 90 days of the end of the games, and that should include the date on which and location where the enforcement action took place, the nature of any damage and any supporting evidence. Within 14 days of a claim being received, the relevant authority should determine whether it has sufficient information and evidence to make a decision on the claim. If so, the authority will have 28 days to decide whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and the amount due, and to communicate that outcome alongside information about how to seek a review.
The 2020 Act provides that a person is entitled to compensation for the cost of repairing the property damaged during the enforcement action or, if it is not possible to repair it, for the cost of replacing it, and the amount of any other loss that was the direct result of damage to the property. If a claimant is unhappy with the relevant authority’s decision, such as the amount of compensation offered, they will have 14 days to request a review of the decision. The relevant authority will then have a further 14 days to consider that request and to provide a response. If the claimant remains unsatisfied with the outcome of the review, they will be able to submit an appeal within 21 days to the county court, or to the sheriff in the case of Scotland.
I would like to reassure members of the Committee that we continue to work closely with the organising committee of the games and enforcement authorities to develop a co-ordinated and proportionate approach to enforcement. We know that supporting businesses need to understand what they can and cannot do, and that will be key to reducing the need for formal enforcement. We are already working closely with the games partners and local authorities to identify those who could be affected. The organising committee will develop resources to support traders and businesses in understanding the measures, including publishing guidance on the operation of the advertising and trading restrictions. The organising committee will also be working with venue local authorities to develop brand protection training for enforcement officers.
In the context of the regulations before us, it is important to recognise that local authorities routinely exercise enforcement powers proportionately and reasonably, in accordance with the law and established policies and procedures. Moreover, because the restrictions on advertising and trading can be in place for a maximum of 38 days only, I expect any compensation claims arising from enforcement to be minimal. Indeed, I am not aware of any arising from similar regulations that supported the 2012 London Olympic games and Paralympic games, or the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth games.
In summary, the regulations set out the process that will govern any compensation claim that is made under the provisions specified in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act, including the right to appeal any decisions made by an enforcement authority. They are a small but nevertheless important part of the ongoing preparations to deliver a fantastic Birmingham games next year, and I commend them to the Committee.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and not for the first time, I am pleased to say.
I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the regulations. There is an honourable tradition of the role of the substitute in British life, and with due respect nodded to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, there can be no greater example right now than that of Jack Grealish, who came on and gave a fantastic performance in that wonderful match last night at Wembley, when England progressed against one of our oldest rivals. Jack of course is a Brummie. I make that point about substitutes just to remind the Committee that I am a substitute today for my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), and I hope that I will do her justice.
The Opposition welcome the regulations, particularly their focus on ticket-touting—an issue that the Government are beginning to take seriously. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my friend the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) who have conducted a very active campaign from the Back Benches against some ticket resale sites and ticket-touting sites. I know that the Minister has looked at the issue in the past, with particular reference to the industrial scale of touting, and I also understand that the Competition and Markets Authority is also looking at the practice. We welcome the regulations before us that aim to tackle the problem. I particularly like the idea of local resident ballots for tickets first, to make the Birmingham games a real people’s games.
If I may sound one discordant note, a lot of the enforcement regulations are predicated on the role of the local trading standards authority. I remind the Committee that Birmingham has suffered the biggest cut to any local government authority in history at £700 million, which has been removed by the Government. Its local services are under extreme stress, and I hope that Birmingham has the resources to deal with the responsibilities placed on it by the regulations.
The Commonwealth games in Birmingham will be an exciting opportunity to showcase some of the best sport in the world. After a difficult 18 months, we have recently witnessed the true power of sport. With the Euros and Wimbledon under way, there is a real sense of togetherness. With so many exciting matches and games on at the same time, I often do not know which one to choose but that is a good problem to have.
I have every confidence that Birmingham will be an excellent host city for the 71 teams from around the world that will take part in 24 disciplines across 19 different sports. I am sure that the Commonwealth games will do what sport does best—bring people together, and we need that right now.
The games will have a lot to be proud of and will be the games of many firsts. They will be the first carbon-neutral games and the first ever major multi-sport event to award more medals to women than to men, with women’s cricket being included for the first time. As the Minister said, the games will also have the first comprehensive and most ambitious community engagement programme of any Commonwealth games. I welcome that.
Sport is for everyone and should be accessible to everyone, no matter their upbringing or background. The Commonwealth games is a brilliant opportunity to promote sport participation, especially among those on lower incomes and other groups whom we know are less likely to be active. Birmingham 2022 will be the biggest multi-sport event to be held in the UK for a decade and will present the opportunity to inspire people from all walks of life. Everyone should have the opportunity to play sports and to watch elite athletes such as those taking part in the games. Every effort must be made to ensure that the games are accessible to everyone, so the Opposition welcome the aim of the statutory instrument to ensure that tickets are not resold for excruciating amounts. As we know, that is not the case with all sporting events, and currently we are seeing some eye-watering prices from UEFA for the Euros. What steps are the Government taking to work with all governing bodies to prevent future expensive ticket sales? Perhaps the legacy of the SI could be tougher enforcement across the patch.
I am pleased that the Birmingham games are taking important steps to truly make them a games for everyone, with tickets starting from just under £8 for under-16s and from £15 for adults. The Minister referred to the fair ballot that will be held to ensure that everyone has an equal chance to apply for tickets, and we welcome that.
Inclusion and accessibility are key, so will the Government publish an inclusion analysis of who was able to buy tickets for the Birmingham games? That way we will learn whether they came from different parts of the country; whether disabled fans got good access; how many women spectators attended, what were their ethnicities and so on.
The games will bring a wealth of tourism, jobs and opportunity to the west midlands and to the wider UK. Most importantly, the games will bring 11 days of world-class sport and a celebration of culture and unity, and of the best in Britain. Let us celebrate the sporting talent in this country and ensure that the games inspire a new generation of athletes by making them as accessible as possible. We welcome the regulations and thank the Minister.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, and I am very impressed that he managed to get in his congratulations on England’s success before me. I am sure that we are looking forward to the next games. I appreciate the co-operative tone that he and his colleagues have adopted towards the Commonwealth games. They are a games for everyone and that goes for politicians as well. I have been very pleased to work with hon. Members of many different parties on the games locally in Birmingham and across the country.
As the hon. Gentleman said, sport is a great opportunity to bring people together. Now that large-scale sporting events are finally coming back that creates many opportunities but, as he alluded to, that also creates some challenges, particularly in relation to ticket sales. The regulations will help to resolve some of the challenges and dangers of ticket-touting, but broader issues still need to be addressed. In that context, the hon. Gentleman was correct to praise the work of the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West and my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty. We had the pleasure of working with them on the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, when we considered the broader issue of ticket-touting. I think that progress has been made, and regulations and consumer rights in particular are now being enforced by the CMA in a manner that was perhaps lacking a few years ago. We are seeing progress but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to keep a very close eye on the issue because we have seen how some touts act in an incredibly unprofessional and exploitative manner. Some of the sites also lack professionalism. We will keep a close eye on such behaviour, particularly as more tickets will come on sale, which means that the problems and risks of secondary ticketing could return. I praise the CMA for taking enforcement action that was perhaps lacking a few years ago. We are in a better situation than we were but let us not take it for granted.
The hon. Gentleman asked about resources. On the Commonwealth games, we are working very closely with the West Midlands Combined Authority, Birmingham City Council and others. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has a very positive relationship with the organising committee. Birmingham City Council has said that its funding for the games should not have an impact on day-to-day services and should not come from council tax. We are also confident that we have the resources available for enforcement and what we expect of the various stakeholders, but I take note of the hon. Gentleman’s comments on the ongoing funding challenges.
The Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act criminalised the unauthorised sale of games tickets, and the organising committee is working closely with Birmingham 2022, the official ticket provider, to ensure that there are appropriate protections in place for the games. The organising committee is also working closely with enforcement authorities, including trading standards and the police intellectual property crime unit, to ensure that clear processes are in place to identify and to act against unauthorised sales of games tickets. The issue is getting due attention, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out and requested.
The regulations are important because they represent a procedural milestone in the preparations for delivery of the Commonwealth games next year. If hon. Members have further questions about the good progress being made to deliver the games next year, officials in my Department would be very happy to listen and to discuss the matter.
I recommend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Scotland Act 2016 (Social Security) (Consequential provision) (Miscellaneous amendment) regulations 2021
(2 years, 9 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 in the places that are clearly marked as available. I would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that face coverings should be worn in Committee unless Members are exempt or are speaking. Hansard colleagues would be most grateful if Members could send their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Scotland Act 2016 (Social Security) (Consequential Provision) (Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2021.
The regulations will make some necessary legislative changes to prevent overlapping entitlements of the soon to be introduced Scottish child disability payment with UK disability benefits. They will also permit the Department for Work and Pensions to accept the Scottish Government’s appointee arrangements for UK Government benefit purposes, thereby reducing the administrative burden for claimants and appointees in dealing with both Governments.
As many hon. Members will know, the UK Government are committed to making devolution work and to ensure the safe and secure transition of powers to the Scottish Government under the Scotland Act 2016. As a result of the devolution of social security powers to the Scottish Parliament under the Act, the DWP will need to update its legislation from time to time to reflect the introduction of the Scottish Government’s replacement benefits. Section 71 of the 2016 Act allows for the necessary legislative amendments, in this case as result of benefits introduced under the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018.
The regulations are technical in nature. They will prevent payment of the Scottish child disability payment overlapping with UK disability benefits such as the disability living allowance for children, the personal independence payment and the armed forces independence payment. They also include some time-limited provisions for Northern Ireland. In addition, the regulations enable the DWP to accept appointees aged 18 or over if they have already been granted appointee status by the Scottish Government. That is a positive change for claimants and staff.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 established the legislative framework for the Scottish Government to introduce new forms of assistance using the social security powers devolved under section 22 of the Scotland Act 2016. Specifically, section 31 of the 2018 Act allows the Scottish Government to introduce legislation to provide financial support through their disability assistance for people in Scotland with long-term additional health needs.
The Scottish Government have legislated for disability assistance for children and young people, which will be introduced from July 2021. They are calling the assistance child disability payment and I will refer to it as CDP from now on. I understand that CDP will have residency conditions attached, and primarily will only be paid to claimants who live in Scotland. However, as part of their offer, the Scottish Government will continue to pay CDP for a period of 13 weeks after a claimant has left Scotland and moved to another part of the UK. That will allow claimants to sort out new benefit arrangements should they wish to.
If the regulations are passed today, they will ensure that there are clear boundaries between entitlement to CDP and UK Government benefits to ensure that there is no overlapping provision. They will do that by making it clear that entitlement to a relevant UK Government benefit will not start until the day after payment of CDP has ended. That will reflect the Scottish CDP legislation, which also prevents overlap with UK Government benefits. That will not only protect the public purse by avoiding double payment but will also help to prevent the need for complicated overpayment calculations and recovery. Furthermore, it is also in the best interest of the claimant, who will have clearer expectations of which Government are responsible for paying their benefits at which point in their claim or award.
The statutory instrument also includes provision on behalf of the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the armed forces independence payment will similarly not overlap with CDP. Provisions have also been included to prevent overlapping entitlement when a claimant moves to Northern Ireland and is in receipt of the 13-week run-on payment from the Scottish Government. Finally, we also recognise that many DWP claimants will also be claimants of the Scottish Government’s devolved provisions. The instrument will make changes to UK Government legislation to allow the DWP to accept that a person over the age of 18 has appointee status, if they have already been granted it by the Scottish Government. That removes unnecessary burdens on the claimant, appointee and the Department through effective and proportional collaboration on information being shared and used by respective Governments.
The UK Government are working collaboratively with the Scottish Government to ensure that the two systems of social security will operate effectively alongside each other, and that the required legislation that underpins them is delivered successfully for the people of Scotland and, where relevant, claimants in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I commend the regulations, which highlight the importance that the UK Government place on the effective functioning of devolution, and ask the Committee’s approval to implement them.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Twigg.
As the Minister rightly outlined, the change in legislation simple removes the potential for any overlap between the disability living allowance and the new Scottish equivalent, CDP. As colleagues may be aware, CDP is due to be piloted in Scotland in Dundee city, Perth and Kinross and the Western Isles for families of children with a disability or long-term health condition. Applications open on 26 July and families in need of financial support should apply to the new Scottish system from that date. It is the first application-based disability benefit to be introduced by the Scottish Government since the transfer of those powers in 2016. The pilot is due to followed by full national roll-out in the autumn. The payments will be managed by Social Security Scotland. CDP will replace the disability living allowance for children, which is currently delivered by the DWP.
The three-area pilot has been designed to provide a further opportunity for feedback and analysis, to ensure that CDP meets the needs of disabled children and their families before its national expansion. Although the Opposition support the payment, my Scottish colleagues and I are concerned that little is being proposed to improve the lives of disabled people. Scottish Labour is of the view that, much like the broader disability allowance, alongside implementation and the transfer of claimants to the new Scottish payment, there should be a review of how the system operates, what eligibility criteria are used and so on. The Scottish Government’s intention, however, is to finish the transfer process first, and then begin a review, which is not likely to take place until at least 2023.
The lower rate of the mobility component should be reviewed and revisions made for children in specific impairment groups, such as those with autism, learning difficulties and/or mental health issues. It is also disappointing to note that there is no deviation from the current benefit rates. A full assessment should be made of what level of financial support people need to ensure that they can lead fulfilling lives.
The Scottish Government should take this opportunity to improve the system rather than just replicating existing arrangements and simply moving the administration to Scotland. However, if the administration of the benefit is seen to be easier and more compassionate as a result of bringing it in-house, I want to know what are the Government’s plans to learn from that?
Labour will not oppose the SI, but we place on record our desire to have a benefits system that meets the needs of disabled people fully and reflects the increased cost of living that many face. It should also treat disabled people with dignity, allow them to have fulfilling lives and enable them to reach their full potential.
Justin Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful contribution and indication of Opposition support for the measure. The broader points raised go beyond the debate, so I will try not to be too tempted, but our forthcoming health and disability Green Paper will consider how we support people through benefits and disability employment. A cross-Government exercise will also address the national disability strategy, which will consider how we all collectively create a more inclusive society and remove barriers. That is for another day.
The Government are committed to the safe and secure transfer of powers to the Scottish Government, and recognise the importance of making timely and necessary changes to our legislation to ensure that the two benefit systems work together effectively. I commend the regulations to the Committee and ask for its approval to implement them.
Question put and agreed.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Palestinian School Textbooks: EU Review
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been changes to the normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates.
I remind Members participating, physically or virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before using them and before leaving the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the EU Review into Palestinian school textbooks.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. It is a privilege to speak in this place, and I do so today with a keen sense of responsibility. Very recently, yet more Palestinian and Israeli lives were lost to conflict and citizens left traumatised. The ceasefire has held, mercifully, but in the words of Mahatma Gandhi,
“If we wish to create a lasting peace, we must begin with the children.”
Children’s education is a long-term, strategic first frontline for all parties and all agendas. As far back as Aristotle, that has been understood. He said:
“Give me a child until he is seven and I will show you the man.”
In the context of this debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) first raised the alarm about radicalisation in the Palestinian curriculum in the European Parliament, 20 years ago. Last year, a debate in this House on the same subject highlighted shocking examples in the educational materials in use by British-funded teachers in Palestinian Authority schools. The answer to this, we were told then, would be found in the EU review—the long-awaited work of the Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research. Ministers publicly vowed to take action if the report found evidence of material that incites violence. The report on that review has just been published, and it does.
In opening the debate, I want to bring into the light examples of the troubling findings cited in the report, share wider analysis and critique of the review itself, which casts a yet longer shadow, and demonstrate that we are not alone in our challenge to the Palestinian Authority. On a personal level, I should note that I am a teacher by profession, and for many years before coming to this place I worked as a school inspector, scrutinising the curriculum and evaluating learning. I should also note that I visited the region a number of years ago with the Conservative Friends of Israel and had the opportunity to speak with both Israelis and Palestinians.
The EU review rests on an analysis of a sample of 156 textbooks and teacher guides published between 2017 and 2019 by the Palestinian Ministry of Education and, later, a further 18 that were released online in 2020. The review seeks to establish whether textbooks meet international UNESCO standards, UNESCO’s mission being
“to contribute to the building of a culture of peace”.
The EU report clearly identifies evidence of anti-Jewish racism within the curriculum. It says of a chapter in one textbook that it
“sends the message that the Jews as a collective are dangerous and deceptive, and demonises them. It generates feelings of hatred towards Jews and…must be characterised as anti-Semitic.”
Of that particular reference, the report’s authors note that a 2019 revision—the exchange of a photo—certainly does not de-escalate the messaging.
The report identifies examples of terrorists glorified as role models, most notably Dalal Mughrabi, who was responsible for the murder of 38 Israelis in one of the country’s worst ever terror attacks. The report highlights maps of a territorially whole Palestine as an imagined homeland that negates the existence of the state of Israel—a denial of reality. The report finds that one history textbook features a doctored copy of a landmark letter sent by Yasser Arafat to his Israeli counterpart during the Oslo peace process, with Arafat’s commitment to peaceful co-existence free from violence and all other acts that endanger peace and stability removed.
All subjects in the curriculum at all levels lend themselves and pivot to the conflict, whether it is around the environment and pollution, prepositions, illiteracy, or graphical visualisations or pie charts in maths. At first glance, there appears to be positive change and an increased focus on human rights coverage. There is a recognition that human rights are a universal notion, but there is no carry-through or discussion of the rights of Israelis. It is used only as a prism for understanding violations and where most examples are carried out by Israeli protagonists.
The report states that what is problematic is the phrasing,
“which implies systematic violations of children‘s rights reaching all the way to torture and murder, and this has the potential to dehumanise the (Israeli) ‘other’.”
It goes on:
“Above all, the textbooks fail to engage with the question of whether violence carried out by Palestinian actors might equally constitute a violation of human rights.”
Textbooks call for tolerance, mercy, forgiveness and justice, but they are not applied to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The position of the international community is considered unfair because it sides with the “Zionist occupier” by keeping quiet about its crimes. At the end of a lesson on children’s rights, pupils are asked in an exercise to monitor and list Zionist violations against children in Palestine by following news pages or social media, and then read them to classmates.
Observations noted in the report indicate that the peace process has in fact gone backwards or been downgraded since 2014. The report states:
“In the entire body of textbooks examined for this Report…the depiction of peaceful attempts to resolve the conflict is limited to a few pages”.
The unilateral disengagement of the occupation of Gaza in 2015 is pitched as a positive development, but, critically, without mentioning Israel.
The report’s findings on material are deeply problematic, but there are also problems with the report itself. Glaring omissions, phantom changes, the scale of the review and the seeming mismatch between the review’s conclusions and the evidence on which it rests are all in the frame.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the deficiencies of the material, which are outlined comprehensively and in a very balanced way in the Georg Eckert report, but does she accept that the overall conclusion of the report is that,
“the textbooks adhere to UNESCO standards and adopt criteria that are prominent in international education discourse, including a strong focus on human rights”?
If she is inviting the House to accept the material that she quotes, should she not also invite the House to accept the conclusions of the authors of the report?
Caroline Ansell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which strikes at the heart of the point I was making: although there is increased coverage and focus on human rights, that does not extend to the Israelis. Actually, the very point that I rested on was that the conclusion rests on a report that offers up, in its body, example after example that contradict those UNESCO values. We need to understand that and challenge it.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a really important point. To underline it, is it not the case that when we read the report—the executive summary, the main body of the report and the conclusions—it appears that there is a disconnect between what the executive summary says and the conclusions and the real evidence, which is contained deep in the body of the report? That is the concern and that is what we should be discussing today.
Caroline Ansell
I concur entirely. What is required is a full reading of the body of evidence, because the executive summary does not seem to reflect that evidence. In fact, it must be contested that the textbooks adhere to the UNESCO standards when they simultaneously espouse a narrative of resistance to Israel and display antagonism towards it. How can the report’s conclusion be reconciled with the extensive evidence within the body of the report?
There are other issues with the report. A wider analysis highlights glaring omissions—or apparent omissions. The justification of the Munich Olympics terrorist attack as an attack on Zionist interests abroad is not covered. On the 2020 claims, the report suggests positive editing and improvement in the most recently published textbooks, but are these criticisms put forward? Are these phantom changes? Are they based on books that reportedly are not in the curriculum, or on books that do not appear on the Palestinian Authority’s official Education Ministry online portal? Is the scale and scope of the review sufficiently robust? For example, 15% relates to the coverage of the 2020-21 textbooks.
Notwithstanding the discordant finding of the report, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), last week, following the completion of the EU review, the Foreign Office issued a statement acknowledging that anti-Israel content remains. The UK is not alone in reaching that conclusion. Norway has already cut its funding and the Biden Administration are now making aid conditional on the removal of incitement of antisemitism from educational materials.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a particular point about Norway reducing its funding and the US completely removing its funding, but does she agree that removing our funding is probably not the right way to go and that we should instead ask for the reforms that we really need to see, to make sure that every child in the Palestinian Authority area gets a meaningful education?
Caroline Ansell
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent question, and I concur. Education is absolutely at the heart of this process; it is mission-critical to establishing a peaceful resolution in the region. Change is possible where there is political will and leadership. From Tunisia and Egypt through to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, there is a clear trend across the region for improving curricula through the removal of anti-Israel and racist narratives, and instead promoting peace and co-existence. There is a better way.
Positive change could also be inspired through engagement with the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace. This project, which has widespread cross-party support here and in the US, is exactly the sort of programme that the UK could also support if it wished to deliver on its goal of a lasting and meaningful peaceful two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. I have seen at first hand the value of peaceful co-existence projects; the day-to-day interactions that they afford Israelis and Palestinians are invaluable. Projects such as Seeds of Hope, Hands of Peace and Hand In Hand are all remarkable projects that work through education to change lives and create positive interactions.
I look forward to the rest of the debate and to hearing from the Minister, for whom I have some specific questions. What assessment has the Department made of the review? Does he recognise or share the concerns expressed over its shortcomings? Does he believe that the Palestinian Authority’s curriculum, as presented, supports or harms the UK’s long-standing goal of securing lasting peace? Given the promise of action, what new and different steps are being considered? Thus far, raising concerns has failed to elicit the change we need. Nothing perpetuates conflict as much as seeding it in generation after generation of children and young people.
The report as a whole is clear: the Palestinian curriculum remains deeply problematic. It is my sincere hope that the UK Government and their international partners will use the review as the catalyst for change. As things stand, British taxpayers have been directly funding the teaching of a curriculum that actively undermines the peaceful two-state solution that the Government strive to support. Surely, in the light of the violence of recent months, there must be renewed urgency in our resolve to promote peaceful co-existence, and that must focus on the curriculum and textbooks. As the report authors state, textbooks are particularly relevant in conflict
“where discourses have considerable potential to contribute to violent escalation or conflict transformation”.
As John F. Kennedy said:
“Children are the world’s most valuable resource and its best hope for the future.”
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
In order to get everybody in, I am not going to impose a time limit at the moment, but I will call the Front Benchers from 10.23 am. If colleagues bear in mind that allows four to five minutes each and try to keep to that, I will be most grateful.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Dame Angela. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) for bringing this debate on the important topic of Palestinian textbooks. Let me start by saying that I condemn any incitement to violence, whether of Palestinian children, Israeli children, or any children in the world. I condemn antisemitism and anti-Arab Palestinian hate speech.
The research for the review started in September 2019, and the textbooks were published between 2017 and 2019, so the report it is looking at a picture of several years ago, and the picture it paints is complex. I agree with the hon. Lady that there is conflicting evidence in the report, but its conclusion is that the Palestinian Authority have shown a commitment to improving the quality of textbooks, and notes that in recent textbooks things have improved. That needs to be placed on the record.
There has been much discussion of this issue, including in debates in the Chamber. In that context, use was made of a report by IMPACT-se—the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education—but that is a completely discredited organisation. Former UK Minister Alistair Burt said in a written answer on 12 September 2018:
“Our assessment is that the IMPACT-se report was not objective in its findings and lacked methodological rigour. For example, some claims were made on the basis of partial or subjective reading of the text, some findings are presented out of context.”
Overall, IMPACT-se’s report is noted as generalising and exaggerating.
There is no doubt that there is room for improvement, but there is also room for improvement in Israeli schools. That is the nub of the problem. I recently saw footage on social media from a religious school in Israel where children taking part in a question and answer session were caught saying that in 10 years’ time, the al-Aqsa mosque would not be there, a temple would be built on the site, and the only Arabs surviving would be slaves. We have to look at this picture in the round and from both sides of the argument. It is fair to say there is room for improvement in the education of children, within both Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
I feel strongly that our country and Government must do everything we can to try to stop the incitement of violence among children and to head towards a two-state solution, as the hon. Lady said in her opening statement, but I firmly believe that, rather than textbooks, taken out of context, the biggest issue is the reality of Palestinian children’s daily lives.
This year, up to 66 Palestinian children have been killed in Gaza, with 600 wounded. Palestinian children have been beaten up and arrested in the west bank, and they still endure midnight raids, interrogation, detention and military trial. They go to school under threat from Israeli settlers, and 53 Palestinian schools in the west bank are subject to threats of demolition. As the hon. Lady said, those measures are also funded by the British Government through EU funds. I believe they have far more impact on the reality of inciting violence among Palestinian children. They need to be addressed urgently by our Government in their conversations and in the pressure they bring to bear to end the 54-year occupation. That is what will bring peace in the region, and that is what will bring peace for Palestinian children and Israeli children.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) for securing this important debate. Like her, I visited Israel with the Conservative Friends of Israel and spoke to Israelis and Palestinians on this and many other issues.
The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians last month demonstrated just how important it is that we promote de-escalation, reject violence and inflammatory rhetoric, and encourage moderate leaders who are willing to be credible partners for peace in the region. Although the recent EU report on Palestinian textbooks recognises that some improvements have been made, it shows that the Palestinian Authority still has some way to go to live up to those goals. Both the 2019-20 curriculum and the textbooks of the most recent school year are riddled with antisemitism, glorification of terrorism as heroic struggle, and negation of the state of Israel, including in maps that erase Israel’s presence; references to the Oslo accords have been removed.
This is not the first investigation into Palestinian textbooks, and the report serves only to confirm what we have known for some time about the Palestinian curriculum. The contention by the authors of the EU report that the curriculum meets UNESCO standards and that improvements were seen in the 2020 editions is false; close reading of the main body of the report proves as much. When arguing that the textbooks have improved, the EU report cites a particularly egregious example of incitement that has been removed, in which fourth-grade pupils are asked to calculate the numbers of martyrs, including suicide bombers, from the first and second intifadas. On the face of it, that would be a welcome change, but the reviewers show that it has been replaced by a maths question about Israel stealing land from Palestinians. That is not an improvement, and the reviewers concede that they were unable to verify that it is even in circulation in hard-copy textbooks. It turns out that the maths question about terrorists is still in use, as confirmed by the PA’s official Ministry of Education portal online. Such content is indefensible, and I struggle to see how it benefits the Palestinian population, including its children.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
We could understand it if, in the history curriculum or other elements of the curriculum, contentious issues were presented in a way that was unfavourable to Israel. That would be understandable, albeit unwelcome. But to get such things into the maths curriculum indicates a conscious will and effort to do so. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Mary Robinson
I do agree. We must remember that young minds are very absorbent and they tend to take on board and trust what they are taught in school.
Members who have asked questions over the past four years have been told to wait for the publication of this report and assured that this is an important issue, which is why we are having this debate. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that, with the release of the report, the Government’s long-standing stance on this issue may require some reassessment.
I am, however, grateful and thankful that the report has provoked an international discussion about linking aid to the PA and UNRWA—which runs a number of schools in the west bank and Gaza and uses the same curriculum as the PA—to the removal of antisemitic incitement from the Palestinian curriculum. It is important to highlight that linkage. The United States has said that it will do this for its aid to UNRWA—it will delink—and the European Commissioner responsible for aid to the PA and UNRWA has said that the EU should look at doing so for its funding to the PA. In the light of this report, it may be time for this country to look again at our aid to the PA, ensure that we do not fund the curriculum that is in place while also encouraging the PA to reform their curriculum in a more positive and constructive manner.
The events of the past month have underscored how far we will have to go to heal the divisions in the region and put a permanent stop to the death and destruction. The need to tackle Hamas in particular is as clear as ever, but a lasting peace depends on a Palestinian Authority who take seriously their commitment to co-existing alongside Israel. We have to encourage the PA to demonstrate that this is taking place not just with words but at all levels of society, including education. I therefore hope that Ministers will take this report and build on its efforts to promote moderate, pragmatic Palestinian leadership, working with the PA to improve their textbooks and curriculum. However, they must also ensure that our aid money is not funding an existing curriculum that is morally objectionable and runs against our and all peace-loving people’s aspirations for the region.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on having secured this debate. I think that she, like I—and, I suspect and hope, everybody in this debate—holds the view that we would ultimately wish to see a two-state solution in Israel-Palestine. I gently suggest to her and others that if we are ever to achieve that, the role of this country has to be limited. For us simply to take one side or another in that debate just serves to make things worse: it does not help us move towards that two-state solution.
I say that because I am slightly concerned that the hon. Lady seemed quite happy to take various examples from the Georg Eckert Institute report that it had concluded were problematic and wrong. The report also found instances of antisemitism—that has been acknowledged—but found that others had, in fact, been removed, which represents the progress to which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) referred. However, I say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne and others that if we accept the report and the bona fides and independence of the Georg Eckert Institute, we do not do great service by picking and choosing those parts of the report that we like. The report’s overall conclusion, having examined extensively the material that was made available to the institute, was that the materials of the Palestinian Authority did conform to UNESCO standards. That is important. I would hope that nobody who has read that report would say that the materials were beyond reproach, but the conclusion reached by the institute through its independent analysis should not be dismissed so lightly.
One of my great frustrations about this debate, as with others about Israel-Palestine, is what I generally call what-aboutery: when someone says, “Here’s something bad that was done by one side,” and somebody else pops up and says, “Well, what about the other side?” I am going to resist the temptation to indulge in what-aboutery, but I want to put on the record my concern that there are instances of that, and there has not been the same rigorous analysis of educational standards within Israel. It is often said, and other analyses have highlighted, that maps often include the lands of the west bank as part of Israel as a whole, rather than the 1967 borders, which are generally regarded internationally as the ones to adhere to.
If we are to make a difference in this debate, it has to be out of a genuine concern for the education of young people and children in Palestine today. It is a sobering fact that a 15-year-old in Gaza will have endured five major wars, as well as several others, in their lifetime. Civil society groups have to run training programmes for Palestinian children on explosive remnants of war. Just think of that: if hon. Members sent their children to school in Gaza, part of what they would be taught, regardless of what is in the curriculum, is how to deal with exploded and unexploded ordinances. That is the day-to-day lived experience of children in Gaza.
Just this week, the Save the Children Fund issued its report on the impact of home demolition on Palestinian children, titled “Hope under the rubble”. I hope that the Minister has a copy of it, and that if he has not read it yet, he soon will. As the hon. Member for Cheadle rightly said, young children absorb their lived experience, and their education goes well beyond what they see in the classroom.
Let me give a few key findings from that report. Some 80% of children feel abandoned by the world and have lost faith in the ability of anyone, from their parents to authorities and the international community, to protect them and their rights. Some 78% of older children said they feel hopeless when they think about the future. Some younger children told the Save the Children Fund that they often take their toys to school out of fear that they might lose them in the rubble during the day. Some 70% of children reported feeling socially isolated, with no connection with their communities and land after losing their home. Some 60% of children reported that their education had been jeopardised or interrupted following the demolition.
If we really are concerned about the impact on young Palestinians, I say to the hon. Member for Eastbourne, and in particular to the Minister, that we should be considering that many Palestinian children may soon be fortunate to have any schools at all in which to have textbooks, because the hard fact is that no fewer than 53 Palestinian schools are slated for demolition by the Israeli Government. If there are no schools, frankly the content of textbooks becomes pretty academic.
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I am sorry to say that I am introducing a time limit of three minutes so that we can get everybody into the debate and leave time for the Front-Bench speeches.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Thank you, Dame Angela, for your permission to leave this debate early to attend another meeting. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela.
The teaching of Palestinian children to hate Israel and Jews and the incitement of violence within the Palestinian Authority’s official curriculum are unacceptable and are having and will have extraordinary real-life consequences on Palestinians and Israelis today and in the future. At least 31 Palestinian schools are named after terrorists, and three after Nazi collaborators. They teach young Palestinian children that such actions are honourable and will be rewarded with respect and glory. In addition, children are taught about Newton’s second law through textbook images of a boy aiming a slingshot at an Israeli soldier.
The EU report contends that the presence of national resistance fighters masked by a traditional keffiyeh scarf
“suggests that the liberation of Palestine might be achievable through violent resistance.”
It concedes that these images present “highly escalatory potential”. Addressing concerns about the prevalence of references to jihad across the curriculum, the EU report also finds:
“One in eight references to jihād in Social Studies…relates to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East: ‘the Palestinian freedom struggle as jihād’.”
Another textbook, “Islamic Education”,
“contains a whole lesson on jihād in the context of military fighting.”
Those alarming examples have a tangible effect on Palestinian children. Students at UNRWA schools have been quoted as saying things such as:
“I am ready to stab a Jew and drive over them”,
and:
“I am prepared to be a suicide bomber”.
They have also said that everyone needs to attack the Jews until there will not be one left in the land, and called the Jews liars and dogs.
The words in these textbooks must have no place in an UNRWA school, nor in a peaceful future for the middle east. Sadly we have seen, all too painfully, how this belligerent rhetoric has even led children to commit acts of violence and terror. In the last five years, Palestinian minors have been involved in as many as 116 terror attacks, which killed five Israelis and injured dozens. Stone and Molotov cocktails, stabbings and shooting attacks on Israeli citizens have been undertaken by Palestinians as young as 11. Along with his 14-year-old cousin, a young boy from East Jerusalem’s Shuafat neighbourhood stabbed a light-rail security guard in November 2015. Once detained, he recounted how he wanted to “die as a martyr”, while his cousin said:
“I wanted to kill the Jews who are torturing us.”
We are united in this place in our shared search for peace in this troubled region, and halting the indoctrination of Palestinian children from these deplorable textbooks must be a central pillar of that process.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be under your chairship, Dame Angela. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) says, I am sure that everybody here wishes to see a two-state solution. We may have different routes to that. I would like to see immediate recognition of the Palestinian state, adherence to international law by all parties—Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority—and, above all, the end to the occupation.
The textbooks have an important role to play in that. They are part of educating the next generation. The report generally comes to positive conclusions, saying that
“the textbooks adhere to UNESCO standards and adopt criteria that are prominent in international education discourse, including a strong focus on human rights…they express a narrative of resistance within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and…they display an antagonism towards Israel.”
It adds:
“The Israeli opponent is portrayed as aggressive and hostile. The language is however, for the most part, objective in tone and avoids inflammatory expressions.”
There are regrettable passages. The report notes that one textbook has antisemitic motifs, but that is one out of 156 examined and it has been addressed by the 2020 analysis. The Palestinian Minister for Education has said that any recommendations in the report will be implemented.
What I see here is that yes, there are problems and issues, but there is a willingness to address them and it would be wrong and counterproductive to exaggerate them. We should be building bridges. There are faults on both sides. The issue of maps has been mentioned. In the same way as it is clearly wrong not to include Israel on maps in Palestinian textbooks, it is wrong for many in Israel to show the non-existence of the Palestinian state. Senior members of the Government, including the Prime Minister of Israel, do not appear to believe in that and view the west bank as Judea and Samaria. We do not know about Israeli textbooks, but we do know that textbooks in East Jerusalem have been doctored by the Israelis, including the removal of entire chapters on regional and Palestinian history, because they have control there.
Above all, there is an inequality of arms. What the Israelis have been able to do to the Palestinians over 53 years of military occupation, with 650,000 Israelis in illegal settlements, and many other things during this crisis, needs to be addressed. That is the real root of the problem that has to be dealt with. Yes, of course we need to see children in Israel and Palestine being educated so that they are brought together and not set apart, but let us not cherry-pick support. Let us take the best out of this and go forward.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on securing this important and timely debate.
For years, Members from both sides of the House have raised concerns about problematic examples of what is being taught in Palestinian schools and how that fosters a culture of hate and violence and works against the aims of many Governments around the world who support a viable two-state solution in the middle east. I remember a debate early last year when my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) referred to the fact that she had first started raising concerns about the Palestinian curriculum when she was a Member of the European Parliament 20 years ago. It is not only British parliamentarians; parliamentarians all across Europe, including in Sweden and Germany, and the United States have raised similar concerns. There are serious and real issues to address.
I have sat down with different Ministers and officials over the years to talk about these issues, and at different times the responses have ranged from trying to downplay the seriousness of some of the examples that we raised, to suggesting that the problem was historical and had been fixed, or was in the process of being fixed, to suggesting that, because the UK Government do not fund educational materials directly—we only fund the salaries of Palestinian teachers—it is somehow less of a problem for us to be concerned about. Each time, it felt like we were being put on the back foot.
The review we are debating was supposed to be the critical moment when an objective look could be taken and the UK Government, in partnership with other Governments around the world, could take a strong and unified approach. The contents of the report are problematic, as has been said, and I am pleased that Members with different viewpoints on this subject agree that there are problematic examples.
The Minister is very experienced and knowledgeable and is deeply committed, as I hope we all are, to humanitarian support around the world. I want to hear from him a clear message about what the Government intend to do now. For years, when Palestinian Authority Ministers have reassured us and suggested that we should move along and that there is nothing to see, we have wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt. The truth is that there is something to see, and we need a clear and well-defined position from the Government about what we intend to say and do with our friends in the Palestinian Authority.
I support a strong aid budget. Now is not the moment to open up the 0.7% issue. However, I put on the record that, at a time when we are making deep cuts to important humanitarian programmes overseas, we are protecting funding for the Palestinian public sector. If we are going to do that, surely we should demand the highest possible standards, to really foster that culture of tolerance and respect and to work against hate and violence, which risks dragging that region back into old cycles.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) for setting the scene so well. I am going to speak exactly to the title of the debate, and will do so at some length. I am unashamedly a member of Friends of Israel. I have been a member during my time here at Westminster but also in my former role in the Assembly back home. I strongly support them and will speak from their point of view.
As many Members have stated, the findings of the GEI review on Palestinian textbooks are damaging. The analysis of 156 textbooks and 16 teacher guides published between 2017 and 2019 by the Palestinian Ministry of Education is thorough and detailed. The information is there—the secret is in the title—and the evidential base is quite clear. Eight out 10 sections of the executive summary—from “Compliance with the principles of global citizenship education”, to “Representations of violence differ according to subjects”—offer an authoritative assessment of Palestinian education.
While the report informs, it does not come as any surprise to me. On countless occasions, these issues have been raised here and in the main Chamber, and Ministers have consistently refuted any suggestion that UK aid funds have been used to support incitement and violence. Most of those assertions offered by former Ministers did not convince then; they certainly do not convince me now. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has also left itself wide open to question through implication.
On countless occasions, the link between generous UK aid funds and payments to terrorists has been denied. Even when the FCDO claimed it was paying the salaries of some 85,000 named Palestinian civil servants listed through the EU’s PEGASE system, with no evidence that such a list existed, it has yet to justify such claims as to why UK aid directed funds elsewhere without being sanctioned.
We have a bilateral aid program to the Palestinian Authority—I understand that—and a team of highly paid former civil servants. However, education for children is critical, and there are books that denigrate Israel, acknowledging human rights for others, but seemingly not for Israel. While some have withdrawn funding, I believe that funding should be conditional on the change that should be brought about. As Iran, Hezbollah in Palestine and other terrorist groups try to achieve their annihilation of Israel, I instead stand with Israel against that terrorism—against the evil targeting of Israel. Palestinian textbooks are part of that evil and must be addressed today.
I ask the Minister these questions very quickly. What does it say about the ability of this institution to hold the Government to account? What does it say about the Ministers who have steadfastly stood in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber denying that such links existed? Was it through mere incompetence on the part of civil servants who passed what we now know were misleading answers to various Ministers at the Dispatch Box? Why was there an inability to spot and call out the incitement, antisemitism and hatred of the Palestinian curriculum between 2017 and 2019?
The motive appears to be ensuring a continual flow of money, even with the knowledge that the way in which the payment of UK aid was being carried out breached the rules contained within the memorandum of understanding between the Palestinian Authority and the UK Government. I certainly look forward to the Minister’s response. I hope that he can answer the questions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on securing the debate, and draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, particularly as chair of the all-party Britain-Israel parliamentary group and as an officer of Conservative Friends of Israel.
I have been raising these issues in relation to Palestinian textbooks on behalf of my constituents for many years. It has become abundantly clear that the children of the Palestinian territories have been cruelly let down by those who have responsibility for their education. As we have heard, there are extensive examples within the EU report that the Palestinian curriculum is deeply flawed and, sadly, rife with material that passes hatred and prejudice on to the new generation of young people. That just exacerbates the conflict and must not continue.
The curriculum is deeply problematic. It is exacerbated by the fact that the educational resources are essentially the same as those used by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Last year, we gave around £20 million to fund Palestinian teachers’ salaries, and £63.6 million to UNRWA to support the education of 320,000 children in 370 schools. In January this year, it was discovered that the additional educational material produced and published by UNRWA for schools in the west bank and Gaza, and distributed to the Palestinian children to aid home learning during covid, glorified terrorism and incited violence against Israel. Those supplementary resources—three in Gaza and one in the west bank—were even more extreme than the official PA curriculum, and again in breach of the UN values.
UNRWA has tried to defend the existence of that so-called “inappropriate” material, saying that it was “mistakenly” distributed to students at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic. It has been widely available now for more than eight months. The UK was joined by Germany and Norway in expressing concerns, while our allies Australia and Canada launched investigations. Subsequently, the US Secretary of State has confirmed that the Biden Administration’s renewal of funding for UNRWA is conditional on its making “very necessary reforms”.
Despite that, further accusations have been made about the material that has been available. In one exercise, pupils in the ninth grade were taught to condemn Arab-Israeli peace and normalisation initiatives and to claim that they serve only to weaken the resolve of Palestinians. It goes without saying that that is in direct contravention of the UN values. In the light of that, I ask our Minister what the Government will do to pressurise UNRWA into pursuing those very necessary reforms. Does he agree that UNRWA has a responsibility to nurture young Palestinian minds, rather than feed them with the poison of hatred and violent ideology?
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on securing this important debate and on her excellent opening speech. Like her, I am a strong supporter of a two-state solution, which is exactly why I believe that we must take urgent action now to address the issue of extremism in the Palestinian school curriculum that the EU review so damningly documents.
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I visited Israel and the west bank just over a year ago. I was struck by the work being done on the ground to make peace a reality. I was fortunate enough to visit the brilliant MATI, which provides life-changing support to Palestinian entrepreneurs in East Jerusalem and exemplifies exactly what we should be doing to support Israelis and Palestinians by working together to create positive social change in the middle east. It is absolutely contemptible that such vital work is undermined by the Palestinian school curriculum, which has such a prolific acceptance of and support for violence, antisemitism and the rejection of peace.
The report concludes shockingly that textbooks refer to violence against Israelis, including civilians, and acts of heroic struggle, as part of a narrative of resistance. One textbook for year 8 pupils presents the wounding, or even killing, of the opponent in a positive light. It is striking to observe that the state of Israel is rarely mentioned by name. The EU report actually outlines how Israelis are consistently referred to in a pejorative way. Elsewhere, it details one antisemitic exercise in which students learn that “the Jews” desecrated the tombs of Muslims. That was altered for the 2020 edition. The report fails to mention, however, that the words “the Jews” was replaced with the equally offensive and inflammatory “the Zionist occupation”.
This Government have a proud record of taking decisive action to tackle antisemitism wherever and whenever it occurs. The UK’s recent decision not to attend the notorious Durban conference is a welcome and important announcement. The Government also deserve praise for their untiring efforts to promote the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism across the UK. There appears to be a blind spot, however. The Palestinian Authority’s promotion of antisemitic ideas, which I have identified, goes largely unchecked—that is indefensible. If we know one thing about fighting prejudice, it is that it must be stamped out everywhere and immediately, no ifs, no buts. Will the Minister explain why his Department has failed to take action on the curriculum for two full decades? How does he plan to tackle that issue? Will he commit to supporting the International Fund for Israeli-Palestinian Peace, to ensure that projects such as the one I described can continue to expand and deliver real-life change?
Let us not lose sight of a two-state solution. It is essential that we do not lose another generation to conflict. If it is right that we are stamping out antisemitism in the UK, how can we fund it abroad?
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on securing this important debate. It is a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford), who captured so many of the important issues, including a particularly important reference to rejecting the Durban conference and its agenda.
A quote from the beginning of the Georg Eckert Institute’s report captures the importance of the issue:
“School textbooks play a crucial role as transmitters and indicators of the hegemonic knowledge that a society deems appropriate for teaching to the next generation, particularly when it comes to topics relating to peace and conflict…‘for millions of people they are the first, and often the only, books that they read’.”
If the material is a source of information that people will take with them through the rest of their lives, it is so important to get it right from the beginning, so that those problems, failings and introduced concerns are not there. The evidence in the report is clear that in the textbooks, as well as in the teaching guides, those materials should be characterised as antisemitic. They delegitimise and deny the state of Israel. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) highlighted, room can be found in the mathematics curriculum to promote or highlight the use of slingshots—that is absolutely extraordinary, and it is not by accident, but by design. It is toxic and runs through so many of the materials.
That division cuts through generations: as one generation learns, so will the next. We have to find ways and mechanisms to cut that out immediately. We have influence and the ability to apply pressure on the Palestinians. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) really captured what we can do and how this debate can and should have an impact.
We used to talk about being an aid superpower. Aid ought to bring influence. It ought to help to persuade and be a mechanism for trying to convince our friends around the world, but other players too, that receiving it is contingent upon the correction of these materials, because they are wrong. Indeed, I think everyone speaking today has said that they are wrong and need changing, so I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to make a clear statement about how he will use aid to correct these failings.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con) [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on securing today’s important debate and refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Two years ago, I had the privilege of visiting Israel and the west bank, and I can honestly say it was one of the most inspirational weeks of my life. The character of the people and the richness of the culture left a deep and positive impression on me. But despite all that is truly wonderful about both Israelis and Palestinians, one cannot escape the reality of the tensions and conflicts that are ongoing. During the recent escalation of violence in the region, we even saw the consequences of inflammatory rhetoric on the streets of the UK, as the Jewish community faced a deplorable rise in antisemitic attacks as a result of events occurring thousands of miles away in another country.
We must look at what is fuelling the hatred and division between the Israeli and Palestinian peoples. Why has this conflict continued for so long, throughout the generations? One does not have to take a particular side in the conflict to see that there are some fairly considerable barriers to a peace settlement, but it need not remain like that if the next generation of children and young people, both Palestinian and Israeli, grow up to believe that peace is possible and desirable. For that shift to happen, it is vital that children in the region are taught about their history and heritage in a way that is truthful and neutral, and does not stoke hatred of the other side.
Yet sadly, we see that the opposite is happening. The findings of the EU review point to what is being taught in schools as a major contributing factor to the ongoing conflict. There cannot possibly be progress when young minds in the Palestinian territories are being infected by poisonous ideology and children are being taught to hate their Israeli neighbours. The review indisputably substantiates the level of extremist ideas in the Palestinian Authority school curriculum, with abhorrent glorification of terrorists and violence.
It does not have to be that way. An independent textbook monitoring organisation has found that textbooks elsewhere in the region have been changing in a positive direction. There has been a move across the middle east and north Africa towards a more progressive, peace-driven narrative, details of which I would set out if I had time. These changes are not perfect, but they are a clear step in the right direction. So why are young Palestinian minds continuing to being poisoned with the rhetoric of violence, division and hatred? This situation is prolonged as long as Governments around the world continue to tolerate it by failing to hold the Palestinian Authority to account. In the UK, it is time to fully recognise this issue and say enough is enough. Wounds do not heal if they are constantly reopened. We must give children the chance of peace.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
It is pleasure to see you in the Chair for this morning’s debate, Dame Angela.
As many hon. Members have said, this is not the first time that this issue has been discussed in the House. In the past 20 years, there have been accusations of widespread antisemitism and incitement to violence and hatred contained in Palestinian school textbooks. They have been repeatedly raised by pressure groups and politicians, so it was right that the European Union, being understandably vigilant, should ask the independent Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research to carry out a study of the issue.
Despite highlighting some legitimate areas of concern, the Eckert report says that, while still not perfect, the changes recently made to the curriculum show that the Palestinian Authority are heading in the right direction, and the report significantly tempers some of the wilder accusations and allegations that we have heard from certain quarters about the PA routinely using the curriculum to incite violence and hatred or promote antisemitism. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, the Eckert report concludes that
“the textbooks adhere to UNESCO standards and adopt criteria that are prominent in international education discourse, including a strong focus on human rights”.
In terms of antisemitism, the report specifically mentions two examples, both of which were deemed to be and were rightly condemned as antisemitic. They should never have been there, and it is absolutely right that both have now been positively altered as the report says, or removed completely from the latest editions of the books—a fact recognised by the Georg Eckert Institute.
Let me be clear: we in the SNP believe that wherever antisemitism is found, it must be called out and condemned absolutely and unequivocally. There must be zero tolerance of antisemitism and we must all be vigilant in guarding against it. Although not complacent in any way, I am reassured that in the context of Palestinian school textbooks, the Eckert report says that, while there is recognition of the long-standing political and military conflict, antisemitism does not seem to be as widespread as was first feared, there are signs of improvement and it does not appear to be the endemic problem that some would have us believe.
As I said, the Eckert report does identify other areas of concern, but when addressing whether the textbooks are guilty of promoting or glorifying violence, it says that although there are “escalatory” examples in the textbooks, it did not find that, in the context of a region where, for the best part of a century, there has been active armed conflict, the depiction of the “other side” in the school textbooks as an aggressor or as violent necessarily equated to that igniting hatred. Indeed, the report goes on to say that it is important to acknowledge that such indicators are generally very rare and that there are also numerous instances of the school textbooks calling for tolerance, mercy, forgiveness and justice.
As we have heard, one of the main sources of the allegations is the Israeli organisation IMPACT-se, the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education, a self-described
“research, policy and advocacy organization”,
whose main aim appears to be to lobby parliamentarians and media outlets across Europe and the United States to, I would argue, exaggerate and amplify these claims in order to get them on to the political agenda—rather successfully, it would appear. Let us be in no doubt about IMPACT-se. On page 15 of the Eckert report, it says that IMPACT-se research is
“marked by generalising and exaggerated conclusions based on methodological shortcomings.”
It recommends that any future IMPACT-se investigation be based on a
“comprehensive examination of the textbooks, contextualising the specific passages”
that it uses, as well as recognising those elements within the textbooks that
“promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence.”
Of course, as we have heard, IMPACT-se has form. The shortcomings of its methodology and its lack of objectivity have been commented on before in this House. As recently as September 2017 in a written answer, the ever honest and hugely respected former Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt said that the Government were sufficiently concerned at what an earlier IMPACT-se report had alleged about Palestinian textbooks to decide to meet with it to discuss its findings. However, the UK Government in 2017 concluded that the IMPACT-se report was not objective in its findings and its methodology lacked rigour, before observing that
“some claims were made on the basis of a partial or subjective reading of the text”
and
“some findings are presented out of context”.
Yet, immediately on publication of the Georg Eckert Institute’s lengthy and nuanced report last week, IMPACT-se was straight out of the blocks, telling anyone who would listen that the report supported its claim that
“the Palestinian Authority systematically incites…a million children to antisemitism, hate and violence every school day.”
It is a ridiculous analysis of a serious report and one that probably tells us more about IMPACT-se and how it operates than anything else. Although it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with the findings of the Eckert report—I am sure that all sides will find plenty to argue about—what is not acceptable is to deliberately distort and twist what the report says. I find it deeply concerning that such a brazenly partisan group is still being listened to and is still able to find such an unquestioning audience.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will reassure the House that the UK Government still consider IMPACT-se not to be a trusted source of reliable information and, its having been so discredited for the inaccuracies and inadequacies in its research, no UK Government funding will go towards that group.
We have heard many times this morning that anti-Palestinian groups have been raising in the contents of these books for years. As the Eckert report makes clear, there are areas of legitimate concern and some important changes are needed. However, attempts to portray Palestinians as somehow uniquely hateful and violent are utterly nonsensical. Ironically, those making them have been engaging in exactly the same sort of demonisation and distortion that they allege of the Palestinian textbooks.
We could go through the Eckert report line by line, arguing over every last dot and comma but, as other Members have said this morning, there is a much bigger picture here: the continued illegal occupation of Palestine, which is now in its sixth decade. I just wish that those parliamentarians most vocal about the content of Palestinian children’s school textbooks were as vocal about the destruction of Palestinian children’s schools.
I have seen the ruins of a Palestinian school. I have walked among the rubble of the demolished school buildings of the Bedouin village of Abu Nuwar. I have seen the pain, the fear, and the devastation that the demolition of a school causes for an already weak, poor and defenceless community. I cannot help but wonder where the outrage on the Benches opposite is when Palestinian schools are demolished by the Israeli army in order to make way for more illegal settlements? Why are they so silent when Palestinian children are being killed, beaten, arrested and detained without trial? Often their homes are being bulldozed. Where is the condemnation and outrage about the 66 Palestinian children who were killed, or the 600 who were injured during the bombardment of Gaza? Where are the debates and demands for action about the 141 schools in Gaza that were damaged, or the 53 schools in the west bank that have been earmarked for demolition?
Perhaps we would pay greater heed to the howls of protest from the Benches opposite about the content of Palestinian children’s schoolbooks if they were equally vociferous in calling out the outrageous human rights abuses that those same Palestinian schoolchildren face every single day of their young lives.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dame Angela. I, too, am pleased that today’s debate has been secured and congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) on doing so.
Even though this is a European Union review, Members across the House have been asking questions for some time about what was happening with it and why it was delayed for so long. Indeed, I have asked parliamentary questions myself. It is right that questions have been asked, because the UK Government fund much of the Palestinian National Authority’s educational work. That funding might not pay for the textbooks themselves, but it pays the salaries of up to 39,000 civil servants on the west bank, including 33,000 Ministry of Education and Higher Education civil servants and teachers.
It is also right that we are concerned about the content of educational material. I speak as a former teacher and educationalist myself when I say that education is vital in helping to inculcate understanding in children of the world in which they live, the values that should define their future lives, and their participation in society. It is important to realise, however, that formal educational textbooks are only one of the influences on children in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
To truly understand what Palestinian children are subjected to, one must understand the repressive and unfair nature of the Israeli military occupation and the impact of the Israeli military detention system on young Palestinian people. I strongly urge Members to read the excellent report by Save the Children, and also the report to which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for Orkney and Shetland referred, which clearly shows the impact that demolitions and evictions have on Palestinian children.
Today, however, we are discussing the EU report. It is a detailed report, and I believe it is objective in its approach. That is what I would expect from an expert, specialist institution such as the Eckert Institute. The report is nearly 200 pages long, and it paints a complex picture of the content of educational material. However, the report’s executive summary indicates that it is possible to define and identify three overarching features. The first is that
“the textbooks adhere to UNESCO standards and adopt criteria that are prominent in international educational discourse, including a strong focus on human rights.”
Secondly, the report says the textbooks
“express a narrative of resistance within the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.
Thirdly, the examples that the report has analysed
“display an antagonism towards Israel”.
Those are the essential conclusions of the report.
In its examination of the textbooks and other educational material, the institute found that there was extensive coverage of global citizenship education. Throughout the textbooks, calls for tolerance, mercy, forgiveness and justice are to be found. There are positive examples of progressive representations of various social, cultural and religious groups living together. These include a diversity of skin colour, gender and physical abilities. The report says that the textbooks
“affirm the importance of human rights in general”,
but that the universal idea of human rights is
“not carried through to a discussion of the rights of Israelis”.
The textbooks rightly support international conventions with regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but in many cases they unfortunately adopt what can only be described as a one-sided representation of Israel. In fact, the term “Israel” is seldom used. We see more regularly the use of the terms “Zionist” and “Zionist occupation”, which are frequently found in the textbooks examined. What is also worrying is the unsatisfactory way in which Israel, and the renunciation of terror, is dealt with.
The report says there was a good discussion of the peace process in the middle east in a textbook for year 10. It traced a number of statements and declarations since 1977 that indicated the steps taken towards the recognition of Israel and the renunciation of violence and terrorism by the Palestine Liberation Organisation. The recognition of Israel’s right to exist in peace and security is documented clearly in the letters from Yasser Arafat to Yitzhak Rabin, to which the textbooks refer. Although that is a good example, it stands in contrast to the questioning of the legitimacy of the state of Israel, which is expressed in other passages and textbooks.
Although there are accurate and positive references to Jewish people historically and contemporaneously, there are also disturbing references that can only be described as antisemitic. The report also found disturbing references to the concept of jihad. The report noted that the term is rarely connected to the current Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but that there were instances where the term was used, which can lead only to a potential escalation.
The report also found that references to violence were treated differently, depending on who or what was being described. In the report’s words, textbooks in the Arabic language
“contain emotionally leading depictions of Israeli violence that tend to dehumanise the Israeli adversary”.
Not only is this approach dominant when it comes to covering conflict; it is also the case when discussing the British mandate. Throughout the textbook for history, geography and social studies, the Israeli opponent is portrayed as aggressive and hostile. That is surely wrong, if we are concerned about movements towards peace and realising our long-standing commitment to a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine.
I have to say that I am mildly encouraged by the paragraph in the report that states that, after initial completion, an overview was conducted comparing 18 more recent textbooks, which showed real measures of improvement. In the newer textbooks, there was an increase in the representation of women and Christians and a reduction of the text and images that had the ability to cause escalatory potential, including the removal of antisemitic content in several points of the narrative. The report also refers to other improvements and modifications.
Despite those changes, there is still cause for concern. The question is: how do the Government respond? The UK Government have a memorandum of understanding with the Palestinian Authority that says that the PA must adhere to the principles of non-violence and respect for human rights. Under the MOU, the Department for International Development—now the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—is required to take action when the PA is not adhering to those principles. In December 2018, DFID stated that it expects textbooks
“to be academically rigorous and they must not incite racial hatred or violence under any circumstances.”
I know the Government have a regular dialogue with the Palestinian Authority, but I ask the Minister to make it abundantly clear that the significant issues that this report has highlighted must be addressed quickly. Furthermore, will he indicate whether he will initiate an ongoing review so that the content of textbooks is monitored and evaluated regularly?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)
It is great to be back in Westminster Hall. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) for securing this debate, for her work in support of peace and stability in the region, and for the knowledge that she brings as a teacher, a school inspector and an excellent parliamentarian. She teed up an excellent debate.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) asked for a balanced debate. I did think that a debate with the words “EU” and “Palestine” in the title was unlikely to be balanced, and was much more likely to be polarising, but I have been pleasantly surprised by the speeches that were balanced, and those that were not were balanced out by one another.
There have been a number of contributions, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates), who spoke virtually, most if not all Members have been to the region. I visited it as part of the International Development Committee, as the junior Member of the Conservative MPs on that Committee. Unfortunately, one of those Members had to leave—he was offered a job by the Labour party and went to the Lords—and the other has recently left the Conservative party, joined the Labour party and hopes to go to the Lords, so I seem to be the last man standing from that little delegation.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), would have loved to be here to take part in this debate. He apologises that he cannot do that as he is elsewhere on ministerial duties. It is a pleasure for me to respond. I will discuss all the issues with him when he returns to the Department, and with officials.
The Government welcome the publication of this report, which has taken some time. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) says that I may downplay this issue—well, I will not. He says that I may say that the issue is fixed—I will not. He says that I will pray in aid the fact that we fund the teachers, not the books, and I will do that. I will come to the issues that he and others raised about conditionality later in my speech.
We urged our European partners to publish these findings, and I am happy that they have done so. It has been a long time coming. I suspect there will be more debates on this subject. There have been many before. Hon. Members referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). Sorry—I was going to say Chipping Norton; I have spent far too much time there, as other colleagues have recently. This debate is part of the process, not the end of it. I will not be able to say definitively to colleagues, “This is something that happened in the past, and these are the 10 things we’re going to do that solve the problem,” but I will hopefully give an indication of some of the changes.
Christian Wakeford
I recognise that changes to the curriculum will be immensely difficult, but what hope does the Minister have that we will see changes when the Palestinian Prime Minister has vowed to continue the printing of the textbooks, and to pay for them with water, telephone and electricity bills if that is what it takes?
James Duddridge
I am not sighted on that statement, but I am naturally an optimist. The report talks of the progress made as well as some of the very real and unacceptable problems that remain.
Reflecting on the report, the Georg Eckert Institute is a specialist organisation that looks at textbook analysis. It was instructed to undertake a robust and impartial review of the contents of those textbooks. Hon. Members have talked of the period being 2017 to 2019. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) said that there was nothing more up to date. Some bits were more up to date. A smaller sample of textbooks from the most recent academic year was included, but they were principally from 2017 to 2019.
The aim was to provide a comprehensive and objective basis for the dialogue with the Palestinian Authority and to promote quality education, addressing the issues of incitement. There has generally been an acceptance of the value of education—we heard historic quotes from a number of Members—and of the power of getting it right, but part of that is getting the textbooks right. It is positive that the textbooks analysed were found to adhere to UNESCO guidelines on human rights and generally to promote political pluralism and cultural, social and religious values that support co-existence. However, it is very clear from the examples used today that there are concerns. My hon. Friends the Members for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) and for Henley (John Howell) voiced concerns specifically about maths textbooks and the issue of the use of maps, which I am sure the Minister for the Middle East will want to review in more detail and perhaps discuss with colleagues.
There is an acceptance that the report found that there continues to be anti-Israel, antisemitic comment in those textbooks. That clearly is not acceptable to the House or to the Government. The UK Government continue to have zero tolerance for incitement to hatred and antisemitism in all forms. I thank hon. Members who referred to the Durban conference as an example of that.
Mr Carmichael
Can the Minister confirm that the Government accept the conclusions of the report, as well as the full analysis?
James Duddridge
I hesitate only because I have not gone through the conclusions forensically, but we agree with the broad thrust of the report that there has been progress and there are still areas where progress needs to be made. If the right hon. Gentleman has a concern over any particular conclusions, on which he particularly wants to press the Minister, I urge him to speak to the Minister for the Middle East directly, or to raise it by way of secondary intervention.
Mr Carmichael
It is simply the conclusion that I put to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell). The overall conclusion was that the materials conformed to the UNESCO standards.
James Duddridge
Overall, yes, but there were examples where they did not. We agree with the thrust absolutely.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who is very experienced in these matters as a former Minister and MEP, asked us to continue the regular dialogue and raise this issue specifically. The Minister for the Middle East raised it with the Palestinian Education Minister, to whom the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) referred, on 5 May. The Foreign Secretary also raised it with the Palestinian Foreign Minister on 26 May. Hopefully that gives an indication of how active the Government are. It is particularly important as part of our commitment to education overall.
I put on the record, as others have done, that the Government do not—I repeat, do not—fund textbooks in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, but, as hon. Members have referred to, we do provide money for teachers.
Wayne David
I was wondering about the issue of monitoring the textbooks. We are discussing a European Union report. I imagine such reports will not be as accessible by us in the future. Are the Government going to carry out any monitoring of Palestinian textbooks?
James Duddridge
I shall not bite at the EU point, but on the broader and serious point, there clearly needs to be ongoing work—this is not the end of the process, with some clear conclusions that are going to put an end to the matter. That may be through our EU partners. We work with other international partners. We work with the UN, the Americans and we will continue to work with the EU.
I reassure the House that teachers are carefully vetted. Our money to support education and health went into a specially dedicated bank account. It is only paid to individuals who have gone through the vetting process through the EU mechanism. I note the point of the hon. Member for Caerphilly about the future, but we are still contributing to the EU budget as part of the transition, so can quite reasonably expect to participate as a more direct and historic partner, as well as a partner in the broadest sense.
Each payment is independently audited to make sure it goes to the intended recipients. Although I do not want to negate the points made about textbooks, it is the teachers who are absolutely crucial.
We remain committed to a two-state solution. Making sure that children are educated in the best way is very much part of that. The contrary is also the case. There is a real risk, if children are not educated in an inclusive way, that it will make life worse.
Caroline Ansell
This has been an interesting debate. Many perspectives have been brought forward and there has been challenge. I thank the Minister for affirming that the UK taxpayer funds teachers, but teachers are delivering lessons and exercises based on the very textbooks that are of concern. To separate teachers from their teaching materials is to try to separate bone from marrow. The textbooks underpin the curriculum. They reflect its aims and objectives. They are more far-reaching than a mere teaching aid or prop. They are incredibly important.
I am pleased that there was not a formal acceptance as such of the conclusion of the report, because while the report finds “generally” or “overall”, if we are to maintain a position of zero tolerance, we cannot tolerate the evidence brought forward by this esteemed institute—evidence that reflects antisemitism and hatred of Jews and does not provide the understanding or the opportunity to reflect and learn to the youngest generation in Palestine.
This youngest generation are the leaders of tomorrow. They are the teachers of tomorrow. They are the peacemakers we need to look to. My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Miriam Cates) made an excellent point. She said it is vital that peace is seen not just as possible, but as desirable. Currently, it is not seen at all. Unless and until that is part of the education experience of Palestinian children, there will be a ghost train.
Andy Slaughter
I am slightly confused about what the hon. Lady is saying now and what she said in her opening speech. She relies on evidence within the report, but she seems to find the report on the whole unsatisfactory. Which is it? Does she accept the report or not?
Caroline Ansell
I find the report conflicting. I find it difficult to reconcile. In the body of the report, and in the words of the esteemed institute, there is example after example of inciting hatred, as recognised by Members. It talks about how
“Jews as a collective are dangerous and deceptive”.
How can that be reconciled with a conclusion that says the curriculum meets standards? It clearly does not. Zero tolerance is the position of the Government, and that must be our aspiration for the Palestinian curriculum.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the EU Review into Palestinian school textbooks.
Trans-Pennine Railway
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Angela Eagle (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. I must also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times—both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the trans-Pennine route upgrade and Northern Powerhouse.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Angela. I am sorry that I am unable to attend this important debate in person, but I am self-isolating.
The trans-Pennine route upgrade and Northern Powerhouse Rail are two crucial transport infrastructure projects for the north of England. The latter is vital to the economic prosperity of Bradford and my constituents in Bradford South, as well as the wider region and the nation as a whole. I raise these matters today amid fears that that important high-speed rail project is set to be cut back, bypassing Bradford altogether, but the work for a diluted version of Northern Powerhouse Rail is being prepared by the Government under the guise of the trans-Pennine route upgrade and the smokescreen of the National Infrastructure Commission.
A report seen by the Yorkshire Post newspaper revealed the Government’s thinking. Documents for the trans-Pennine route upgrade setting out development and capacity improvements for NPR between Ravensbourne and Dewsbury are among the key elements of that scheme. I am not arguing against the trans-Pennine route upgrade—far from it: the modernisation of the existing cross-Pennine rail route is long overdue and desperately needed. It has been on and off the Government’s agenda—upgraded, downgraded, paused and rethought at regular intervals—and I am pleased that it might at last get the green light to go ahead. But that must be as well as, not instead of, Northern Powerhouse Rail.
I suppose I should not be surprised by the revealing of the Government’s intentions; after all, this has become an all too familiar pattern when it comes to investment in transport infrastructure spending outside London and the south-east. I am, however, outraged and, frankly, incredulous—outraged that yet again the Government plan to short-change the north and think they can get away with it, and incredulous at such short-sightedness.
The transport infrastructure of the north has endured decades of under-investment and generations of unfulfilled economic opportunity as a consequence, and yet the potential of the north of England to deliver not just for itself but to provide a national uplift is unparalleled. The north is home to seven of the UK’s 20 largest cities, and Bradford is one of them. Despite the short distances between them, the economic interaction of those cities has been restricted. With £343 billion in economic output, eight of the UK’s top research institutions and 27 universities, the potential of the north is right there for all to see.
Time and again in this House I have raised the north-south economic imbalance in our country. Time and again I have had acknowledgment of the problems that Bradford and the north face. I have had promises, but no action. Time and again, I have asked Ministers to confirm that the Northern Powerhouse Rail would get the go-ahead and that it would include Bradford, not pass it by. Time and again Ministers have responded with warm words, but nothing concrete. Let us have no more shallow promises.
We need action more than ever before. Instead of the commitment required to address the inequality at hand and reap the benefits of investment to change it, we have seen prevarication, fudge and delay. Earlier this year, the Department for Transport told Transport for the North that it must delay submission of its strategic outline case for Northern Powerhouse Rail until after the Government had published their integrated rail plan. This kicking of the can down the road, coming after the National Infrastructure Commission raised questions about what can and cannot be afforded in the current national rail budget, does little to engender either confidence or trust. First expected by the end of 2020, the integrated rail plan remains a mystery.
As details of the DfT’s thinking about the trans-Pennine route upgrade now emerge, there is clear cause for concern that the Government are contemplating not a levelling up, but a levelling down of rail infrastructure investment in the north. Today, we must have the truth about the Government’s obligation to tackle the imbalance of this nation’s north-south economic inequality and their commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail, because the two are inextricably linked.
Northern Powerhouse Rail is the very essence of levelling up. It is not about trains: it is about people. It is about unlocking potential, attracting investment and creating jobs. It is a catalyst for a regional and national economic boost: integration, rather than fragmentation, of the great cities and economic powerhouses of the north. To put it bluntly, upgrading existing lines will not fulfil the manifesto promises that the Government made or provide the transformational improvement that the north needs and which our nation needs the north to make, too.
Transport for the North, England’s first sub-national transport body, said that its preferred Northern Powerhouse Rail network will
“deliver close to £5bn in economic benefit, by helping the North operate as a single economic unit, and £14.4bn in gross value added (GVA) by 2060. It will create a net gain of 74,000 new jobs in the North, and over 57,000 new jobs across the UK as a whole.”
The preferred route for Northern Powerhouse Rail—the one that delivers the greatest economic boost to the region, as set out by Transport for the North with the backing of northern leaders and both the West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire metro Mayors—includes a city centre stop in Bradford, which is currently the largest UK city without a main line station. Bradford is the UK’s youngest city, and its fifth biggest. It is home to more than half a million people and 17,000 businesses, and has £10.5 billion in its economy. It was PwC’s most improved city in 2019, and was listed among The Sunday Times’s best places to do business. It has a strong manufacturing base, especially in my constituency of Bradford South. It has high business start-up rates, and it is among the UK’s top exporters. However, its capacity for growth is constrained by poor connectivity. Analysis by Transport for the North of a Bradford city centre stop on Northern Powerhouse Rail points to additional gross value added across the Bradford district of £2.9 billion per year in today’s money by 2060. That is equivalent to increasing the size of the local economy by a third.
The reduction in journey times between Bradford and key cities in the north and the UK would be transformational, enabling a journey from Bradford to Leeds to take seven minutes. Currently, that journey takes 20 minutes, between two cities that are about eight miles apart as the crow flies. It would be possible to get from Bradford to Manchester in 22 minutes—it currently takes an hour—and from Bradford to Liverpool in 50 minutes; it currently takes two hours.
Across the wider regions, the proposal would put around 10 million people and more than a quarter of a million businesses within 90 minutes of four or more northern cities. Northern Powerhouse Rail will also support carbon-free and sustainable travel, contributing to the net zero carbon goals of not just northern cities, but the whole of the UK. One of the largest city-to-city journey to work flows in the country is between Bradford and Leeds, mostly by car. At scale, Northern Powerhouse Rail supports a 400% increase in rail travel and takes 64,000 car trips per day off the road.
Done properly, Northern Powerhouse Rail will create an integrated urban area larger than Birmingham, linking Bradford and Leeds to form a coherent economic unit, with a labour market of more than 1.3 million people, and more than 600,000 jobs. Done poorly and half-heartedly or—as increasingly seems to be the Government’s aim—on the cheap, with the very least they can get away with, it would fail to support the economic and societal advances we require.
Northern Powerhouse Rail is a game-changer for the north and Bradford: a key part of rebalancing the economy and the country. A watered-down version would expose the reality of the Government’s real commitment to levelling up. Put simply, it is not acceptable. In west Yorkshire on Monday, when asked about Northern Powerhouse Rail, the Prime Minister said that he could not give
“chapter and verse on exactly where the stops are going to be”.
That response from a Prime Minister who famously does not do detail, though he does do populism, suggests that a decision has been reached and it is not going to be popular. The Prime Minister told the reporter that he would have to get back to her. I ask the Minister, who has responsibility for Northern Powerhouse Rail and the trans-Pennine route upgrade, to give our Parliament today the detail that the Prime Minister this week committed to provide to a journalist. It is time for the Government to level with the people and the cities of the north. They are either going to deliver in full on Northern Powerhouse Rail or they are not. Which is it to be, Minister?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for leading this important debate. She set the scene very well. I, too, was concerned when I read newspaper reports about the potential downgrade—that is, an upgrade of the trans-Pennine route as it exists rather than a new route. The hon. Lady quoted part of the newspaper interview with the Prime Minister; he also said that there is definitely a commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail and a huge investment in railways in the north, so I was more reassured.
It is quite understandable that the Treasury should look carefully at where we spend taxpayers’ money. On the face of it, why do we need two railways running across the Pennines? It is a fair question to ask. Having spoken to the Chancellor before he took that role, I know he was always committed to east-west rail links across the north. I do not think for a minute that Northern Powerhouse Rail is under threat. The Minister will no doubt reflect on that when he makes his comments.
The key is the agglomeration effect, as economists call it. It is a critical mass, which is what we need. It brings 10 million people together, in exactly the way that London has 10 million people together who are highly connected. It shows the economic opportunity based on that. As the hon. Lady set out, cities such as Bradford would be left behind without it. Bradford cannot be connected into the rest of the north without Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Key to it are all those young IT-savvy people connected so easily to places such as Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Hull, York and many others. That makes perfect sense and it is vital we get that agglomeration effect. I know Bradford quite well, and its city centre is in desperate need of investment. A shiny brand new station in the middle of Bradford would attract lots of other private sector investment, which is critical. We have seen the investment at King’s Cross and St Pancras and all the investment that came off the back of that. That is what would happen to Bradford. That is critical investment, and not just for Bradford—there are similar arguments for Hull, Liverpool, York, Manchester, Newcastle and Leeds. This is an important and welcome debate, and I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say from his perspective. I know he is a massive champion of investment in rail in the north.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing this important debate. I am sure we all agree that investing in rail across the north of England and improving connectivity between all communities is vital.
I reiterate the Government’s commitment to levelling up the north of England as we build back better from the pandemic, delivering real, tangible improvements for people across the region. That is one of the Government’s top priorities. The Government are committed to enabling the north to reap the benefits of record levels of investment in our rail services. The trans-Pennine route upgrade and Northern Powerhouse Rail are just two of many infrastructure projects that will better connect communities across the north of England. The integrated rail plan will soon outline exactly how these major rail projects, alongside HS2 phase 2b and other transformational projects, will work together to deliver the reliable train services that passengers need and deserve.
However, we are not waiting for the integrated rail plan to get on with investing in, and delivering significant improvements to, transport across the north of England. Building on our £29 billion investment in northern transport since 2010, we recently announced £15 million for two new stations outside Leeds, at White Rose and Thorpe Park, providing a springboard for regeneration, housing growth and economic activity and jobs in the surrounding area. We announced a further £317 million of funding for the trans-Pennine route upgrade, which I will talk more about shortly, and more than £1.2 billion from the transforming cities fund to improve connectivity across the north. In addition, we are investing £137 million in the Hope Valley line to improve capacity and connectivity between Manchester and Sheffield, and £34 million has been pledged to rapidly progress plans to reopen the Northumberland line, which closed to passengers in 1964 as part of the Beeching cuts.
Transforming railways in the north will significantly impact national infrastructure by releasing capacity, improving journey times and reducing our carbon footprint. The trans-Pennine route upgrade is a multi-billion pound programme and is expected to be the largest investment in our existing rail network over the next five years. It aims to tackle the problems that rail passengers experience today by delivering a step change in the performance and reliability of this key east-west rail artery, enhancing journeys for passengers and providing opportunities for the growing population up until the 2040s. Funding of £589 million was announced in July 2020, enabling design and development work to continue and delivering extensive reliability, capacity and journey time improvements between Manchester and York via Huddersfield and Leeds.
An extra £317 million investment into the programme was announced in May. The bulk of this funding will commence early works, including electrification and upgrades between York and Church Fenton, one of the busiest stretches of track in the north of England, as part of delivering a more reliable and resilient railway for passengers. This funding, which has already been committed, will see the programme progress rapidly into the next phase, with early benefits delivered for passengers as early as 2025. The Department continues to work through the design and development phases of the programme. A further update to the business case, to make recommendations for the next stage of works, is due in the coming months.
I turn to the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme, otherwise known as HS3, and to the recent media reports cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the hon. Member for Bradford South, which inaccurately speculated about the Government’s commitment to NPR and that money has been reappropriated from the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme to finance HS2. I am pleased to say that those claims are categorically untrue. The Government remain absolutely committed to the Northern Powerhouse Rail programme, which represents a further opportunity to invest in northern communities, to level up the economy, and most importantly, to improve connectivity and reliability between key northern hubs, allowing the north to reach its full strategic and economic potential both at home and abroad.
The integrated rail plan will outline the investment blueprint and the delivery profile for a host of major rail projects in the midlands and the north over subsequent decades, including the NPR programme, the trans-Pennine route upgrade and HS2 phase 2b. Once it has been published, the Department for Transport will work closely with Transport for the North to finalise a strategic outline case for the NPR programme that is consistent with the policy and funding framework established by the integrated rail plan, which will allow more rapid alignment around single-route options for NPR and an accelerated delivery timetable that will allow us to get spades in the ground and realise benefits for communities across the north of England sooner than was previously seen as possible.
As for the content of the integrated rail plan and the recommended way forward for the NPR programme, final decisions are yet to be made and Ministers continue to look very closely at the evidence, including that provided by Transport for the North and leaders from the north and midlands. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met northern leaders—including those from Leeds, Bradford and Manchester—and leaders from the midlands several times this year to discuss their priorities for investment in rail infrastructure and in the integrated rail plan.
I myself have met Councillor Susan Hinchcliffe on three occasions this year and I know that my officials have had much engagement with her officers in both Bradford Council and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority. I am grateful for their ongoing constructive engagement. We have had productive discussions on understanding the evidence base that is being presented.
That applies to all Northern Powerhouse Rail corridors, including Bradford and the Manchester-to-Leeds NPR corridor. The Government recognise the importance of improving rail connectivity to Bradford—for the local community, for passengers and for the regeneration opportunities that it could bring.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
On that point, I really emphasise my support for having a station stop in Bradford, because of the absolute benefits it would have for my constituency of Keighley; as the MP for a neighbouring constituency, the Minister will be well aware of those. However, this process is not just about things such as the NPR; it is also about the Skipton-to-Colne railway line, which he will also be very familiar with, and opening up the links between the east and west.
Andrew Stephenson
Wonderful—I welcome the contribution from my constituency neighbour, who represents Keighley. I am happy to say that I completely agree with him about the importance of Bradford, not only to the whole north of England but as an integral part of our rail network. I will not comment on the Skipton-to-Colne line; I have a vested interest, because it goes through my constituency. I will leave that one there, but he makes a very strong case for the reopening of that railway line.
We would all agree that Bradford is a vibrant city with plenty to contribute to the wider development of the north. Combining the local economies of Manchester and Leeds, it has an important role to play in creating an economic powerhouse to rival anywhere else in the country.
There remain a range of options that are under robust evaluation as part of NPR. That is why, when the Prime Minister visited west Yorkshire earlier this week, as the hon. Member for Bradford South mentioned, he did not talk about specifics. But he did say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton mentioned,
“There is definitely a commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail, and a huge investment in railways in the North.”
That speaks very clearly to the Government’s commitment.
Ensuring that investment in Northern Powerhouse Rail benefits the widest possible range of places is the responsibility of Ministers; we take it very seriously, which will be reflected in our decision making. As I have mentioned previously, the integrated rail plan will set out how major projects across the north and the midlands will be sequenced and delivered, and it is the Government’s ambition that the benefits of Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2 phase 2b are delivered to communities and passengers in the north more quickly.
I am aware that hon. Members and local leaders from across the midlands and the north are eagerly awaiting the publication of the integrated rail plan. Let me assure my hon. Friends that we are making good progress and intend to publish it soon.
Kevin Hollinrake
I, too, am eagerly awaiting the integrated railway plan. The Minister said it will be published “soon”, but could he be more specific?
Andrew Stephenson
As somebody who served in the Government Whips’ Office for two years, I think I will stick with the language of “soon”. However, it is definitely our commitment to have the integrated rail plan published.
The one thing I would say, though, from having had conversations with many leaders across the north of England, is that many of them have said that they would rather we get the right answers and the right solutions rather than rushing things. This plan will set an investment framework for decades, so we have to get it right— and if that requires a little more to-ing and fro-ing and a little more negotiation, I think that is a price worth paying. Nevertheless, we are very keen make the announcement soon.
As I say, it is important that we continue the negotiations and carry on reflecting on all the evidence. We must also consider what the National Infrastructure Commission said in the “Rail Needs assessment for the Midlands and the North”, the advice from Transport for the North, the views of northern and midlands leaders and the Government’s own analysis before making any final decisions.
Growing economies and levelling up the north and the midlands are at the heart of what we are trying to achieve. That is why I am also happy to confirm that Ministers from both the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury have been closely involved in drawing up the integrated rail plan. This process is not just about building railways but about taking a holistic view of how to capitalise on our investment, and how to help boost regional economies.
I hope that I have convinced the hon. Member for Bradford South and my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton and for Keighley (Robbie Moore) of the Government’s commitment to both Northern Powerhouse Rail and the trans-Pennine route upgrade, and to delivering the benefits of these transformational rail investments to passengers and communities in the north more quickly. Decisions on these schemes will be set out in the integrated rail plan, which we intend to publish soon, but in the meantime we are already getting on with levelling up the country and delivering investment and improvements to transport across the north of England.
Question put and agreed to.
Children from Low-Income Families: Education Support
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will also be suspensions between each debate.
I remind Members participating physically and virtually that they must arrive at the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate. I remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate, and that they will be visible at all times both to each other and to us here in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall clerks, at westminsterhallclerks@ parliament.uk.
Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I would also like to remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for the education of children from low-income families.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I rise to speak on this issue as a parent and, like all of us here today, as someone who wants the best for our schoolchildren, and to ensure that they are not limited by their background or their parents’ income.
I stand in awe of the incredible work teachers, school staff, parents and early years practitioners have put in over the past 15 months to ensure that children in school do not miss out. They have adapted to social distancing measures in classrooms, regular testing and isolation periods, all while ensuring that children feel safe and can learn. Sadly, we have not seen the same commitment from the Government.
In common with almost all other Government Departments in their response to the pandemic, there has been a catalogue of Conservative failures in education, including school closures without an effective plan for distance learning; a promise to primary schools that they would return before the summer holidays last year, then backtracking on that promise; and preventing families from accessing food vouchers during school holidays, only to do a screeching U-turn after outrage and condemnation from across our nation. How could we forget the exams fiasco for both A-level and GCSE students, leaving thousands distressed about their future? In addition, the Conservatives presided over legal action to force schools to stay open, only to shut them weeks later; in their catch-up plan, they provided less than £1 per day when children were out of school; and they ignored the advice from the expert adviser, Sir Kevan Collins, to allow children to properly recover from the pandemic, forcing him, unfortunately, to resign. As one Slough headteacher, commenting on Government behaviour on education, noted:
“Communication is last minute, it’s ill thought-out and it hasn’t included our voice in the whole process.”
Schools have had to cope with all that in the space of just over a year. It would be almost comical if the impact of this incompetence was not on our children’s futures. Each delayed or poor decision has resulted in worse outcomes for a generation of schoolchildren who have been left to suffer. The impact of these decisions is real, and the consequences are even more severe for those who were already disadvantaged and come from low-income families.
The most recent figures show that since October 2020 the number of pupils eligible for free school meals has increased by over 100,000. At the same time, support and funding for such pupils has fallen, with the Government moving eligibility for pupil premium support back from January to October. Schools, which have already been left bruised by cuts to their resources since 2010, therefore miss out on additional funding for any child who began claiming free school meals after 1 October 2020, leaving them short-changed to the tune of millions.
As the Lawrence report proved last year, children on free school meals are already at an economic and educational disadvantage. That factor has a real and profound impact on pupil attainment across all ethnicities. In 2019, just 25% of pupils who had been eligible for free school meals, or who had been in care or adopted from care, received grades 9 to 5 in GCSE English and maths, compared with 50% of other pupils. After brutal cuts and the cynical moving of deadlines, is it any surprise that disadvantaged schoolchildren are struggling?
One Slough parent who lost their job and was reliant on food vouchers expressed their turmoil to me, saying:
“My daughter has been left out by the very government that we rely on to keep us and our loved ones safe.”
Instead of investing to ensure that families in Slough have adequate support to ensure that their children are clothed, fed, and can attend school, the Government have continued to cut the support on which they rely so heavily. The move from legacy benefits to universal credit means that just half of the children in the poorest fifth of our population are able to get free school meals. Sadly, this Government seem intent on savings, rather than on investing the potential of future generations.
While that neglect of our poorest families continues, the gap between them and their peers widens. In my constituency of Slough, the learning gap between disadvantaged pupils and their classmates is 2.4 months for early years, almost six months in primary schools, and in our secondary schools it has reached more than 11 months. Those tragic facts were set in motion way before the onset of the pandemic, and we have yet to see the long-term impact that the pandemic may have on our children. Researchers from the Education Policy Institute have identified that the increasing proportion of disadvantaged children who are in persistent poverty has contributed to the lack of progress in narrowing the learning gap.
Ensuring that parents get the proper financial support that they deserve is essential to children’s attainment and achievements in later life. A Slough mother contacted me recently to attest to that. She was living on just £120 a month and was unable to properly feed or clothe her children. She was desperate for empathy from the Government and adequate support to better the lives of her family. If children experience difficulties at home, they are in no position to be ready to learn.
We must give children the resources to thrive, not leave them to struggle through a pandemic, like the thousands who were unable to get the devices that they needed to access their schooling when the Government’s laptop allocation promise was slashed by 80%. Back in January, Labour’s calls to get every child online fell on deaf ears. As I mentioned earlier, 100,000 pupils have not returned to school full-time following schools reopening. All along, there has been no plan for the education of the most vulnerable in our society.
I am a great believer in the power of education, and in Slough we have some of the best schools in the country. Without support from the Government in what has undoubtedly been the most difficult time for education and disadvantaged families in recent years, the opportunities that a good education can deliver are being missed. We should be realistic about the dire and lasting impact that continued Government inaction will have. A Royal Society report suggests that the impact of school closures on 13 cohorts of students has the potential to affect a quarter of the entire workforce for the next 50 years, and disadvantaged pupils are particularly at risk of falling into poverty.
It is possible to turn the tide with a properly funded catch-up plan, not one that will reach just 8% of pupils, less than half of whom are on free school meals. We need action proportionate to the serious times ahead to ensure that children from low-income families do not miss out even more and to improve the outcomes of future generations, ensuring that they are better off than their predecessors and that they can access and achieve their ambitions, not be held back. The Government will never improve the prospects of our nation by leaving disadvantaged children behind
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 4 pm. I am obliged to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 3.27 pm and the guideline limits are 10 minutes for the Scottish National party, 10 minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition and 10 minutes for the Minister. Then the mover of the motion will have three minutes to sum up the debate at the end. But until 3.27 pm, we are in Back-Bench time and our first contributor will be Siobhain McDonagh.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to speak. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this incredibly important debate.
Right now, there are 385,500 pupils off school and isolating because of coronavirus, some of them for the second, third or even fourth time. That means weeks of lost learning after their already missing months of school through the lockdowns. For many of these children, being sent home means a return to remote learning, joining their isolating classmates behind a computer screen, but children on the wrong side of the digital divide will be isolated not just from their classroom but from their education. Why does this matter? It matters because those who were the furthest behind before the pandemic have fallen even further behind their peers during the lockdowns, with every click widening the attainment gap. Sir Kevan Collins has indicated that in September, 200,000 children will make the transfer from primary to secondary school unable to meet their reading age or target.
The Minister and her colleagues have regularly pointed to the Government’s tech roll-out—the Secretary of State for Education did so yet again in the answer to today’s urgent question—but that roll-out was so ineffective that almost a year after schools first closed, the Daily Mail had to run an emergency campaign to secure more laptops for the children who were being failed by this Government. Before the Minister points to the success of the roll-out, may I remind her of the utterly damning National Audit Office conclusion that the Department for Education did not even aim to provide equipment to all the children who lacked it? Meanwhile, the latest data reveals that 80,224 of the devices provided in the roll-out arrived after schools had reopened in March.
With hundreds of thousands of school pupils now isolating, the problem of the digital divide has clearly not gone away. In my constituency, the children in year 6 at Saint Mark’s Primary School have all been off school from Friday because of coronavirus, but 23 of them are still without the kit and connectivity required to log in and learn from home. How does the Minister expect these pupils to join their classmates in remote learning? The answer is simple: they will not; they will simply fall even further behind.
We know that it is not just Mitcham that is affected. The front page of The Daily Telegraph today unsurprisingly reveals that youngsters in the most disadvantaged areas are almost twice as likely to be forced to self-isolate as their peers in wealthier areas. However, these children are also the most likely to be on the wrong side of the digital divide, with 8% of children aged between five and 15 not having access at home to a desktop computer, laptop or notebook that is connected to the internet. I ask the Minister in her winding-up speech to specifically address what support is available for the children in year 6 at Saint Mark’s today, and indeed for any children who are self-isolating and who do not have the kit or connectivity required to log in and learn from home.
This is not just a problem for the 10 days of self-isolation. The days of pen and paper are long gone and the technological age that we now live in is here to stay. Homework, research, resources, catch-up—so much is now online. The consequence for children on the wrong side of the digital divide is that they are now even more disadvantaged than before. Today’s debate is on support for the education of children from low-income families, and I am calling for every child entitled to free school meals to have internet access and an adequate device at home. Free school meals may not be a complete measure of need, but I believe it is the best measure we have. This would be a huge step forward in closing the digital divide across our schools. Social mobility, levelling up—call it whatever you want, but surely the pandemic has taught us that no child should miss out on their education in our tech-reliant society simply because they are on the wrong side of the digital divide.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this hugely important debate.
Time and again, children and young people have been failed by this Government. The UK is one of the world’s richest economies, but 4.3 million children and young people are growing up trapped in poverty, with 30% of children, or nine pupils in every classroom of 30, having to combat hunger and stress before they even arrive at school. In my constituency, nearly half of children—almost one in every two pupils in every school—suffer from poverty. That is a damning indictment of this Government’s failure to provide a stable foundation for our children and young people to flourish. Poverty has a lasting damaging impact on the life chances of children and intensifies systematic inequalities.
This has only worsened during the pandemic. A recent National Education Union member survey found that more than half of respondents have seen an increase in child poverty at their school or college since March 2020. The Resolution Foundation predicts that by the next general election, 730,000 more children and young people will be caught in poverty’s vicious cycle. Poverty is holding too many children and young people back, limiting their life chances and creating barriers to their accessing education. A recent survey found that three quarters of teachers said their students had demonstrated fatigue or poor concentration in school as a result of poverty. Shockingly, more than half of surveyed teachers said their students had experienced hunger or ill health because of poverty, while more than a third said their students had been bullied as a result of it. Children accessing free school meals are also 28% less likely to leave school with five GCSEs graded A* to C than their peers from wealthier households. The coronavirus pandemic has increased the pressure facing families on low incomes. A fifth of UK schools have set up a local food bank since March 2020, while 25% of teachers report personally providing food and snacks to their pupils to ensure that they have eaten during the school day.
It is vital that we recognise how young people of all ethnicities have repeatedly been failed by this Government. That is why I was deeply alarmed by the report published last week by the Education Committee, which used selective data to support a preconceived and divisive conclusion that attempts to pit working-class communities against each other. It is true that poor white children struggle academically, which requires urgent focus, yet the Education Committee’s decision to attribute that to use of the term “white privilege”, rather than a decade of Conservative cuts to the services that children and young people rely on, obscures the reality of how class and race intersect in our education system. One only has to look further to see that racial disparities exist across educational attainment, school discipline and university admissions. Poverty disproportionately impacts children and young people of black African, Caribbean and Asian backgrounds, 46% of whom are trapped in poverty. Instead of attempting to create unhelpful divides among children based on their race, we must honestly accept that children from all working-class backgrounds have been badly let down by decades of neglect.
It was not “white privilege” that cut youth services by 73% since 2010; that was the Government. It was not “white privilege” that cut school funding per pupil by 9%; that was the Government. It was not “white privilege” that closed more than 750 youth centres, more than 800 libraries and more than 1,000 Sure Start centres; that was the Government. It was not “white privilege” that scrapped educational maintenance allowance and maintenance grants, and trebled tuition fees; that was the Government. It was not “white privilege” that announced a catch-up funding package that is a tenth of what the Government’s own education adviser said is necessary to make up for the disruption of the coronavirus; that was the Government.
The Government’s neglect of children and young people is a generational betrayal, yet they are now determined to distract from the rampant racial and class inequality that their policies have exacerbated with a trumped-up culture war that is designed to stoke the flames of division. We must oppose this damaging agenda and fight for a future in which all children receive the tools to build a happy and secure life.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing today’s important debate.
Over the past decade, the Conservative Government have inflicted the largest cut to school funding in 40 years. As a result, they are failing to tackle poverty and ensure that a quality education is accessible to all. According to End Child Poverty, 37% of children in my constituency are living in poverty—the Government should be ashamed that that figure has increased by 3% since 2014—and this is having a real impact on their learning. In 2019, a National Education Union survey found that more than three quarters of respondents stated that their students had demonstrated fatigue or poor concentration. That is because of poverty.
The fact is that the Government are failing children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Children eligible for free school meals are 28% less likely to leave school with five A* to C GCSE grades than their wealthier peers. Before the pandemic, the estimated learning gap in Luton between disadvantaged students and their peers in early years was three months; in primary school, it was seven months, and in secondary school it was 17 months. The pandemic has exacerbated inequality and the attainment gap.
By the end of the pandemic, and as a result of the lockdowns, most children across the UK will have missed more than half a year of in-person schooling. We know that lost learning disproportionately impacted children from disadvantaged backgrounds who did not have the necessary digital equipment or study space for remote learning. It was the Government’s responsibility to prevent disadvantaged young people from suffering digital exclusion due to the restrictions. Instead, excellent charities such as Luton Learning Link had to step in to make up for their failure to distribute enough digital devices.
Learning from home has also increased the economic burden on low-income families. Additional outgoings, such as high bills for electricity or mobile data, have hit families at the same time as economic insecurity in the labour market has increased. In Luton, as a consequence of the pandemic and the particular impact on the aviation and hospitality industries, the claimant count has increased from about the national average to the fifth-highest in the country, and the proportion of children receiving free school meals has increased from 21% to 27%. Those children deserve to have the same education as those in wealthy families.
Tackling the educational attainment gap as part of our recovery must be the Government’s top priority. No child should be left behind, but the Government’s current measly offer will not provide the ambitious recovery that is needed. Although others have spoken about the level of funding required, I will focus my remarks on where the funding should be allocated.
Children’s ability and confidence in spoken language is the bedrock of their learning and social and emotional wellbeing. The pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on oracy—speaking well. A report by the all-party parliamentary group on oracy found that two thirds of primary teachers and nearly half of secondary teachers say that school closures have undermined the spoken language development of their most disadvantaged students, compared with one in five teachers saying that it impacted their most advanced pupils.
An increased focus on oracy is an opportunity to accelerate the academic progress of children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Education Endowment Foundation states that
“pupils who participate in oral language interventions make approximately five months’ additional progress over the course of a year”,
rising to six months for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. I have seen examples of this, such as the impact of the Level Trust’s SMASH summer scheme on building the confidence and creativity of children in Luton, and I was lucky enough to give out those awards last summer. Alongside a comprehensive strategy to fund schools properly and expand support services, Labour’s education recovery plan would contribute to developing children’s oracy by expanding school facilities to deliver breakfast clubs and after-school activities, from arts and sports to book clubs, board games, learning through play and communicating.
Expanding access to creative education for children from low-income backgrounds would also help to reduce the attainment gap. Creative subjects can improve a young person’s cognitive abilities by up to 17%, supporting their development in other subjects, such as English and maths. Young people who do not have access to arts and culture are disadvantaged both economically and educationally. The arts should not only be for privileged young people from wealthy families, so will the Minister explain in her closing remarks how the Government intend to fully integrate oracy into all stages and phases of education to help close the educational attainment gap, and whether she agrees that the Government should urgently invest in improving access to creative education, in order to contribute to reducing that gap?
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
It would not be a Westminster Hall debate without Strangford’s finest, Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. You are always very kind, and I appreciate your kind thoughts. First of all, may I say how pleased I am to make a contribution to this debate, and that I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on having secured it? He is a very active MP in this House. Certainly when it comes to questions in the Chamber or debates in Westminster Hall, he is always there, so I wanted to come along and support this debate and my Opposition colleagues.
As a father, I feel very strongly about this issue. My boys are now young men in their 20s and early 30s, and the education of my own children was always very important to me. We as parents know that we would do all we can to see our children succeed, because that is what parents do: we want to see our children do well. We want to see them settled and in a job, and we want them to have happy lives. I am very fortunate that my three boys have achieved that, although I must give credit to my wife Sandra for the rearing of the children and the supervision of their education. I was not there often enough to have the input that I should have had, but certainly my wife was.
Although circumstances can sometimes get in the way of this happening, it is crucial that as policy makers in this House, we do all that we can to support those families who are struggling. The education of children should be a priority for us, and we should not forget about low-income families—that is what this is about. I always think that my job—I believe that others subscribe to this as well—is to look out for those who have no one to look out for them. In this House, we bring forward issues on behalf of our constituents in such a way that the Government can perhaps respond and help in all the ways we would like them to, and take additional steps to make our constituents’ lives easier. As the Minister knows, I am pleased to see her in her place: she has a deep and sincere interest in this subject, and I am very confident that she will be forthcoming with the responses that my Opposition colleagues hope to receive.
I understand that the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, and therefore any comments I make are not for her to respond to, but I want to add to this debate a perspective on life in Northern Ireland, and perhaps reinforce and replicate the issues to which hon. Ladies and Gentlemen have already referred. I want to highlight the struggles that many have faced, especially in my constituency of Strangford. Over the duration of the covid-19 pandemic, those struggles have been at an all-time high. I am very fortunate to have the former Education Minister Peter Weir in my constituency back home, so I have been able to work alongside him to try to address some of these issues, but it has been difficult throughout the covid-19 pandemic to know how to respond and know what the right things to do are.
I want to highlight some of the things that the community has done to help, in partnership with others. Many residents have contacted me about the struggles of at-home education, a feeling of helplessness because of lack of income, and the pressures of having to stay at home either because they have to self-isolate or because the rules mean that they are not able to got out as often as they would like. I am not quite sure whether that is a sign that not enough has been done. I think that the Education Minister back home probably did try to respond wisely, ever knowing that the covid-19 coronavirus and how to respond to it was a complete unknown. However, the education of the children of our nation should be at the forefront of our priorities.
I acknowledge the work that has already been done by the Departments for Education here on the mainland and back in Northern Ireland. Free school meals and uniform grants have been instrumental in helping parents. More than 1.4 million children in England are eligible for FSMs. We have to give credit where it is due, and I give credit to the Education Departments for the things that they have done correctly. I also gently encourage them to address other things in the same way. They have allowed for additional nutritional meals for pupils during school time. I am very pleased to say that that has been extended in Northern Ireland until Easter 2022. We are taking it into next year back home, which is an indication of the importance we attach to the issue.
I would like to make hon. Members aware of the work done by my colleague back home, former Education Minister Peter Weir MLA. He introduced the “A Fair Start” report, which examined the links between educational underachievement and socioeconomic background. The Chair of the Education Committee referred to that issue last week when discussing his Committee’s report, which I was very impressed with. I am sorry but I cannot remember the name of his constituency—I referred to him yesterday in the education debate.
Jim Shannon
Thank you for reminding me, Mr Hollobone. I was just trying to remember that while on my feet. The right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) has grasped the issue. We have that problem in Northern Ireland and it is very clear that it has become a problem for education here as well. I thank him for raising it.
In today’s Education questions in the Chamber, it was encouraging to hear the Secretary of State thank the former Education Minister Peter Weir for his work back home, and to hear that the Secretary of State has a good, strong relationship with the regional and devolved Administrations—in particular with my colleague Peter Weir.
“A Fair Start” wholeheartedly engages with teachers and pupils to focus on early education, while maximising the potential for all pupils across Northern Ireland. A recent report has shown that £180 million will be needed to tackle underachievement in Northern Ireland over the next five years. I know that the Minister cannot respond to that, but money for education is given out across the United Kingdom and we get a part of that through the Barnett consequentials. It is vital that additional funds are allocated to the devolved nations in order to tackle this issue, as there is little more important than the future of our children.
I praise the work of our local food banks, an issue that other hon. Members have also mentioned. I have a wonderful working relationship with the food bank in my constituency, which has been instrumental in supporting low-income families who are going through difficulty. They tell me that the first Trussell Trust food bank in Northern Ireland was in Newtownards in my constituency and that it has received more referrals than any other in Northern Ireland.
In the financial year 2020-21, more than 1.5 million emergency food bank parcels were distributed across the United Kingdom—48,000 of those in Northern Ireland. The Trussell Trust, which works through the Thriving Life Church in Newtownards, has done incredible work. It has worked very closely with my office throughout the pandemic to provide food parcels, as well as other assistance. It also does debt assistance and has a clothes bank and a toy bank. Do you know what that shows me, Mr Hollobone? It shows me that the crisis of the covid-19 coronavirus pandemic has brought out the good in people. That is what I have noticed. I can see the negatives and the problems, but I also see the positives, and the positives are that good people came together. The churches, community groups and Government bodies came together, and collectively they were instrumental in ensuring that assistance for struggling low-income families was available. Notably, most were struggling financially because of the pressures of furlough and job losses. I want to put on the record my thanks to the Thriving Life Church food bank for all it has done.
It is crucial that action is taken to maintain a level of support for the education of children from low-income families, whether it is through free school meals or underachievement strategies. The children of this nation are the future. I say that as a grandfather of five. It is a good generation to deal with because at 7 o’clock at night you can give them back and not have them for the rest of the night, which is probably an advantage. At different periods in our lives we have children and then grandchildren. I have become very conscious of the future in the past few years as the grandchildren have come along. We want them to succeed and to have the opportunities that my boys had. I want them to have opportunities for the future as well. We are really privileged to have the job here in this place to plan strategies and lobby Government and Ministers to ensure that these things can happen.
I again thank the hon. Member for Slough for initiating this debate. I very much look forward to engaging with Ministers and Members on further action that we can take to improve the education of our young people. As I said earlier, they are our future and we have to do our best for them.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing today’s very important debate. I know that in parts of the UK children are still in school for another few weeks. In Scotland our children are already on summer holiday. Many of the issues we are discussing today apply not just to the UK but to the world at the moment. I believe that the pandemic has hit children and young people hardest of all, particularly when we look at food inadequacies and things such as limited access to technology in order to undertake their digital learning.
We need to look at how advantage has made a difference. The attainment gap exists everywhere between advantaged and more disadvantaged children. Do we treat the symptoms or try to cure it? Countries that have more radical, socially just policies have seen the attainment gap narrow, and that is what we should look at. It is pretty sad that it took a footballer, the fabulous Marcus Rashford, to press the Government into taking more action for children’s free school meals.
We have heard about various concerns this afternoon. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) talked about the Ofcom report and specifically about accessing digital technology and broadband. Even when young people have the kit, if they cannot afford the broadband connection there will still be problems. Unfortunately, we are hearing that many children did not have the kit that they needed to start with. Earlier in this Session, I was pleased to support the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) seeking social tariff for broadband, because that is what we need to be looking at. We need to be considering broadband as an essential service to every single home. If people cannot afford it, something has to be put in place to ensure that they can.
The hon. Members for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) talked about specific issues with child poverty in their constituencies and how they had seen that increase during the pandemic. Certainly I can join them in that, because in Glasgow North West and across Glasgow, we also saw some of the issues with child poverty being made more acute. I will speak more about that in a moment. And we had, of course, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), talking about his ambitions for his children as a parent and, now, as a grandparent. He gave a lot of credit to his wife, but I am sure that some credit also has to go to him for the raising of his children.
The Ofcom report that talked about the number of young people without access to digital technology was pretty stark. It showed us how big an issue that is. In Scotland, we have tried to tackle it. I would like to see the UK Government taking more action. Every child in Scotland was provided with a digital device, and many were given mobile wi-fi devices to ensure that they could actually access wi-fi as well. I know teachers around Glasgow who actually hand-delivered these devices to young people in the constituency. This has been really important.
The Scottish Government have also acted quickly to try to alleviate issues that have been reinforced by the pandemic, such as by providing free school meals to all primary children. That is what we need to be doing—providing not just free school lunches for some people, but breakfasts and lunches for everyone so that there is no stigma, that it is just what happens at school, and that we know that all young people going to school are fit to learn because they have food in their stomach. The Scottish Government are going further, because they will enshrine in law that right to food. During the summer holidays, which we are now in, in Scotland, young people and children in Scotland will be supported by a £20 million Scottish Government fund that will create opportunities for them to socialise, play and reconnect with one another, because their health and wellbeing is of equal importance to their academic progress. We need to ensure that that is right, so that they are ready to start the next school term come August.
The UK Government must ensure that there is more support for children in low-income families who need it. As of May 2020, more than 6,000 households in Scotland had their benefits capped, with those households losing, on average, £2,600 a year. Just over 4,000 of the households included lone parents and children. The Scottish Government will tackle that head-on with the Scottish child payment. That is a world-leading payment, but we are going further because it will be doubled to £20 a week for every eligible child. These are major steps, and steps that the UK Government should be mirroring. Of course, the universal credit uplift, which has been an absolute lifeline, must be kept in place. Removing that will wipe out much of the benefit that the Scottish Government are putting in place with the Scottish child payment.
The Scottish Government have acted quickly to provide the learning tools and access to technology, but we need the UK Government to do more, so I have a few questions for the Minister. First, I would like to hear what discussions she has had in her Department about a social broadband tariff, because that would be transformational for children who are learning at home—not just in pandemic times, but in other times. I would like to hear about discussions she might have had with the Treasury about retaining the universal credit uplift, which has been a lifeline for parents and families. Finally, I would like to hear what plans she has to mirror the Scottish child payment, which is going to go up to £20 a week per eligible family.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. First, I would like to say a big thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) for securing this important debate and for his tireless work in Parliament to raise the issues facing children and young people. He made a powerful speech about the Government’s neglect of poor children in Slough and the impact on headteachers. The quote from the Slough headteacher, who said that communication is ill thought out, resonated with me because it is echoed by a lot of teachers in my constituency. The Slough parent who said that she feels let down by the Government reflected something that I have heard over and over again from parents in my constituency.
I thank all our colleagues who have taken part in the debate and spoken up for children from low-income families in their constituencies. The hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) spoke movingly about the shocking inequality and poverty among children in her constituency, and how poverty is limiting the life chances of her young constituents. That also applies to my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that parents simply want their children to do their best, and to do what is best for their children in life. However, that is very difficult to do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) spoke in her passionate speech about the shocking 37% of her young constituents who live in poverty. If the odds are against people from the start, it is hard to do well in life, and it is hard for parents to ensure that their children do well in life. My hon. Friend was right to point out the enormous increase in the attainment gap for disadvantaged children in her constituency, and across the country. It is commendable, but in equal measure shameful, that organisations such as Luton Learning Link have had to step in, because that should be the job of the Government.
Perhaps the most shocking betrayal of children from lower-income families is the stealth cut to the pupil premium that the Government have pushed through. By moving the date for calculating the pupil premium back from January to October, the Government have cut funding for more than 100,000 children who qualified for free school meals in between, and that is shocking. The Department for Education’s own calculations show that that will mean schools losing out on £90 million of funding, with those in the most deprived areas being hit the hardest.
To put it in simple terms, the Government have directly withdrawn money that is intended to support disadvantaged children, who, as we have heard from contributions across the Floor today, have struggled most during the pandemic and who most need the support. That comes after a decade of Conservative Governments which have implemented a real cut of 9% to school budgets, not to mention slashing funding for local authorities, which has led to the decimation of services that children rely on to progress with education, among other things.
The Government’s woeful education recovery package will do little to address the funding gaps that have arisen as a result of those shameful choices, and the National Audit Office is concerned that even their national tutoring programme is not reaching enough pupils on free school meals.
The huge rise in eligibility for free school meals, which now totals 420,000 children since the start of the pandemic, shows that many more children are living with hardship and relying on the hot meal they get at school each day. The truth is that children cannot learn if they are hungry, yet Ministers have had to be shamed time and again into delivering food support to children at home, and making that available during the summer holidays in the pandemic.
All of us in the Chamber remember the shameful scenes of woefully inadequate food parcels being delivered to children who qualified for free school meals back in January. Unbelievably, the Government are set to repeat their mistakes by offering only 16 days of food support over the entire six-week summer holiday, with no guarantee that it will be given to every child who qualifies for free school meals. Ministers do not even appear to be listening to Labour’s repeated calls to offer all children breakfast clubs before school.
Children who qualify for free school meals are far less likely to have access to a laptop or internet connection, effectively preventing them from learning remotely when they cannot go to school. Despite over a million children not having the digital access they needed at the start of the pandemic, the Department for Education delivered just 600,000 laptops by Christmas. Government schemes ensured that only between a third and half of those who needed a laptop got one. Ministers slashed laptop allocations for self-isolating pupils by about 80% in October. As of January, one in five parents still reported not having access to enough digital devices for children to learn remotely—a shocking statistic.
This is not picking over ancient history. School absences have quadrupled this month. Last week, a shocking one in 20 pupils were forced to miss school for coronavirus-related reasons. Many of those are now at home unable to learn because this still has not been sorted. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her truly inspirational work over the past year and a half to highlight the digital poverty that many children on free school meals have been living in. My hon. Friend has relentlessly brought it up time and again, and my only hope is that the Government are listening to her.
I will briefly mention the Government’s chronic underfunding of early years education over the last decade. Secret documents, unearthed through FOIs by the Early Years Alliance, show that that was done deliberately in the knowledge that it would drive up childcare costs for parents, drive down the quality of education for young children, and destabilise the early years sector. We have already lost 2,500 nurseries, childminders and other early years providers in the first five months of this year. Research by the Sutton Trust shows that providers in the most deprived areas have been most likely to face financial difficulties in the pandemic, and be threatened with permanent closure—10% to 15% higher than in the most affluent areas.
Children from all socioeconomic backgrounds have faced huge challenges in the pandemic, whether trying to learn without the structure of a classroom for much of the year, or facing the mental health challenges of isolation. It is all too often the case that when problems arise, or a crisis such as coronavirus engulfs us, children from lower-income families fare the worst, whether through hunger, difficulties with digital access and access to tutoring, and all the other issues that colleagues have repeatedly and passionately pointed out.
The impact on educational outcomes is there to see. According to the Sutton Trust, more than half the teachers at the least affluent state schools reported lower standards of work during school closures, compared with 40% at more affluent ones, and 30% at private schools. The attainment gap had stopped closing before covid, after a decade of Conservative Governments, but is now set to widen without bold action straight away.
Labour’s £15 billion children’s recovery plan would reverse the stealth cut to pupil premium funding, double it for children in transitional years and more than quadruple the early years pupil premium, give more funding to schools to support tutoring for all children who need it, provide breakfast clubs for every child and deliver free school meals in full in holidays during the pandemic. Those measures would make a big difference to disadvantaged children in my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn, and across the country. We have not heard anything remotely close to that level of ambition from the Government, whose catch-up proposals will support fewer than one in 10 children. It is no wonder that Sir Kevan Collins felt he had to resign over this.
I finish by asking Minster directly why she thinks the Government’s own education recovery chief decided to resign. Has she reflected on whether the Government need to rethink their approach to supporting children from lower-income families in the light of that vote of no confidence?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on securing this important debate.
Children from lower-income families have been at the centre of my Department’s policies since the day this Government took office in 2010. Our ambition has always been to promote a world-class education for every child, irrespective of their background, that sees them fulfil their potential and get set for a successful adult life. Some pupils face greater challenges at school, including looked-after children, children with special educational needs and disabilities, and many of those from lower-income homes. We are committed to levelling up opportunity and outcomes for all pupils.
The best way to open up opportunity for children is to give them the education and skills that can set them up for life. We should never forget how much the last Labour Government failed to do that. Back in 2010, only 68%—two out of three—of our schools were good or outstanding. That figure is now 86%—nearly nine out of 10. The majority of disadvantaged pupils now attend a good or outstanding school. That is not a coincidence. Since 2010, we have taken a dual approach to tackling the attainment gap. First, we have prioritised levelling up the standards in teacher training, because research shows that excellent teaching has a disproportionate positive benefit for disadvantaged pupils. At the same time, our reformed qualifications ensure that all pupils access only the best, most worthwhile qualifications, and the underpinning curricula.
At the same time, we have directed extra funding and support towards those from low-income backgrounds, in recognition of the additional challenges that they often face. For example, we introduced the pupil premium, which gives additional funding to schools to improve the academic attainment and wider outcomes of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. We introduced the national funding formula, which ensures that core school funding better reflects the socioeconomic context of each school, and we introduced and sustained the opportunity areas programme, which brings together local partners to break down entrenched low social mobility and educational achievement.
Siobhain McDonagh
Will the Minister explain why, if her Government’s policies have been so successful, children on free school meals leave school on average 18 months behind their classmates, and will she address the issue of the 200,000 children transferring to year 7 and secondary school in September who will not meet the reading level required?
Vicky Ford
Let me come exactly to those points. Let us look at what children on free school meals are achieving today compared with what they were achieving a decade ago. Last year, one in five of our children on free school meals was successful in their application to university—a 53% increase over a decade. On reading skills—
Vicky Ford
Let me just make this point: one of the most important things that we can do for children’s reading skills is invest in their early education. This Government introduced the two-year-old offer, which provides 15 hours of free childcare a week for 38 weeks a year to disadvantaged two-year-olds and children with a disability or special educational needs. Children who take up those 15 hours a week of free nursery or pre-school are likely to have better educational outcomes, and that early experience in their youngest years can have a positive impact on their educational attainment throughout their entire school career, even at secondary school.
However, the proportion of eligible two-year-olds using that offer of free early education varies hugely across the country. The hon. Member for Slough introduced the debate. In Slough, in January 2020, before the pandemic, the proportion of two-year-olds taking up that incredibly generous offer from the Government was only 49%—the fourth lowest of the 151 local authorities in the country. The take-up in Leicester East—the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) spoke today— is only 57%. I say to the hon. Member for Slough and other hon. Members that if they really care about the educational attainment of children in their constituencies, they should start from the very earliest years and invest their effort in getting out to their constituents and encouraging parents on the lowest incomes to take up the Government’s generous offer of 15 hours of high-quality early education experience in their local nursery or pre-school. We fund it, and it will benefit their kids for the rest of their academic career.
I am enormously proud that the last time we assessed our five-year-olds, nearly three out of four of our country’s children were achieving a good level of development by the end of reception.
Vicky Ford
I will take some interventions in a minute, but there are some important points that I need to make.
Back in 2013, when we assessed them, it was only one in two children. To put it another way, one out of two children who were born in the last years of the Labour Government was already falling behind by the time they started big school. Now, three out of four are excelling and exceeding.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Minister for her comments about the extra funding. However, would she not concede that schools in Slough have had their funding cut in real terms? On many occasions, people have not been able to access the free school meals provision simply because of the manner in which it has been categorised. On how the schools themselves have been funded, would she not concede that the decimation as a consequence of the scrapping of the Building Schools for the Future programme has meant that many schools have leaking roofs, have not been able to undertake maintenance work and have had to delay emergency works?
Vicky Ford
A few other Members mentioned free school meals, including the hon. Members for Leicester East and for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq). This Government have extended the eligibility for free school meals more than any other Government for the past 50 years. It is this Government who introduced universal free school meals and expanded free school meals to those in further education. During the pandemic, we also widened the provision to many children who normally have no recourse to public funds. The Government have also provided funding to local authorities during the pandemic to ensure that the hardest-hit families are supported with food and essentials through the covid local support grants. That has even supported them during the school holidays. Those grants have been extended through the coming holiday at a cost of more than £100 million.
I want to get back to the point that the hon. Member for Slough made about Slough. Slough children’s services have been enormously challenging for many years. The Department for Education has provided significant investment in children’s services in Slough—nearly an extra £7 million over the past two years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it transferred the ownership of Slough Children First, the trust, to Slough Borough Council in April. I call on him to get behind the relationship between the trust and the local authority. I, as Minister, have signed off millions of pounds to give that support to Slough children. He should work with the trust to put Slough children first in his constituency.
Tulip Siddiq
The Minister is boasting about free school meals and how much the Government have done. Will she admit that her Government were forced, kicking and screaming, to extend free school meals because Marcus Rashford and the Labour party shamed them nationally, which is why they felt they had no choice but to extend free school meals? They resisted that until the very last minute.
Vicky Ford
The hon. Lady has said this again and again, and it is simply not true. Let us look at the facts, okay? This Government, when I became the Minister for children, and over the past 10 years, had already extended free school meals to more children than any other Government during the past 50 years. We set up the national voucher scheme during this pandemic—a thing that had never been done before—to make sure that, when schools were closed to most children, they could still access food at home.
Siobhain McDonagh
Can she indicate the last pandemic that required a voucher meal scheme?
Vicky Ford
Mr Chairman, let me please set the record straight, because I personally—[Interruption.]
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister has taken interventions and, given the amount of time we have left, will probably take more, but Members must not keep repeating requests for interventions, which become an interruption of the Minister’s speech.
Vicky Ford
The holiday activities and food programme, which we had already been trialling for three years, is going live across the country this year. It was a manifesto commitment to increase this holiday and wraparound childcare, which we are doing.
I have huge respect for Marcus Rashford and his great passion to make sure that children are properly fed and cared for. I am enormously grateful to him for shining a light on this issue and indeed for the video he made just last week supporting the Government’s holiday activities and food scheme and encouraging children to take part, because it is a great scheme. However, using language saying that I personally was dragged kicking and screaming to care for children, when caring for children is what I do every day and what my Department does every day, is not appropriate, and it scares children.
Let me just get back to the point. We have made many interventions over the past decade to support children, and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and it has made a difference. It is not just us saying that; the OECD recognised our progress. The latest programme for international student assessment, or PISA, results show that the proportion of pupils from low-income households who succeed academically in England is well above the OECD average. Since 2011, the attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and others has narrowed by 13% in primary school and 9% in secondary school. And, yes, it has remained broadly stable in the past couple of years; it widened by 0.5% in primary between 2018 and 2019, but it narrowed by 1% in secondary between 2019 and 2020.
However, we know that the pandemic will have widened that attainment gap. In order to minimise the pandemic’s impact, we kept schools open for vulnerable children, as well as for the children of key workers. We have also announced three further funding packages—a total of more than £3 billion—to provide extra resources to help pupils to make up ground. I remind Members that that comes on top of the £14 billion of extra investment in education that had already been announced by the Government over a three-year period.
In this £3 billion package, we announced—first in June 2020 and then in February 2021—£1.7 billion to support education recovery. That included £930 million in flexible funding for schools to use as they see best, while another £200 million was weighted so that schools with more disadvantaged pupils receive more funding. There was £550 million for tutoring, £200 million for summer schools and another £22 million to scale up evidence-based practices. We also invested in over 1.3 million laptops for disadvantaged children and young people. I know that Labour Members often call for more, but let us remember that this was a massive procurement effort at a time of unprecedented global demand.
Vicky Ford
No, because I want to respond to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) about the issues that she raised regarding rural broadband and broadband access across the country. I remind her that only yesterday the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which is the Department responsible for broadband, announced a further £1 billion upgrade to mobile connectivity. That will particularly benefit rural areas of Scotland, Wales and north-east England, and is again a reminder of why it is so important that we work together in a one-nation approach to support people across the Union.
On the recovery programme, the evidence is clear that investment will have the most significant impact for disadvantaged children in two areas: high-quality tutoring and great teaching. That is why the latest announcement of an additional £1 billion for tutoring will help to deliver more than 100 million tutoring hours for children and young people across England over the next three years. That will expand high-quality tutoring in every part of the country so that it is available to every child who needs help catching up, not just those who can afford it. Another £400 million will provide half a million teacher training opportunities for schoolteachers and evidence-based professional development for early years practitioners.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) spoke really clearly about the importance of oracy and early language. I absolutely agree with her that the development of early language and communication skills is crucial to a child’s journey. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why, even in the lockdown at the beginning of this year, we were so keen to keep early years establishments open for children—they are so key.
What the hon. Lady may have missed is what we are doing about that issue. One of the interventions we have put in place through the national tutoring programme is the Nuffield early language intervention. That is a very specific programme, and our evidence very much shows that it works. It is targeted at children in reception year who are behind others in their early language skills. I have been to see it being delivered across the country. Forty per cent. of schools have already signed up and are taking part, covering around 60,000 children at the moment, and nearly a quarter of a million children have been screened across the country.
I wrote to the hon. Lady last week—I wrote to Members from all English constituencies—including the list of schools in her constituency that are doing the NELI programme. The evidence shows that it adds around three months’ learning. I also asked her if she would promote it to other schools, because we are expanding it. The deadline is the end of July, so please put it out there.
Rachel Hopkins
I appreciate the Minister’s comments on early years. My point, which is set out in the report by the all-party parliamentary group for oracy, was about opportunities for clear oral communication throughout education, as well as in social settings and formally—for example, even young teenagers should have the opportunity to debate, as we are doing today. I hope the Minister has access to the report and understands that it is not just about early years oracy—although I accept her points about its importance—but about the opportunities throughout education that have been missing for many pupils, in both school and college. I hope that she recognises that wider issue.
Vicky Ford
I would be delighted if the hon. Lady sent me a copy of the report. We know that early language skills are so important. Indeed, of the £1 billion catch-up package that we announced this month, £153 million will go into teaching and training for early years staff, including to expand the level of knowledge of our brilliant early years staff in things such as speech and language early development. We are also improving the curriculum in that area.
The evidence shows that supporting a child into reception and primary school with early language skills helps them to pick up reading. As we know, reading has improved significantly over the past decade, partly since we introduced mandatory phonics training in schools. Clearly, without the early language skills, learning to read through phonics can be really challenging. I urge the hon Lady to visit one of the primary schools in her constituency that is delivering the NELI programme. I would love to hear her feedback.
We want to do even more, and we are doing so. We are introducing significant reforms to technical education and creating high-quality options for young people aged 16 to support their progression, as well as meeting the needs of employers. We are also introducing the holiday activities and food programme across the country this year.
Vicky Ford
No. I have taken many interventions, and I am going to speak about the holiday activities and food programme. It provides healthy food and enriching social activities and has been particularly targeted at supporting those from more disadvantaged backgrounds. We have been trialling it for the past three years, and we have structured it in a way that suits what parents and families want. The evidence from the past three years is that taking part in the holiday activities and food programme improves children’s wellbeing and helps them to make a better start when they come back to school in September for the new term, so it helps to close the attainment gap that I have spoken about.
The hon. Member for Slough will be interested to know how much is being invested in his local area—I noticed that he did not mention the holiday activities and food programme much in his speech. In Slough, the investment is £587,720. We are working with authorities such as Slough—indeed, with all 151 local authorities across the country—to help them to prepare and build capacity as we get towards the summer, because we want every single part of the country to have a really rich mix of provisions—different offers—for our children and young people and to really engage and excite them to have a very enjoyable summer.
This summer we are also funding face-to-face summer schools, focusing in particular on children and pupils transitioning into secondary schools. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned year 6 pupils, whom the summer schools will be particularly focused on.
Mr Dhesi
I am grateful to the Minister for rattling off a whole series of programmes and the funding available, including to my Slough constituents. However, will she concede that these numbers, as good as they are, are simply not enough? The Government’s own catch-up education tsar, who is no longer in his post, and experts within education, including headteachers, all acknowledge that, as wonderful as all these sums are, they are simply not enough. Will the Minister concede that we need to invest more in our children if they are not to fall further behind?
Vicky Ford
Let us look at the detail of what the hon. Gentleman says. I mentioned the NELI programme, which is working in 40% of the schools in the country. We have offered it to any school that wants to sign up. It is for any child from reception that needs it. Schools have identified a quarter of a million children for screening, and they are screening them and finding out which ones will benefit from the programme and then offering it to them.
In terms of wider education catch-up, we have already invested in the teaching and tutoring elements, because we know from the evidence that those bits benefit children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds most—this debate is obviously about children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. The hon. Gentleman will know, because we have said it many times, that we continue to look at the time element—should we increase the length of the school day? There are mixed views about that. The evidence is less well known, and that is why we launched a consultation. So, again, I encourage him, instead of saying that it is not enough, to get his teachers to look at the consultation and give their views, because that is exactly why we are doing it. We have invested record amounts in our schools.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn, used very strong words when speaking about early years funding. Members should remember that it was a Conservative-led Government that introduced that the 15 hours of free childcare for two-year-olds and the 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year olds when the parents are working. That is a significant, £3.5 billion investment in early education because we know that it has such benefit for our children. It is a huge increase on what was ever invested during the last Labour Government.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the changes we made to the census date for the pupil premium. The census date has changed to give schools more certainty about what funding they will be getting over the entire financial year. It has been subject to significant media reporting over recent months, much of which has been both inaccurate and deeply misleading. The total pupil premium funding is increasing to more than £2.5 billion in 2021-22, up by £60 million from last year. It is not being cut. Furthermore, pupils who became eligible for free school meals between October and January will still bring pupil premium funding with them, starting in the following financial year, and will continue to attract funding for six years.
The impact of this census change should not be viewed in isolation. The ambitious education recovery programme that has gone hand in hand with it is worth £3 billion to date—many times more than the impact of moving the census date. That includes £302 million for the recovery premium, with £22 million to scale up proven approaches. That £302 million is further to support disadvantaged pupils with their attainment.
I say to Opposition Members that we are speaking about children. Children have had a very difficult time, and it is incredibly important that we do not mislead them, we are accurate in our allegations and we do not scaremonger.
Siobhain McDonagh
May I ask the Minister who used these words?
“The support announced by Government so far does not come close to meeting the scale of the challenge and is why I have no option but to resign from my post…When we met last week, I told you that I do not believe it will be possible to deliver a successful recovery without significantly greater support than the Government has to date indicated it intends to provide.”
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Lady for quoting those words back to me. I say again that we are hugely grateful to Sir Kevan for his work in helping pupils to catch up and recover from the effects of the pandemic. The funding that we have announced this month, since his work, supports his recommendations on tutoring and teaching improvements. As I have just discussed, we are consulting on the time-based element of his proposals.
I would again like to thank the hon. Member for Slough for the opportunity to discuss this subject. I have endeavoured to lay out all the different elements of what has been, and continues to be, a very extensive programme over the past decade to support children from low-income backgrounds.
There is no doubt that this pandemic is the biggest challenge this country has faced in my lifetime and since the second world war. By staying at home during lockdowns, respecting class bubbles and limiting their contacts with friends, our nation’s children have saved lives. They should be so proud of what they have done in the past 18 months. We will stand by them as we all recover from this.
Mr Dhesi
My gratitude, Mr Hollobone, for the excellent manner in which you have chaired today’s debate. I also send my gratitude to Mr Speaker and the House authorities for allowing this important debate to take place.
I extend my best wishes and thanks to right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in today’s debate and particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). She spoke with gravitas about the impact of the digital divide, which is felt even more now that one in 20 schoolchildren are out of school self-isolating, with many still not able to have access to devices and broadband internet. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) spoke passionately about the damage being inflicted on poverty-stricken families in her constituency, and pointed out that three quarters of teachers are suffering from fatigue and that children are suffering from hunger and a lack of ability to concentrate. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) spoke eloquently about how these are the largest cuts to education in 40 years, about the devastation wrought on low-income families and about the impact, in particular, on the oracy of all our children. As a fellow member of the oracy APPG, I thank her and others for the incredible work they are doing to highlight those issues.
In his own inimitable style, the hon. and distinguished Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the comparison with what is happening in Northern Ireland—the steps taken there to tackle underachievement, the food and toy parcels being delivered by the likes of the Trussell Trust, and the work of the voluntary sector in general. I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), the Scottish National party spokesperson for education, for the SNP perspective on socially just policies and how more radical policies are required—in particular, the social tariff for broadband, free school meals for all children, the delivery of devices, and the right to food being enshrined in law.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), the Labour spokesperson for education, spoke articulately and with great experience of this subject, gained over so many years. She highlighted how £90 million had been lost because of pupil premium recategorisation. She also spoke about Labour’s transformative policies with regard to the children’s recovery plan, breakfast clubs, digital access for all, free school meals, and much more besides.
I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks today and for her perspective that it has always been her ambition and priority to level up and to look after children from more disadvantaged sections of our community. As I said during the debate, a great number of programmes and figures have been rattled off today by the Minister, but I feel that she has been sent out on a very sticky wicket, in the sense that the Treasury has hampered much of what the Department for Education would like to be doing and what many of us as Members of Parliament would like it to be doing.
After this debilitating pandemic, which has without doubt hit children in our communities the hardest, the catch-up fund that has been proposed is simply not enough. Even the holiday activities and food programme the Minister mentioned, which Slough constituents can avail themselves of, unfortunately provides only 16 days of food support over an entire summer holiday period. That is why, as hon. Members have pointed out, the Government’s own appointed education recovery tsar has been forced to resign.
Vicky Ford
On the subject of the holiday activities and food programme, it is really important that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents understand that we run it for four weeks, for four days a week, because we have been trialling it for three years and that is what parents and families have tended to want. They do not tend to want to attend every day. In addition, this summer, the covid local government support scheme will be there—as it has been at Christmas, Easter, spring half-term and last half-term—to make sure that families that need access to extra food and support can get it, so please stop this “We’re only there for 16 days of the summer holidays.” That is not what we are doing: we are making sure that our children can get these activities and food, which are so much better for them, as we have seen from the evidence.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Minister for that clarification, but I come back to the same point: it simply is not enough. That is why we have to carry on in this endeavour.
I thank everybody once again, and I humbly suggest to the Minister that we need to do more than just 10% of whatever it takes: we need to go the whole hog to look after and enhance the prospects of children.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Southport to Manchester Rail Services
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the hybrid arrangements. Members should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rail services from Southport to Manchester.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to have obtained this debate about train services to and from my constituency to Manchester, particularly the Manchester Piccadilly service, which is critical for my constituents and local businesses. Many of my constituents use that train service for employment, particularly in Wigan and Manchester, for education and for leisure. Local businesses also rely on the train service to bring potential customers, employees and other visitors to our tourist economy. All they want—indeed, all they deserve—is a direct train to the south side of Manchester.
My hon. Friend the Minister is aware that I have campaigned on this issue since I was first elected as a Member of Parliament. The good news is that, over that time, we have repeatedly fought and won to secure the future of this important service. I owe much credit to the Southport and Ormskirk rail travellers association and to the numerous Rail Ministers who have preceded my hon. Friend, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), the former Member for Orpington and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard). I know he shares an interest in this particular line, as its alteration impacts his constituents as it does mine.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper), who has led on this issue with me, and my hon. Friends the Members for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) and for Bolton West (Chris Green) and the hon. Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) for their support. When there have been problems with rail timetables, we have collectively done our best to respond and force changes to the benefit of our constituents.
The bad news is that I cannot set out that glistening picture today because the service is once again faced with the prospect of being downgraded. In January, the Department for Transport, in partnership with Network Rail and Transport for the North together, having already established the Manchester recovery taskforce, launched a consultation on timetable options to improve rail performance in the north of England. That represented a major backward step for many of my constituents, who had only just secured the return of their direct services to Manchester Piccadilly. As one of my constituents said: “The most frustrating thing is that we only secured the return of the direct rail service to Manchester Piccadilly back in December, and whilst it was far from perfect, we had direct rail services to Piccadilly. Less than a month later and our town’s rail services are back on the table like a poker chip.”
The key issue is not about having a consultation, but about the reason behind it and the front-loaded way in which the options to change the routing and frequency of some existing journeys have been too heavily stacked against my constituents from the start. All three options presented by the Manchester recovery taskforce would remove my constituents’ direct rail service to Manchester Piccadilly.
Before I address that point, I will set out for the Minister the nature of the problems that my constituents currently face. Manchester has five city centre stations. For many years, the Southport line had two daytime services to Manchester—one to Victoria in the north of the city and one through Piccadilly on the south side to Manchester airport. The service specification for the Northern franchise let in 2016 meant that the long-standing Southport airport service was withdrawn and all trains from my constituency were to be routed to Victoria.
A campaign challenged that change, conducted passenger surveys and, in collaboration with the rail authorities and train operators, analysed travel data, which proved journeys to Manchester were destination-specific to one of the five city centre stations for reasons of work, business, study, health, leisure and, in the case of Piccadilly, connections to the rest of the country. Two thirds of Southport and Lancashire residents travelling to Manchester usually required the south side.
In April 2017, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys, who back then held the responsibility for our country’s rail services, recognised the issue and directed the franchisee, Arriva Rail North, to present a business plan that would deliver an already identified solution. Following my election as Member of Parliament for Southport in June that year and with ARN dragging its feet, I asked the campaign group to draw up a business case, which I sponsored and presented to the Secretary of State for Transport in January 2018.
The case was accepted by the rail industry. By then, it was committed to the May 2018 timetable debacle, which included the withdrawal of the Southport airport service. Two morning and evening services were retained. The services were restored incrementally up to the completion of the reinstatement in December 2019, but that did not include services directly to Manchester airport. When emergency key worker timetables were introduced with the first covid lockdown last year, the Southport line services, like many, were halved. Significantly, in recognition of the line’s importance, the train operator, which is now Northern Trains Ltd, devised and implemented a non-standard train path and timetable to maintain a direct key worker service to the south side. Since the pandemic, the Southport line has been one of 12 operated reliably and punctually through the Castlefield corridor.
Those are issues with the current service, but I come now to the fundamental problem of the Manchester recovery taskforce’s consultation and the proposed timetable changes to and from Southport: the downgrading of our direct rail services. When it is fully running, the line will benefit those of my constituents who want to get on a train at Southport station and sit on it as it carries them through to Wigan or perhaps the north side of Manchester. That might be of benefit to some of my constituents. However, for those who do not want that or who want a faster service to Piccadilly, such proposed timetable changes were never the answer. My constituents have been asked to forgo a service that takes them to one of the three stations in south Manchester and within a five to 10-minute walk of their workplace, the universities and the hospital. They are now being asked to use a rail service that will take them to a place they do not want to travel to, on the wrong side of the city, which will add a further 20 minutes to their overall journey time.
Allow me to provide the Minister with a bit of context. Piccadilly is the busiest station in central Manchester and the only one in the north-west region that provides connections to services everywhere in Britain. It is not a backwater at the end of the metro service. Manchester Piccadilly is a crucial stop that promotes my constituency’s tourist economy and acts as a pathway to tens of thousands of visitors each year, including to the Southport Air Show, the Southport Flower Show and, I am proud to say, The Open, which was held at the Royal Birkdale in 2017 and attracted almost a quarter of a million visitors. The station is also crucial to my constituents’ having the opportunity to attend good universities and access employment opportunities. There is now talk of a fourth compromise option, but the MRT should not be planning for Oxford Road to be the main Manchester station for my town. The demands of my constituents and visitors is driven by destination—simply put, they need to be where they want to be.
The idea that the industry will decide what sort of service people can get confirms that, for so long, it has felt that it enjoys playing trains until it concerns the passengers. However, passengers are key, and those who choose to use the service must have it available to Deansgate, Oxford Road and Piccadilly along the Castlefield corridor. Similarly, my constituency should not be seen as a scapegoat to alleviate congestion along a busy stretch of line, for which there is no operational argument. I was deeply concerned when the MRT reported timetable changes that showed that it had always been the intention to remove my town’s direct rail links to Manchester Piccadilly under the caveat of consultation, and that the main destination of services from my town would be Oxford Road.
That was never made clear in the consultation, but it absolutely confirms my constituents’ fears that the Manchester recovery taskforce’s consultation was nothing more than a caveat to removing my town’s direct rail services. At some stage, it was always going to turn around and say, “We want to remove the direct rail service to Manchester Piccadilly. You can get off at Oxford Road instead.” I rejected the idea in 2017, when I was first elected, and I reject it now, as do the overwhelming majority of my constituents who responded to the consultation.
I urge the Minister to ensure that the Northern franchise continues to provide a direct service between Southport and Manchester Piccadilly on the mainline, and not just for Oxford Road. There has to be a sufficient number of services at the right time and with enough seats, so that people can use the service that they need. My constituents want the services restored and, at best, strengthened. Some might say it is natural for me, as the local Member of Parliament, to stand up and say that for my constituents, but it matters beyond my constituency.
Some people using the services to Manchester Piccadilly are not from my constituency but get on at my station. As I have said, this issue affects a number of hon. Members’ constituencies, just as it affects large areas of Lancashire and Merseyside. Instead of using the trains, some of my constituents have already started to drive to Manchester because of the reduced service. If that is the trend, it will likely increase the chance of one of the three proposed changes put forward by the Manchester recovery taskforce being implemented. How does that help our 2050 climate target? How does that achieve levelling up?
We want more people to use the trains, but we will not achieve that if services are cut off from entire communities such as mine. We want the country’s economy to thrive. It is right that we level up across the UK—an idea that my constituents fully support—but levelling up is not a wonderful esoteric prize that only a few should benefit from. It must apply to all parts of the country. Good train services matter to my constituents, and are crucial if we are to build back better from the pandemic and strengthen our economy for us all. I urge everyone involved—the Minister, Transport for the North, Network Rail and the Department for Transport—to do everything to ensure that my constituents continue to have the train services that they need. We must continue to see people using the trains bringing people from Manchester and Wigan to my constituency, and from Southport to Manchester, to provide opportunities to access good jobs and education.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate left the station on time at 1605 and must arrive at its destination on time, no later than 1635. I call the Rail Minister.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
This debate is all about the destination of the train. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This is my first time responding to a debate in this place, and I look forward to going back to Westminster Hall. Some would say I look forward to its coming home—forgive my voice; I might have been singing that a bit last night.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore) on securing this debate on rail services between his constituency and Manchester. As he demonstrated in his words, he genuinely is a hard-working, straightforward representative of his constituents. He does not mess around. I have enjoyed my interactions with him. He always finds a way of getting his way, and I hope that I can work with him to assuage some of his worries. Currently, there are just not enough passengers on our trains, so we need to get people back.
As my hon. Friend is aware, we have a rich railway history that put this country on the world stage with its Victorian pioneers, its ingenuity and engineering achievements. To continue that legacy, the Government have outlined plans that will continue to take our rail network forward. Thanks to record levels of funding that will help us to build back better, as my hon. Friend said, as we recover from the pandemic, we will also deliver the biggest modernisation programme that the railway has seen for more than a century.
Since 2010, we have invested £29 billion in northern transport. The 2020 Budget also committed to invest £4.2 billion in intra-city transport settlements from 2022-23 through five-year consolidated funding settlements for eight city regions, six of which are in the north. Capacity funding, confirmed at Budget 2021, is supporting city regions and preparing them for the settlements, and 70% of capacity funding has been allocated to city regions in the north.
More than £22 billion has been invested in phases of HS2 to deliver the essential north-south connectivity, and cross-regional rail has received a much needed boost thanks to the upgrade of the trans-Pennine mainline. Only last month we announced an extra £317 million to improve that vital route for freight and passengers, which connects Manchester, Leeds and York via Huddersfield. That comes on top of the £589 million that was put into the programme last year. A lot of investment is happening in our railways, especially in the north.
The Government are committed to levelling up the country, which is why we are planning to spend, on average, more on transport in the north compared with the south, the midlands and the east of England. A strong, effective railway is central to that ambition. As the country moves out of the pandemic, it gives us an opportunity to introduce a new era for the railway that puts the passenger at the heart of everything we do.
My hon. Friend will no doubt have heard about the plans to reform Britain’s railways with a new public body, Great British Railways, which will simplify our railways and deliver more simple, modern fares, and will bring about a financially sustainable railway that is fit for our times. The plan for rail will prioritise punctuality, reliable services and the passenger. Our trains in the north are already delivering that. Records show that more than 90% of services have been on time in recent months. However, there is much work to be done. Passengers travelling on some areas of the network are not getting the service that they deserve, and for too long people in Manchester and wider afield have suffered train delays and cancellations due to the congestion that my hon. Friend outlined around the city.
In January 2020, a taskforce made up of industry experts was formed to identify options to tackle that. I do not have to remind my hon. Friend what happened in May 2018, when infrastructure not being delivered, overpromising on a timetable and industrial action combined to deliver unbelievably poor service and cancellations on the rail system for his constituents and many others across the whole country. We need to avoid that, because when passengers come back they will expect to travel on a reliable, resilient and very clean railway. The work that commenced in January 2020 is focused on Manchester, but it recognises that the issues of rail congestion in the city itself are felt across the whole of the north, including my hon. Friend’s constituency of Southport.
At the centre of all this is the need to improve immediate rail performance in the north to provide a train service now, as well as an infrastructure plan for the medium term, that works for passengers and freight, and that will support the growing economy of Manchester and the north as a whole. With that in mind, the taskforce conducted a root-and-branch review of the timetable and consulted on three possible options, as my hon. Friend said, earlier this year. In doing so, the taskforce, which includes Transport for the North and Transport for Greater Manchester, aimed to strike a balance between providing a high-performing railway that will benefit all passengers into Manchester—before the pandemic, more than 150,000 people a day—versus changes in journey patterns for a relatively small percentage of people.
That is a big choice. It also aligns with Greater Manchester’s 2019 rail prospectus, which recognised that a simpler service pattern on the Network Rail network was necessary in the short term. That may mean that passengers need to change between services to complete their journey, but it will ultimately result in services that are reliable and punctual, which is always at the top of people’s list of priorities. The taskforce estimates that a regular commuter into Manchester could benefit by up to one hour a month in reduced delays compared with the pre-covid timetable that performed so poorly.
More than 800 people and organisations gave feedback to that consultation, which has been invaluable in developing a solution. Indeed, my hon. Friend gave great feedback to it, along with a host of experts that he brought to the table, once again, as he would say, to make that point. Although there was broad acceptance that we could not go back to the old timetable, one of the strongest areas of feedback was on access to the southern side of Manchester from Southport and Wigan. I have met my hon. Friend on a number of occasions, with and without officials, to discuss the matter. We had a very long meeting in March following a one-to-one briefing that was arranged between Northern Rail and a representative from the Ormskirk, Preston and Southport Travellers’ Association to explain the thinking and choices involved in option development.
The taskforce has really gone out of its way to reflect carefully on the representations, and continues to work closely with local transport authorities on revisions that aim to address as many concerns raised as possible, including those of my hon. Friend and his constituents. We have also given room for extra consideration by agreeing to defer any major changes until December 2022, so that we have the time to get this right. The revised proposals for a new timetable structure will soon be considered by the political leaders in Transport for the North, as well as by me and other Ministers, after which I hope to make a public announcement, including a formal response to the consultation. The train operators will then lead a further consultation in the autumn on the fine detail of a new timetable, before moving towards implementation.
It is recognised that that is not a long-term fix. Manchester is a major railway hub that fuses the needs of inter-city travel with local commuters and a huge and growing amount of freight traffic. There is no easy solution to the congestion problems, but improving the infrastructure will be critical. To address that, we are developing an ambitious programme of infrastructure improvements across the decade. The first business cases are being finalised now; once they are agreed, the work will be finished around 2025. It includes improvements from new passenger information technology to extra platforms across Greater Manchester and the city centre.
But there is much more to do to make Manchester’s network ready for HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. The plans for the medium and longer term include resignalling and remodelling some of the busiest stations and reconfiguring very complex junctions. The designs and business cases are also being developed and are expected to be ready by 2023.
Work is happening on the ground now. In March, Network Rail was instructed to start work on lengthening platforms across Greater Manchester to accommodate the longer six-carriage trains that are now a regular feature across the north. We are making sure that stations have the platform capacity to accommodate them; work on that is due to finish in 2023. As part of a £500 million investment, TransPennine Express has introduced three new fleets into its passenger service, providing 13 million extra seats a year.
Likewise, another £500 million has been invested in 101 new trains for Northern, providing more space for customers, including wheelchair users, and consigning the old Pacers to history—something my hon. Friend both worked towards and campaigned for. Those longer trains can carry more passengers and are faster, and they use the latest technology to reduce emissions and journey times. They have also created new jobs in the region, as can be seen in the recently opened state-of-the-art maintenance and servicing depot, which is important to what we are doing at Wigan. These changes are significant, but by working together on a package of projects that deliver reliability and reflect passenger demand, they really will make a difference.
Elsewhere, I would like to reassure my hon. Friend that his bid to the restoring your railway ideas fund to improve connectivity by reinstating the Burscough curves is currently being considered. Outcomes of the bidding round are expected to be announced in the next few weeks.
I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend for securing this debate and rightly shining a spotlight on rail services between Southport and Manchester. The railway provides a vital lifeline for many people across the north, and the Government are committed to modernising the network as part of their wide-reaching levelling-up agenda. I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that a tremendous amount of work is being done, which aims to provide for a faster, more reliable network for all. Through a combination of infrastructure work and timetable changes, it will make a positive difference to everybody who travels on our services across the north. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to make sure that it works for his constituents as well.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
We have arrived at our destination ahead of time.
Question put and agreed to.
Detention of Jagtar Singh Johal
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the debates. There will also be suspensions between debates. Members participating either physically or virtually must arrive at the start of debates in Westminster Hall. Members are expected to remain for the entire debate.
I must also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their cameras on for the duration of the debate and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to those of us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address, which is: westminsterhallclerks@ parliament.uk. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.
There will be a time limit in this debate, which I will advise after the Member in charge has finished speaking, but I warn Members now that it is likely to be between two and three minutes.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the detention of Jagtar Singh Johal.
It is good to see you, Mr Hollobone, in the Chair and to see that so many Members have been able to join us, either physically or virtually. Members joining the debate today, either here in the Boothroyd Room or online, will be glad to hear first that I intend to keep my contribution relatively short today. I only really have one question to ask the Minister, and I think that Jagtar’s case will be best served by allowing other diverse voices from across these islands to speak on his behalf and to demonstrate to the UK Government that there will be no let-up until Jagtar is released.
Let us get to my question for the Minister, which I will ask again when I sum up: why have the UK Government deemed that Jagtar Singh Johal’s detention is not an arbitrary one? Of course, many other questions today will flow from this one and I am sure that we will hear it being asked in other guises over the next hour. But the Crown’s Minister must answer it.
I have raised the case of Jagtar Singh Johal with Ministers almost 20 times since my first point of order about it on 15 November 2017. The week after that, I first raised it at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions, when the allegation of torture was still fresh. The House of Commons was told by the then Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who was responsible for consular policy, that
“We will work very closely to investigate the matter and will, of course, take extreme action if a British citizen is being tortured.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 858.]
That Minister is no longer in the Government—indeed, he is no longer even a member of the Conservative party. Nevertheless, when a Minister speaks from the Dispatch Box, we should be assured that their words will be believed. I still remember my own surprise that day at hearing the use of the words “extreme action”, but both the Singh Johal family and I would be content right now with a simple ruling of arbitrary detention and for the concomitant obligations to kick in.
I have spoken at length about many aspects of this case on many occasions, most notably in an Adjournment debate on the first anniversary of Jagtar’s detention on 27 November 2018. I do not intend to go over too much of that material again, but it is worth remembering how this case began.
Jagtar was a young man from Dumbarton, fresh from his wedding that week, who was enjoying his time with his new bride in Jalandhar, until suddenly a group of unidentifiable men in plain clothes leapt from a van, hit him and took him away. I am sure that we can all appreciate the terror and helplessness that his wife must have experienced in that moment—it would be unimaginable. The next few days, as Jagtar was held incommunicado, must have seemed like an eternity. Allegations of torture—and more recently, the reality of covid in an overcrowded maximum security prison half a world away—have weighed heavily on the family. I must say that their resilience in the face of this ordeal has been extraordinary.
By my reckoning, Jagtar has now been detained for 1,335 days without any substantial charges being brought in the case—that is coming up to four years. We know that the FCDO had been looking at a designation of arbitrary detention and, from conversations with Ministers of all levels, we know that they have been thinking about this for some time. This issue must surely have grown more recently. In January, we were glad of the estimation made by the charity Redress that Jagtar’s detention was an arbitrary one, and even more so when a cross-party group of 140 MPs signed a letter to the Foreign Secretary asking him to ensure that the FCDO intervenes to secure Jagtar’s release, as he himself is on record restating the policy quite recently.
Given that it is the opinion of Reprieve and Redress and their legal counsel that Jagtar’s detention is a clear breach of categories 1 to 4 of the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention’s definition, I again ask the Minister why the UK Government do not share that view. I expect the Minister to speak about many of the things that the UK Government have been doing for Jagtar, so please let me put on the record—I also do so on behalf of the family—that the work of the FCDO staff, both in post and in the prisoner policy and human rights team of the consular directorate here in London, has been immense. There has been immense support for the family and myself. They have diligently undertaken all that has been asked of them—and gone above and beyond on occasion, as I am sure they will know. I am only sorry that convention does not allow me to thank them by name.
However, these are civil servants who pursue their work through a framework established by their political masters. It would be remiss of me not to mention some of the issues that FCDO Ministers have either allowed to pass by or should immediately seek to remedy, beginning with the failure to ensure that an independent medical examination was undertaken to establish the facts around the allegations of torture made by Jagtar against the Punjabi police. There is the continuing lack of private consular visits, and the continuing reluctance of the Secretary of State specifically to meet with Jagtar’s family and myself, as his predecessor did. Finally, there is the decision of the Prime Minister not to raise Jagtar’s case with Prime Minister Modi when they last spoke virtually in April.
Taken together, these issues tell me that we have a group of FCDO civil servants who are ready and able to implement Government policy, but senior Ministers who are reluctant to escalate representations beyond simply raising them with the Indian Government officials. If they can do so with Governments of other countries where UK nationals are arbitrarily detained, why can they not do so with the Republic of India? Doing so would not be intervening in the internal affairs of the Republic of India unnecessarily. I have been clear from the start of this case that all we ask for is transparent due process and rule of law. When at least two of these elements are missing, as was so clearly demonstrated at Jagtar’s 161st pre-trial hearing today, it is my responsibility as his local MP to ask why. Neither the Singh Johal family nor myself is asking for the “extreme action” that, as I mentioned, we were promised by the UK Government at the start of this process: we are asking them only to recognise an obvious fact.
This week, Jagtar was able to speak by video call with his brother for the first time since his incarceration. He was as good as could be expected under the circumstances, but most of all he wondered when he would get to see his family again in the flesh. That was a sobering moment for me. Jagtar Singh Johal is a husband, a son, a grandson, a brother, an uncle, and a son of the Rock of Dumbarton. He is arbitrarily detained in India. Why can the United Kingdom Government not recognise that? Let us get Jaggi released: let us bring him back to Scotland and let him see his family.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate will last until 5.50. I am obliged to call the Front Benchers no later than 5.27, and the guideline limits are five minutes for the Scottish National party, five minutes for Her Majesty’s Opposition, and 10 minutes for the Minister, after which the Member in charge will have three minutes to sum up the debate at the end. There are nine Back-Bench contributors. If there are no interventions during Back-Bench speeches, we can have a three-minute time limit.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
While in India for his wedding on 4 November 2017, British citizen Jagtar Singh Johal was shopping with his newly wedded wife when he was bound, hooded and bundled into a car by plain-clothed police officers. Leaving his wife with no explanation why he had been taken, Jagtar was taken into police custody and denied his right to see a lawyer, family members or a representative from the British high commission. Once imprisoned, Jagtar reported being tortured by police. He said crocodile clips were placed on him, with electricity fired through his body. Such was the severity of the torture that Jagtar had to be carried out of the interrogation room. To make the pain stop, Jagtar reports that he was forced to confess to the alleged conspiracies.
Why has he faced these basic violations of his rights? Prior to his arrest, Jagtar was involved in raising awareness of human rights abuses against India’s Sikh population. Human rights organisation Reprieve fears that he has been targeted for exercising freedom of expression and his right to it. It has already cost him four years in prison without trial. He has endured torture and now there is a real risk that confessions extracted through torture could be used to sentence him to the death penalty. Jagtar now languishes in prison, where mass covid-19 outbreaks have triggered calls for states to protect vulnerable prisoners.
In the face of these humans rights abuses, what have the British Government done? Rather than standing up for the rights of British nationals overseas, they have failed to follow Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office policy to lobby for arbitrarily detained UK nationals overseas, and ignored calls from myself and 139 colleagues earlier this year to do precisely that. The Government have even failed to secure an independent medical assessment of Jagtar to judge the severity and extent of torture, and to secure private consular visits with him for over three years. The Foreign Secretary has failed to meet with Jagtar’s family and despite calls from human rights organisations to raise the issue, the Prime Minister failed to challenge Indian Prime Minister Modi on Jagtar’s detention and treatment in a meeting in April.
This is a shameful dereliction of duty, Mr Hollobone: a pattern of what is happening in India and how the British Government are failing to stand up for human rights. In recent years in India, there have been a growing number of arrests of humans rights defenders, student leaders, trade unionists, journalists, and others critical of the ruling Government. In occupied Kashmir in 2019, the Indian Government unilaterally revoked articles 370 and 35A of the Indian constitution.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I call the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald).
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing this important debate and for his tireless efforts.
Many residents in my constituency are deeply concerned about Jagtar’s continued detention. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Sikhs, I know the ongoing work that that group has done. In a previous Parliament, I spent an extraordinary amount of time lobbying for the release of my constituent Billy Irving, wrongly detained for years in an Indian jail. I know the horrendous impact of that ordeal on his family and can imagine that the impact on Jagtar Singh Johal’s family is similarly huge.
Let us remember that Jagtar was taken from the street where he was walking with his new wife, who was not even given an explanation for her husband’s detention. They had just got married and were looking forward to their future home in Scotland. Even more concerning now is the analysis by his legal counsel in India confirming that he faces a possible death sentence on at least three of the charges levelled against him. Forced confession, allegedly extracted through torture, is the primary evidence on which these death penalty charges are based, so his fair trial rights have been gravely violated and detention is clearly arbitrary. Despite the fact that the UK Government’s policy is to lobby for the release of arbitrarily detained British nationals overseas, the Foreign Secretary has not yet done so in Jagtar’s case. I would like to hear from the Minister why the UK Government have failed to implement their own policy on arbitrarily detained British citizens.
Of course, we are looking at all this through a particular prism, because covid puts an urgent complexion on everything. I can only imagine the anxiety that Jagtar and his family face knowing that he is so far from them—with covid rife and them unable to do a thing to keep him safe. He is in a horrifically overcrowded prison. Even though the state government has recognised the challenges that covid is causing and recently sanctioned the emergency release of thousands of prisoners—even those accused of murder—Jagtar was not included and remains incarcerated.
I applaud all the efforts of the family and of the all-party parliamentary group on British Sikhs, and I applaud the sterling work of Sikhs in Scotland and, of course, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire and others who have been working on this issue. So much effort has been expended, but what we really need is action in India. For that to happen, we urgently need this UK Government to take these issues on board, to listen and to act. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I commend the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing the debate and for his advocacy on behalf of his constituent. There is a great deal that I could say about this case, but time is short. I will limit myself to three brief points.
First, I understand the concerns that the Minister will have with regard to the apparent interference in the criminal justice system of another sovereign state. That is well rehearsed; it is not new territory for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. However, I bring to his attention the quite remarkable and wholly inappropriate briefing note circulated to Members of this House today; it was brought to the Deputy Speaker’s attention by the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire. I gently suggest to the Minister that it demonstrates, in the way in which it is constructed—both in terms of its highly misleading and inaccurate content and how it strays into discussion of the procedure and indeed substance of the case against Jagtar Singh Johal—that in fact the Indian Government themselves do not have great regard for the propriety of the independence of their own criminal justice system. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when he formulates his own position with regard to it.
Secondly, the absolutely most crucial point, made by the hon. Member, is that Jagtar Singh Johal has been the subject of very strong prima facie arbitrary detention. As has been made clear by counsel instructed by Reprieve and Redress in the briefing they provided for Members today, this is caught by categories 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the guidance produced by the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. I was in legal practice myself for long enough to know that lawyers can come to different conclusions, so if the advice given or the conclusions drawn by the Minister and his staff are different, I hope he will explain exactly where these differences come from.
Thirdly, Jagtar’s position is undoubtedly grim, but he is actually in a much better position than just about everybody I have ever campaigned for and worked with when they were facing the death penalty, because he has not yet been through the judicial process. I have looked at just about every death penalty case I have ever been part of and thought, “Dear God, if only we had got to this at first instance.” We are well ahead of that point at the moment. The Government should be implementing their own policy with regard to arbitrary detention. They have rightly done it for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others often enough. Why are they not doing it for Jagtar?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone.
For Jagtar Singh Johal, it is hard not to feel angry, defeated and despondent. I cannot imagine how difficult it has been for his family—and his wife in particular, who has not heard from her beloved husband since he was snatched and detained by plain-clothes officers in India just three weeks after their wedding in October 2017.
As we know, Jagtar is a British citizen, a loving family man and valued citizen of Dumbarton, but the UK Government—the Government of the country of Mr Johal’s birth—have fallen silent and deserted him. Why have the Government not demanded the release of their own British citizen? Our Foreign Secretary has not so much as met Mr Johal’s grief-stricken family, despite his predecessor accepting that Mr Johal had no chance of a fair trial and was in grave danger. However, in their attempts to strike new trade deals the Government seem to have damaged our global moral standing and neglected our humanitarian responsibilities. It is dangerous brinkmanship of the highest order, but it is also what we have come to expect. It seems the UK Government would sooner allow Mr Johal’s death than jeopardise any future trade deal. As recently as April this year, the Prime Minister met the Indian Prime Minister remotely and once again neglected to raise Mr Johal’s case during the meeting.
It is time for the Government to act to secure Mr Johal’s release. They must work towards a medical assessment of Mr Johal and of the facility in which he is imprisoned, and they must push for a private consultant to visit and gain access to where Mr Johal is confined. At the earliest opportunity, Ministers should meet Mr Johal’s family. The Government’s silence is a moral outrage and an unforgivable dereliction of their duty to protect a British citizen.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing this vital debate. We have spoken privately about this issue in the past, and I wholeheartedly agree that its importance cannot be overstated.
That a British citizen can be arrested and held for so long in another country with no indication of when his case will finally be resolved by due process should shame our lazy and hands-off Foreign Secretary. What is more, the Home Office attempted to add to the family’s burden by trying to expel Gurpreet Kaur, Jagtar Singh Johal’s wife, which shows the contempt with which this Government are prepared to treat those in peril.
Many of my Coventry constituents will be deeply concerned about this matter because two of our neighbours face a similar prospect this year. Two brothers resident in my constituency were hauled into custody after raids on their homes last year. That has traumatised their families and sent shockwaves through our local community in Coventry. As British citizens who have lived in our country their whole lives, they deserve from the Government the same protection that we all receive, but they are now languishing in custody ahead of extradition later this year, and they are profoundly worried about what the future holds for them.
Ministers have offered the stock assurances that the brothers will be properly treated by the Indian authorities and that they will not face the death penalty, but none of what they or their families have been put through can be said to have inspired confidence in promises made by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office or the Home Office. Given that the two men in question have been investigated previously and the Home Office decided that there was no further case to answer, it is not surprising that so many in the community are asking why the arrests took place. Those doubts have been reinforced in the minds of many by the simple fact that in the week before the arrests were made, the Foreign Secretary visited India and met Ajit Doval, a key national security adviser. What is the Foreign Secretary sacrificing in his haste to wrap up a trade deal with the current Indian Government?
If the Government will not stand up for British citizens abroad, how can any of us be safe? Those constituents of mine, and all who are in the same position, deserve fair treatment and a Government here at home who are willing to fight for them to secure due process. Instead, they are left in fear for their lives because this Government prefer to purchase new friendships abroad, setting at naught inalienable in their attempts to revive our faltering trade relationships. It is time for the Government to offer some leadership on this issue, instead of importing sectarian politics from abroad into our debate here in the UK. Minister must assure for all our citizens, regardless of their background, the fundamental right that defines being British.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on securing this hugely important debate.
Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen and a Sikh human rights advocate from Dunbartonshire, sought to use his platform to raise awareness of historical abuses carried out against the Sikh population. In 2017, he travelled to India to get married, and three weeks after the ceremony plain-clothes police officers abducted him on the street. According to the human rights organisation Reprieve, the police brutally tortured Jagtar with electricity and brought petrol into his cell, threatening to burn him alive. To make the pain stop, he signed blank pieces of paper and recorded video statements confessing to the charges against him, some of which carried the death penalty.
Jagtar’s imprisonment clearly amounts to arbitrary detention under international law. He has now been detained for more than three years without trial. When a British national is arbitrarily detained and tortured and faces a potential death sentence, all on the basis of trumped-up political charges, the British Government must make it clear that that is unacceptable. Despite it being Government policy to lobby for the release of arbitrarily detained UK nationals overseas, the Foreign Secretary has yet to do so for Jagtar.
Will the Minister explain why the Government failed to implement its policy to seek the release of arbitrarily detained British citizens in Jagtar’s case? This is even more urgent after a mass outbreak of covid-19 in the prison in which Jagtar is detained. The World Health Organisation and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have called on states to protect vulnerable prisoners during the pandemic, to immediately release those who have been arbitrarily detained and to secure non-custodial alternatives to detention.
In April, I wrote to the Prime Minister urging him to raise Jagtar’s case during a meeting with his counterpart, the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government raised Jagtar’s arbitrary detention with the Indian authorities, either at that meeting or at any other time?
Although the UK Government are anxious to improve relations with India so they can secure a post-Brexit trade deal, the UK-India relationship, and indeed all our diplomatic efforts, must be deeper than just trade. They should be based on the promotion of democracy, human rights and upholding international law. The Government must do all they can to ensure Jagtar’s safety and release.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing this debate and representing his constituents so passionately on this matter.
Since the arrest of British national Jagtar Singh Johal in November 2017, I have raised his detention on numerous occasions with Ministers in the Chamber. I hope the Government will take note of our collective concerns and take some steps to address this situation. I am extremely disappointed that we are here once again raising Mr Johal’s detention with the Government. Despite the serious allegations of torture and mistreatment, and the fact that he potentially faces the death penalty, the UK Government have done very little to support Mr Johal’s family and find a solution to this difficult situation. In fact, the Foreign Secretary is yet to meet his family, even though it has been over three and a half years since his arrest.
This matter is of huge importance not only to those directly affected but to the wider Sikh community. Indeed, many of my Slough constituents have contacted me to express their anger and dismay at the Conservative Government’s inaction over Jagtar and his family. I share their concerns. Reports that Mr Johal has been subject to torture are deeply worrying, and must be treated with the utmost seriousness. We must be clear that there is no place for the use of torture or mistreatment anywhere in the world, yet this Government do not seem to want to raise that with the Indian authorities or seek to verify the claims. Mr Johal must be able to meet privately with the British consular staff so that he can raise concerns about his treatment. What have the Government done to facilitate that? Hopefully the Minister will answer that.
Those worrying reports, alongside delays to legal proceedings and the need for a fair trial for Mr Johal, should be conveyed by the UK authorities to the Indian authorities, yet I fear that that has not happened. I hope the Minister will assuage our concerns today. The UK Government must set an example to the world when dealing with such situations, and reassure hon. Members of this House and British citizens everywhere that their Government will not abandon them as soon as they set foot outside the UK.
I am cognisant of the well rehearsed and acknowledged stance that we cannot intervene in another nation’s judicial process, but time and again this Government have claimed to represent the views and voices of all Brits, while in practice many are voiceless within the international arena, as the Government fail to ensure that their basic human rights are respected. The Foreign Secretary must meet Mr Johal’s family and listen to and act on their serious concerns, rather than continually failing them.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I am here because of my personal concern about Mr Johal, but also because of the scale of representation that I have received from my constituents. The Government need to recognise the truly immense worry in our own country about this case. People are concerned because they have witnessed how Mr Johal can be picked up in this way, detained and deprived of his liberty. They feel that if it can happen to him, it can happen to any one of them, especially those who have raised real fears, concerns and criticisms about the current Indian Government’s human rights practices.
Those of us with family connections to India have immense affection for the country and its people. It pains me to see the reputational damage that has been caused to India by the actions of its Government in relation to Mr Johal’s case. I just want to ask a few basic questions about where our Government go from here.
First, in the light of the failure of their representations on Mr Johal’s case so far, can the Minister explain to us the strategy the Government will now pursue for effective representations from our Government directly to the Indian Government? Secondly, can the Minister explain their strategy to co-ordinate the representations from other countries and international bodies in order to create a climate of opinion that will, hopefully, force the Indian Government to act? What is the strategy to co-ordinate the work of human rights bodies to investigate and report on the adherence or non-adherence to basic human rights standards by the Indian authorities in relation to this case? Finally, if there are continued delays, what sanctions are the Government now prepared to take—politically, diplomatically, and if necessary economically—to either secure the release of Mr Johal or at least ensure that justice is done in this case?
There is a sense of frustration now within our own communities at the failure of the Government to act decisively. That is undermining confidence that our Government will actually protect their citizens when they travel abroad. I urge the Government strongly to listen to the representations that have been made so eloquently today, which I fully agree with, and to act. For goodness’ sake, we need speedy action on this appalling case.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The last Back Bencher, but definitely not the least, is Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on bringing it forward. When he had an Adjournment debate on this case some time ago, I was there to support him, and I am here today to do the same thing.
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. The Sikhs are one of our stakeholders, and I want to put that on the record. I have come here to support them.
It is tragic that yet again we are debating the violation of an individual’s human rights. The fact that Jagtar Singh Johal was detained—kidnapped, basically—from the street by balaclava-covered men, thrown in a van, taken to a prison cell, tortured and forced to sign a confession is absolutely unbelievable. I am my party’s spokesperson on human rights as well, so I am here to register my support for the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire and his constituent.
We live in an age in which most of the major human rights treaties—there are nine core treaties—have been ratified by the vast majority of countries, but it seems that yet again the human rights agenda has fallen short. This case involves a British national—one of ours—and his family, for whom we must stand up and speak out. Why have the Minister and the FCDO refused to meet with Jagtar Singh Johal’s family?
Mr Johal has been detained without evidence of any wrongdoing. India is the world’s largest democracy and is rarely considered to be among the major human rights-violating nations, yet Mr Johal has been subjected to torture and forced to sign false confessions while being held in a prison that is now suffering an outbreak of coronavirus. The Indian Government must be held to account. What actions has the Minister’s Department taken to protect Mr Johal, given his pre-existing health conditions, following the outbreak of coronavirus in Tihar prison? Do they include an independent medical examination and psychological evaluation? It is really important that we give the same treatment to all our citizens wherever they are in the world.
The prohibition of extrajudicial torture and killings is fundamental to human rights law. I acknowledge that the appalling treatment has been done not as a matter of official policy, but as a matter of practice, which is even worse. It is unacceptable that the Indian authorities are ignoring international legal obligations regarding torture and detention despite a lack of evidence. Is the Minister aware the Mr Johal is under the threat of the death penalty? What actions has his Department taken since learning of this situation?
India has a judicial system in which the process must be that if suspected criminals are formally charged, they appear in court. Courts might be slow and underfunded and police might be under pressure to convict, but that is no excuse to employ inhumane and degrading treatment of those in custody. That must not be accepted or tolerated.
We are sending that message to the Indian Government from this House today. I hope the Minister will do the same. India is clearly in breach of article 9 of the universal declaration of human rights. We must be told what actions have been taken by the Government at the United Nations to raise g the case of Mr Jagtar Singh Johal. I thank the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire again. We speak today for someone who is one of ours, who has been mistreated and is under threat of the death penalty.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP) [V]
It is truly a pleasure to sum up this incredibly important debate on an issue that is very close to my heart. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deaths abroad, consular services and assistance.
First, I offer my deep and profound sympathies, as well as my solidarity, to the family of Jagtar. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) on securing the debate and on all the work he has done to fight for Jagtar and his family. He has been utterly tireless.
Members have rightly spoken passionately in this debate about the rights of British citizens abroad, and what happens to them when they find themselves, through no fault of their own, killed, injured, incarcerated or—as in Jagtar’s case, although we have heard from many Members that the UK Government, shamelessly, will not recognise this—arbitrarily detained without trial, often by oppressive regimes that routinely breach or abuse human rights.
We should be absolutely clear about what the detention of Jagtar is. As my hon. Friend said, it is a flagrant breach of his human rights by the Indian authorities and Government, and they should be ashamed. It is vital that that message has gone out from all Members who have spoken in the debate today.
Jagtar has spent four years without a trial—four years away from his family in, as we know, appalling conditions, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) highlighted. Seeing this through the prism of covid and the experiences that Jagtar has had in prison make the case all the more distressing and appalling. He is one of so many who are apart and isolated from their family and friends, and ultimately without the support they need from the UK Government. As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, this is an issue that should concern us all. If it can happen to Jagtar, it could happen to anybody.
Jagtar’s experience is, sadly, very familiar. As chair of the APPG, I took evidence from more than 60 families who had lost loved ones abroad or whose loved ones were incarcerated. We heard from a number of organisations, including Redress, who I know have given significant support to Jagtar’s family. The message was very clear, and there was a common theme. All the families we took evidence from felt terribly let down by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. They felt helpless and abandoned. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) alighted on a key point that we heard from a number of families whose loved ones were incarcerated. This Conservative UK Government are putting trade deals before human rights and that should shame us all.
I worked in a consulate myself—I worked for the US Department of State in the consulate in Edinburgh—and I have seen at first hand how hard consular staff work. There may be many things that we can criticise the United States for, but one thing I learned from my experience was that they look after their own, without fear or favour. This Government could learn a lot from that.
I have also met consular staff and ambassadors who work for the FCDO. I know how hard they work and how difficult and challenging their job is. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire also said, I know how hard they have worked for Jagtar and his family, but they are being cut to the bone and their resources are being drained by this Conservative Government.
In 2019, a report by the British Foreign Policy Group, which was backed by many prominent diplomats and former Foreign Secretaries, proved that funding of the diplomatic service was at its lowest in 20 years. In the last 30 years, staff have been cut by 1,000. That is hardly the advert for global Britain that the Conservative Government seem to punt left, right and centre. The reality is that the Government leave British citizens high and dry, because they do not give their staff or missions the funding and resource that they need. Not only are they abandoning British citizens; they are abandoning their own staff. The issue of consular assistance is a grey area. That is why I and others have called for a legal right to consular assistance, which would strengthen the rights of our citizens and make the Government have a legal responsibility to look after our citizens abroad.
The Government have to answer for their lack of action. As Members have said, they have to answer for the fact that the Prime Minister has met the Prime Minister of India and not raised the case of Jagtar. A Government’s first duty should be to look after their citizens in their time of need. Otherwise, what use or value does being a British citizen hold? Will the Government accept that Jagtar has been arbitrarily detained, according to the very clear international definition of arbitrary detention, and explain why they have failed to implement their own policy to seek the release of arbitrarily detained British citizens, as in Jagtar’s case?
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. As the shadow Minister who has been lobbying the Government on this issue, I am grateful to the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing this vital debate about his constituent Mr Jagtar Singh Johal. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for their important contributions.
The Labour party is deeply concerned about the Indian police’s incarceration of British citizen Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been held without trial for more than three and a half years. Although the Labour party does not involve itself in the internal matters of other countries, we will always stand up for human rights, democracy and international law everywhere, and we will always stand up for British citizens wherever we feel that their rights and freedoms are being violated. We value our country’s long-standing relationship with India, which we see as an important partner in the decades ahead on trade, security, climate change and, critically, the joint promotion of democracy, human rights and upholding international law. However, a strong relationship is worth having only if it means that each Government are able to engage frankly with the other and to challenge each other and take robust positions wherever necessary.
That brings me to the issue we are discussing, which is the deeply troubling case of a UK citizen incarcerated for more than 1,300 days without trial, and with the threat of the death penalty looming over him. Jagtar’s story is heartbreaking, as has been the experience of his wife and wider family, not least his brother, whom I have had the privilege of meeting on a number of occasions over the past year. We have all heard the facts of the case, and they are deeply disturbing for all manner of reasons. It is also worth noting that the United Nations shares our concern. On 29 January 2018, the UN working group on arbitrary detention, the special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and the special rapporteur on torture sent an urgent representation to the Indian Government. It expressed concerns over the lack of detail on the factual and legal basis for Mr Johal’s arrest and detention, and it questioned the measures that are being taken by the Indian authorities to safeguard him from torture. On 9 November 2019, the United Nations working group and special rapporteurs sent an urgent representation to the Indian Government, insisting that there had been over two years of delay through an unfair legal process, and that the Indian Government must provide the right to due process, a fair trial and independent medical examination, yet there has still been no movement towards either a fair trial or Jagtar’s release.
Given the facts of the case and those UN interventions, I find it astonishing that the Foreign Secretary has refused to meet the family and that the Government Minister responsible in the other place has refused on two occasions to answer my questions on whether the case amounts to arbitrary detention—first, in a letter that I sent to him last autumn, and then in a letter in January of this year, which took the Government three months to reply to. I therefore ask the Minister today whether the Government recognise Jagtar’s incarceration as a clear case of arbitrary detention. The UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions has made it clear that in death penalty cases where the detainee is detained on spurious grounds as a political statement, or in circumstances of clear human rights violations, the detainee’s country should make representations to the detaining state that the detainee should not be in detention or facing charges at all. Are the UK Government acting on that guidance? Do the UK Government intend to implement their own policy?
Three and a half years is more than enough time to gather evidence and bring a case to trial. Jagtar’s continued incarceration is a clear and obvious breach of international human rights law. He is clearly a victim of arbitrary detention and as such should be released immediately. The UK Government must also remind the Indian authorities that international human rights law prohibits the reliance on evidence that has been gathered under torture. Jagtar and his family have been through far too much already. Today is the moment for the UK Government to demonstrate that they are genuinely committed to standing up for a British citizen whose human rights are being violated.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I would be most grateful if the Minister could conclude his remarks no later than 5.47 pm, so that the Member in charge has time to sum up the debate.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
As ever, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for taking part in this very important debate, and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) for securing it. I pay tribute to him for his tenacious support for his constituent Mr Johal since his arrest in India. I am also grateful for the contributions of all right hon. and hon. Members who have been in contact with the Foreign Office, either in writing or through formats such as this, and I will try to respond to the points raised in my remarks.
Before coming to Mr Johal’s specific case, I will set out our consular policy in general terms. Clearly, consular assistance is central to our work at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 365 days a year our staff endeavour to give advice and practical support to all British nationals overseas and their families here in the UK. We aim to treat every consular case with equal importance and tailor our help to the individual circumstances of each person who is in need of our support, in normal times and in times of crisis. For example, from March to July 2020, the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office ran a repatriation operation unprecedented in the post-war era. We were proud to be able to return 38,000 people on 186 charter flights from 57 countries and territories back to the UK, as well as enabling 1.3 million British nationals to return via commercial routes.
The Government do not have, and have never had, a legal duty of care to British nationals abroad, because our ability to provide consular assistance is always dependent on other states adhering to the Vienna convention on consular relations and the laws of that host country. Consequently, a right to consular assistance in English law would not help those caught up in complex consular cases. In a similar vein, the FCDO does not seek preferential treatment for British nationals. We do not and, as we have heard from several hon. Members, must not interfere in civil and criminal court proceedings. It is absolutely right that we respect the legal systems of other countries, just as we expect foreign nationals to respect our laws when they are in the United Kingdom.
Our policy in respect of how to engage on complex detention cases, such as that of Mr Johal, is clear: the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office makes no judgment on the innocence or guilt of any British national who is detained overseas. Our priority is always the welfare of the UK national concerned. We look to ensure that they are receiving food, water and medical treatment, and that they have access to legal advice. With their permission, we can raise concerns about mistreatment or torture with the prison authorities, and request an independent investigation into any such allegations.
We will always consider making representations to the local authorities if detainees are not treated in line with internationally accepted standards, including if trials are unreasonably delayed compared with local cases, and as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire will know, we have provided Mr Johal and his family with extensive consular support since his arrest in 2017. We will continue to do so until this case has been resolved. That resolution must include an independent investigation into Mr Johal’s allegations of torture and mistreatment, and the transparent progress of judicial proceedings against him.
Matt Western
Has the specific allegation that was raised by one of our colleagues, the pouring of petrol in Mr Johal’s cell, been specifically raised with the Indian authorities by anyone in the Foreign Office?
Nigel Adams
What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that we have consistently raised the need for an independent and impartial investigation into those torture allegations. The Foreign Secretary himself most recently highlighted this to Indian Minister of External Affairs Jaishankar on 6 May, and we have made many representations in this case. Officials or Ministers have raised Mr Johal’s case on almost 70 occasions.
I appreciate, however, that there are calls for the British Government to do more in Mr Johal’s case. I would therefore like to reassure the House that ever since his arrest in India in 2017, our staff have worked hard to provide effective assistance to Mr Johal and his family in the UK. We take these allegations about torture and mistreatment incredibly seriously. The allegations go back to 2017 and were made again in January this year. There are causes for concern in Mr Johal’s case, and we also share right hon. and hon. Members’ deep concern about the continued delays in the legal proceedings against Mr Johal.
Mr Carmichael
I accept everything that the Minister has said about interventions with regard to the Indian criminal justice system. That is why the point about arbitrary detention is so important, because as the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) have both said, in the event that that is the view of the Government, they have a duty to intervene. Is that the view of the Government, and if it is, why have they not intervened? If it is not, what points of distinction would they make?
Nigel Adams
The Government take all allegations of human rights violations extremely seriously, and we raise concerns with the authorities on the ground where appropriate. The assistance we provide is assessed on a case-by-case basis, and it entirely depends on the circumstances of the case. It is for this reason that we have persistently advocated for Mr Johal’s welfare. We have raised his case regularly at the highest levels and with the Indian Government.
Nigel Adams
I will take one more intervention. I am just conscious that I am supposed to finish in three minutes’ time, but I think there is no chance of that now.
Kirsten Oswald
I am very grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention. May I go back to the point that has just been made? He was asked whether the UK Government accept that this is an arbitrary detention. If not, what is it about the situation that they do not agree with? That is what we need to hear from the Minister.
Nigel Adams
As I said, the action we take in a consular case in relation to allegations of arbitrary detention is tailored to individual circumstances and situations, and what we judge to be the most effective in each case. Although the FCDO cannot investigate allegations of human rights abuses overseas, we have carefully considered all available information on the arbitrary detention allegations, including the Reprieve determination. We will continue to raise concerns regarding human rights directly with the Indian authority as we judge them to be effective and appropriate in Mr Johal’s case.
If I may, in the couple of minutes that I have left, I will move on. We have persistently advocated for Mr Johal’s welfare. We have raised his torture allegations and his right to a fair trial with the Government of India on more than 70 occasions since his arrest. Most recently, the Foreign Secretary raised the case with the Indian Minister of External Affairs on 6 May, and Lord Ahmad, the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth, with the high commissioner on 8 June. The previous Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the International Trade Secretary have all raised Mr Johal’s case at appropriate opportunities during his detention. I further assure right hon. and hon. Members that we have thoroughly considered concerns regarding arbitrary detention and the death penalty in this case.
The Government take all allegations of violations of human rights seriously. We raise them with the local authorities where appropriate. We also cover welfare issues. In Mr Johal’s case, in-person visits to prisons in India, which hon. Members referred to, are restricted due to the pandemic, but we have replaced them with phone calls. We most recently spoke to Mr Johal on 11 May. We will continue to pursue regular welfare visits with the authorities for as long as he remains in prison. We appreciate that his family have suffered considerable distress throughout his detention. The high commissioner to India most recently met Mr Johal’s brother Gurpreet on 30 April.
A question was raised about trade and human rights. It is clear that the relationship with India is important and is based on trust and collaboration. It is important that human rights and complex consular cases form part of our dialogue. As such, the 2030 road map for India-UK future relations, agreed in April by our two Prime Ministers, includes a commitment to promote closer co-operation in consular matters and to resolve long-running or complex consular cases.
I recognise that this remains an extremely difficult time for Mr Johal and his family. I assure the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire, to whom I will now give the Floor, and Mr Johal’s family that we will continue to do all that we can to support Mr Johal and to ensure that he is treated in accordance with Indian and international law. His case remains a priority for the UK Government, and it must be resolved in line with due process and without unreasonable delay.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
I am very grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated, and to the Front Benchers, my good and hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). As a member of the Defence Committee, I am very much aware of the importance of the relationship with India, but it has to be a frank and upfront one. The Minister mentioned consular support, which I also mentioned in my speech, but it seems that arbitrary detention is clearly different when someone is held by Iran or China. He also mentioned the Government’s issues in relation to English law. Clearly, it is a pity that my constituent is not being assisted by Scots law.
With all due respect, the Minister for Asia, whose portfolio does not cover my constituent—it is covered by that of the Minister for South Asia—has failed to answer the intrinsic question: is this deemed arbitrary detention? The Government have failed to answer that question time and again. Time is up. We have had three Prime Ministers, four Foreign Secretaries, and so many Under-Secretaries that I have lost count. What will it take for the UK Government to answer the question: is this, or is this not, arbitrary detention?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the detention of Jagtar Singh Johal.
Written Statements
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Subsidy Control Bill and Consultation on Subsidy Control
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kwasi Kwarteng)
Today the Government have introduced the Subsidy Control Bill and published the Government’s response to the consultation “Subsidy control: designing a new approach for the UK”.
The UK Government have seized the opportunity presented by our exit from the European Union to develop a new, bespoke regime for subsidy control within the UK.
This new regime has been designed to reflect our strategic interests, strengthen our Union and help to drive economic growth and prosperity across the whole of the UK.
The new regime will be flexible, agile, and tailored to support business growth and innovation, as well as help to maintain a competitive free market economy and protect competition and investment in the UK.
Between 3 February and 31 March 2021, the Government held a public consultation on the UK’s future subsidy control proposals. The Government have used responses to the consultation to inform the design to provide a bespoke and dynamic framework, which will:
Empower local authorities, public bodies, and central and devolved Governments to design subsidies that deliver strong benefits for the UK taxpayer.
Enable public authorities to deliver subsidies that are tailored and bespoke for local needs to support the UK’s economic recovery and deliver UK Government priorities such as levelling up, achieving net zero and increasing UK R&D investment.
Provide certainty and confidence to businesses investing in the UK, by protecting against subsidies that risk causing distortive or harmful economic impacts, including to the UK domestic market.
Contribute to meeting the UK’s international commitments on subsidy control, including its international commitments at the World Trade Organisation, in free trade agreements and the Northern Ireland protocol.
The foundation of this new domestic subsidy control regime is a clear, proportionate, and transparent set of principles, underpinned by guidance, that will ensure public authorities fully understand their legal obligations and embed strong value for money and competition principles.
The Government will create streamlined routes to demonstrate compliance for categories of subsidies at low risk of causing market distortions, that promote our strategic policy objectives and that the Government judge to be compliant with the principles of the regime. This will ensure that these authorities are able to deliver these subsidies with minimum bureaucracy and maximum certainty.
In order to protect UK competition and investment and demonstrate where it is proportionate for public authorities to give greater scrutiny to their subsidies, we will create two specific categories of small number of subsidies that may undertake more extensive analysis to assess their compliance with the principles: subsidies of interest and subsidies of particular interest. Criteria for these subsidies will be set out in secondary legislation in due course. We anticipate there will be a very small number of subsidies in each of these categories.
The Bill also establishes an independent body which will be a UK subsidy advice unit in the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). The subsidy advice unit will have a role in monitoring and overseeing how the regime is working as a whole, as well as conducting a mandatory, non-binding review of public authorities’ assessments for subsidies of interest and subsidies of particular interest. Enforcement will be through the Competition Appeal Tribunal who will hear judicial reviews against subsidy decisions.
The Government have designed a subsidy control scheme that promotes a dynamic market economy throughout the UK and that minimises distortions within the UK. To ensure that this system works for all parts of the UK, the Government have worked closely with the devolved Administrations throughout this process, including meeting the statutory duty to share the consultation response document ahead of publication and consider devolved Administrations’ representations.
The measures in the Subsidy Control Bill strike the right balance between maximising our newfound flexibilities, having left the EU, and providing a consistent framework for all UK public authorities. The Bill will ensure that the UK maintains a competitive, free market economy—which is fundamental to our national prosperity—while protecting the interests of the British taxpayer.
I will lay the Government response to subsidy control consultation before Parliament and will place a copy of the impact assessment in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS134]
Covid-19: Booster Vaccines
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Sajid Javid)
Today the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has published interim advice on options for a covid-19 booster vaccination programme for adults this Autumn.
It should be noted that this is interim advice and the JCVI will consider additional scientific data as it becomes available over the next few months ahead of developing its final advice. This includes, but is not limited to, further data on the durability of protection from vaccines beyond six months, and clinical trial data on immune responses following a third vaccination.
In summary, on the basis of current evidence and with the aim of reducing the occurrence of serious covid-19 disease, the JCVI advises the following as the likely shape of the autumn programme.
Any potential booster programme should begin in September 2021, in order to maximise protection in those who are most vulnerable to serious covid-19 ahead of the winter months. Influenza vaccines are also delivered in autumn, and the JCVI considers that, where possible, a synergistic approach to the delivery of covid-19 and influenza vaccination could support delivery and maximise uptake of both vaccines.
Any potential covid-19 booster programme should be offered in two stages.
Stage 1. The following persons should be offered a third dose covid-19 booster vaccine and the annual influenza vaccine, as soon as possible from September 2021:
adults aged 16 years and over who are immunosuppressed;
those living in residential care homes for older adults;
all adults aged 70 years or over;
adults aged 16 years and over who are considered clinically extremely vulnerable;
frontline health and social care workers.
Stage 2. The following persons should be offered a third dose covid-19 booster vaccine as soon as practicable after stage 1, with equal emphasis on deployment of the influenza vaccine where eligible:
all adults aged 50 years and over;
adults aged 16 to 49 years who are in an influenza or covid-19 at-risk group (please refer to the green book for details of at-risk groups);
adult household contacts of immunosuppressed individuals.
As most younger adults will only receive their second covid-19 vaccine dose in late summer, the benefits of booster vaccination in this group will be considered at a later time when more information is available. The initial objective for winter 2021-22 is for persons in booster stages 1 and 2 to receive their influenza and covid-19 vaccines in good time.
Apart from the current UK approved covid-19 vaccines, the UK has placed orders for a range of other covid-19 vaccines, some of which may become available for use in a booster programme.
The JCVI will review the use of these vaccines once they have received UK regulatory approval. Vaccines designed specifically against variants of concern will not be available in time for booster revaccination this autumn. The use of variant vaccines will be considered by the JCVI in due course.
Additional scientific data will become available over the next few months which will require further consideration by the JCVI ahead of any final advice. These include:
further data on the safety and effectiveness of covid-19 vaccines used in the UK and internationally;
clinical trial and real-world effectiveness data on the durability of protection beyond six months;
clinical trial data on immune responses following a third vaccination (booster revaccination);
clinical trial data on reactogenicity and immunogenicity following booster revaccination with the same or alternative covid-19 vaccines;
clinical trial data on other covid-19 vaccines in development;
the emergence of any new variants of concern in the UK or internationally;
data on the duration of immunity following a primary course;
a better understanding of the immune correlates of protection; and
data on the effects of on-going sars-cov-2 circulation in the population and its potential to confer long-term public health benefits.
JCVI note early evidence supports the delivery of both covid-19 and flu vaccines at the same time where appropriate.
Subject to the JCVI’s final advice, we are developing detailed plans for a booster programme. NHS England and NHS Improvement will be asking all local systems to develop detailed plans to ensure they are ready to deliver a booster programme from the start of September in line with this advice, working closely with partners including local authorities and voluntary organisations to ensure equal access and maximise uptake of both covid-19 and influenza vaccines.
All four parts of the UK welcome this interim advice, which will help us ensure we are ready in our preparations for autumn. We look forward to receiving the committee’s final advice in due course.
[HCWS135]
Negotiations on Future Trading Relationship with New Zealand
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
The fifth round of free trade agreement negotiations with New Zealand took place between 8 and 16 June 2021. New Zealand’s Trade and Export Growth Minister Damien O’Connor also visited the UK from 16 to 18 June for face-to-face talks. Both countries have agreed to accelerate negotiations to finalise the details of the deal with the aim of reaching agreement in principle.
Both countries are committed to agreeing a high-quality, comprehensive free trade agreement that supports jobs, broadens consumer choice, and provides more opportunities in key industries such as services, digital trade, and the green economy.
Strong progress was made in agreeing key issues across the deal including provisionally closing a further four chapters:
Government procurement chapter, which improves small medium-sized enterprises’ (SMEs’) access to procurement and the integrity of supply chains.
Disputes chapter, which establishes mechanisms to promote and enforce compliance with the agreement and ensures that state-to-state disputes are dealt with consistently, fairly and in a cost-effective, transparent, and timely manner. It gives businesses and stakeholders certainty that the obligations under this agreement will be upheld.
Transparency chapter, which underscores the rule of law as the major cornerstone of good governance, outlining agreed expectations for the UK and New Zealand to be transparent, open, and accessible to UK businesses, with respect to this trade agreement and their respective regulatory environments.
Trade and gender equality chapter, which recognises that women are underrepresented in international trade, and aims to support women exporters, business owners, and entrepreneurs to participate in global trade.
Excellent progress was also made during round 5 on the following chapters, which the UK and New Zealand agree now have a clear path to closure:
Rules of origin
Goods
Cross-border trade in services
Customs
Digital
Telecoms
State-owned enterprises
Consumer protection
Good regulatory practice
Labour
Development
Anti-corruption
Initial and final provisions
General exceptions
Institutional provisions
In previous rounds, chapters on SMEs, competition and remedies were provisionally closed.
The Government have been clear that any future deal with New Zealand must work for UK consumers, producers, and companies. Throughout the process the UK will continue to engage stakeholders to ensure their views inform our approach to negotiations.
Any deal the UK agrees will be fair and balanced and in the best interests of the whole of the country. We remain committed to upholding our high environmental, labour, food safety and animal welfare standards in the deal, as well as protecting the national health service (NHS).
The UK and New Zealand both remain eager to make further progress, with the UK clear that momentum needs to be maintained across the whole agreement. Ahead of the next round, negotiating teams will share further proposals and discuss a range of issues.
The next round of negotiations, round 6, is scheduled to take place in July, with a series of intersessional discussions across the FTA planned for the next month.
[HCWS133]
UK Steel Industry
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
The Government are announcing today that it will make new regulations to help defend the UK steel industry.
The move follows a review by the Trade Remedies Authority (TRA) last year on defensive tariff rate quotas (TRQs) on 19 categories of steel imports retained from when the UK was a member of the European Union.
This review concluded that TRQs should be extended in 10 of the categories and revoked in nine others.
Current legislation means that the Government only have two choices: either to accept the TRA recommendation in full or reject it entirely—leaving all 19 categories of UK steel products at risk from tariff-free imports.
The Government have accepted the TRA’s recommendation to maintain the safeguard on 10 steel product categories for a further three years. The Government are at the same time making new regulations to further defend the UK steel industry by extending the safeguard by public notice. The public notice will set out the details of the temporary extension on a further five of the 19 steel products for one year. Imports outside the quotas will face a tariff of 25%.
The UK Government will always do everything in their power to defend UK industry and jobs and to allow our world-leading manufacturers to compete on a level playing field. Current disruption to industry caused by the covid-19 pandemic, threats of dumping and unfair subsidies, and continued trade restrictions in third countries all put UK steel products at an unacceptable disadvantage.
The steel sector supports the jobs of over 80,000 people across the UK, including some 35,000 well-paid jobs in steel production, and a further 44,000 jobs supported in wider supply chains.
That is why the Government are taking decisive action today by making new regulations to defend jobs in the UK steel industry. This will give an opportunity for the industry to appeal the recommendation made by the TRA so any new evidence can be reviewed in the context of the unique global market conditions which currently prevail.
This includes assessing the risk of injury arising from the EU safeguard which was published after the TRA made their decision.
It is important to note that the ability of industry to gather the data and the TRA to consider the evidence was extremely challenging given the unprecedented disruption to trade caused by the covid-19 pandemic.
The UK Government will also review the trade remedies framework as an urgent priority. The trade remedies framework was first introduced in 2018 under the previous Government. The current Government will review it to ensure it is up to date, champions WTO rules and is fit for purpose in the post-covid world.
It is crucial we have the tools in the future to ensure industries are defended against unfair competition and unforeseen surges in imports.
[HCWS136]
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. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Compensation for Enforcement Action) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Barran
That the Grand Committee do consider the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Compensation for Enforcement Action) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
I beg to move that the Committee approves the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Compensation for Enforcement Action) Regulations 2021, which were laid in draft before the House on 17 May. With less than 13 months to go until Games time, preparations are ramping up to deliver the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games—the biggest sporting and cultural event ever staged in the West Midlands.
Before turning to the regulations that we are here to debate today, I remind the Committee of the context in which this instrument has been brought forward. Measures in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act, which many in this House scrutinised and shaped, include those which restrict the resale of Games tickets and prevent unauthorised advertising and trading in and around specified Games locations. We are working closely with the organising committee and enforcement authorities to ensure a consistent, co-ordinated and proportionate approach to enforcing these elements of the Act.
None the less, as a safeguard in the enforcement framework, the Act provides a person with a right to compensation in the event of property damage arising from unlawful enforcement or the use of unreasonable force in enforcement action. The draft regulations before us today set out the administrative process by which a claim for compensation can be made, considered and appealed. This ensures the process is clear, consistent and proportionate for both potential claimants and the enforcement authorities involved. I will now set out in a little more detail what the regulations contain.
I am sure I do not need to remind noble Lords that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised two particular points in its report. I am pleased to be able to provide clarity on these matters today. The first was in relation to the person or body responsible for determining claims for compensation. Where someone believes they have experienced damage to their property as a result of enforcement action being unlawful or unreasonable, they will be able to submit a claim to the local trading standards authority where the damage occurred, or to the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. This is known as the relevant authority.
Claimants should submit a claim, in writing, with the necessary information, within 90 days of the end of the Games; this should include the date and location that the enforcement action took place, the nature of any damage and any supporting evidence. Within 14 days of a claim being received, the relevant authority should determine whether it has sufficient information and evidence to make a decision on the claim. If so, it will have 28 days to decide whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and the amount due, and to communicate this outcome, alongside information about how to seek a review.
It is important to note that, under the Games Act, local trading standards authorities are responsible for authorising officers to undertake enforcement in relation to Games offences. This is consistent with the Consumer Rights Act 2015. In the past, such as for London 2012, there was a role for the organising committee in designating enforcement officers, and therefore in considering claims for compensation. However, in tandem with arrangements in the Consumer Rights Act, these regulations provide for claims to be considered by the authority which authorises an enforcement officer—in this instance, a local trading standards authority or the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland.
It is worth noting that the Act provides that a person is entitled to compensation for the cost of repairing the property that was damaged during the enforcement action, or, if it is not possible to repair it, the cost of replacing it and the amount of any other loss that is the direct result of the damage to the property.
The second point raised by the DPRRC was whether there is to be a right of review or appeal and, if so, to whom the review or appeal may be made and what grounds for appeal would be available. As set out in Regulations 6 and 7, if a claimant is unhappy with a relevant authority’s decision, such as the amount of compensation offered, they will have 14 days to request a review of the decision. The relevant authority will then have a further 14 days to consider this and provide a response. If the claimant remains unsatisfied with the outcome of the review, they will be able to submit an appeal within 21 days to the county court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff. The regulations do not specify or limit the grounds for appeal. The court, or the sheriff in Scotland, will be able to rehear the case and examine both the facts of the case and the law.
As restrictions on advertising and trading can be in place only for a maximum of 38 days, and in most instances a much shorter period, we expect any compensation claims arising from enforcement to be minimal. Indeed, we are not aware of any arising from similar regulations that supported the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games or the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games.
To summarise, these regulations plug a gap in the enforcement framework and provide the necessary clarity around the procedure for compensation claims, including the right to appeal any decision made by an enforcement authority. They are a small but nevertheless important part of the ongoing preparations to deliver a fantastic Games next year—a Games that will showcase Birmingham, the West Midlands and the entire country to the rest of the world as a place to live, work, study and do business. I look forward to continuing to update the House on this. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement and these regulations. Let us hope they do not have to be used, but certainly they are useful as a backstop.
In supporting the regulations, I say again how much I welcome the decision of the Commonwealth Games Federation to select Birmingham as the host city for the 2022 Commonwealth Games. I applaud the city’s ambitious and innovative vision. The Games will open up a whole host of opportunities, including cultural engagement, business, trade, volunteering, physical activity, jobs, skills, education and tourism. Of course, it is the sports programme that is at the heart of Games, which will feature many thrilling sports, with wheelchair basketball making its first appearance at the Commonwealth Games. For me, the inclusion of women’s cricket is a great joy. It will be the first ever fully integrated parasport competition, with the potential for more medals for women than men—a first for any major multisports event.
I am grateful to the Minister for updating us in a recent letter on the sustainability pledge made by the Games organising committee to deliver the first carbon-neutral Games, and which also covers environmental, social and economic outcomes aligned with the UN sustainable development goals.
Of course, there are challenges, the first of which is finance. The funding of the Games is complex and includes a substantial contribution from commercial revenues. The budget is split, 75% and 25%, between central government and Birmingham City Council and several key partners. Additional commercial revenue will be raised by the organising committee and the Commonwealth Games Federation partnership through ticket sales, sponsorship, merchandising and the sale of broadcast rights. None the less, this is a major challenge, particularly because the finances of Birmingham City Council are themselves under huge pressure. Can the Minister update me on any budgetary issues, including whether there are any financial overruns and the projected commercial income? Can the Minister also confirm that the venues being built or adapted for the Games will all be ready on time?
It is important that the legacy includes a commitment to encourage sport and physical activity among young people. I am particularly interested in what contribution the Games legacy can make to the future health and well-being of people in Birmingham and the West Midlands—we certainly need to. The improvement in life expectancy in Birmingham has levelled off in recent years. It has one of the highest levels of obesity among year 6 pupils in England. Indeed, NHS Digital figures show that more than one in four children who finished primary school in Birmingham in 2017-18 were obese, of whom 6.5% were severely obese. Additionally, 15% of year 6 children were overweight. That means that 41% of Birmingham’s youngsters are unhealthily overweight when they finish primary school, so the opportunity a legacy offers in helping to change this is too good to miss.
Going back to the London Olympics Games, we know that hopes were raised that they would increase sports participation. Jeremy Hunt, then Secretary of State, said that the Games were an extraordinary chance to re-invigorate the country’s sporting habits. Despite an extraordinary Games, the evidence is that there has been virtually no change in participation rates in the 16 to 25 year-old group. I hope that Birmingham can learn and do better. Will the Minister say something about that?
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, the Birmingham Commonwealth Games (Compensation for Enforcement Action) Regulations 2021 set out the details of the process for claiming compensation for damage that occurs as a result of enforcement action, the timescales for each party at each stage and the appeals mechanism, as the Minister has outlined. I am proud to be chancellor of the University of Birmingham, one of the top 100 universities in the world and a Russell group university. It will play a key role in the Commonwealth Games.
Birmingham 2022 will be the biggest multisport event to be held in the UK for a decade. There will be 11 days of sport, with 286 sessions, 283 medal events and 19 sports, including eight parasports and the largest ever integrated para programme, and, we hope, more than 1.5 billion global television viewers. The Birmingham Games are going to have many firsts. They will be the first carbon-neutral Games, and it will be the first time a social value requirement has been embedded in every tender for goods and services. Birmingham will have the largest business and tourism programme of any Games and the first comprehensive and ambitious community engagement programme. They will be the first Games fully to integrate volunteers from all delivery partners into a united volunteering programme, and the first major multisport event to award more medals to women than to men. They will be the first Games to include women’s cricket—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned this—3x3 basketball and wheelchair basketball.
The Games will be a wealth of opportunities for people and will deliver significant economic benefits to Birmingham, the West Midlands and the wider UK, through job creation, business and trade opportunities, and tourism. I speak on that as president of the CBI. The West Midlands region will benefit from £778 million of sport investment, the largest since London 2012. Glasgow 2014 contributed £740 million to the Scottish economy, and it is expected that, when the figures come through, the Gold Coast Games in 2018 will be shown to have delivered 1.3 billion Australian dollars to boost the economy in Queensland. Millions of extra pounds of extra tourism, trade and investment can be secured from the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games under plans that will bolster the region’s post-Covid-19 economic recovery via the West Midlands Growth Company’s business, trade, tourism and investment programme.
A lot of employment will be created through the Games. Approximately 35,000 Games-time roles will provide important employment and economic benefits to the city and the region, and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for jobseekers and professionals at all levels. Right now, there are 13,000 trained volunteers, known as the Commonwealth Collective, coming together to help organise, run and manage the Games.
The Games authority has worked with the West Midlands Combined Authority and partners to launch a Commonwealth jobs and skills academy to accelerate and amplify plans to improve regional skills and employment opportunities through the Games. Very importantly, there will be a focus on supporting young people and unemployed adults. These Games are titled the “Games for Everyone”, with tickets starting from just under £8 for under-16s and from £15 for adults.
From a business point of view, there are procurement opportunities, which will also support and promote the Greater Birmingham and Solihull LEP’s Inclusive Commonwealth Legacy Programme. This supports BAME-owned businesses in particular, and provides training and support to bid for Birmingham 2022 contracts. This is particularly important for me as the first Chancellor of the University of Birmingham of Indian origin and the first ethnic-minority president of the CBI, which has launched an initiative called Change the Race Ratio to promote and champion ethnic-minority participation across all business, including championing the Parker review.
From a culture point of view, the Games will have a comprehensive culture programme, with the Queen’s baton relay. From a human rights point of view, the UN guiding principles of human rights will be delivered—the respect, support and promotion of these rights and freedoms is guaranteed to all individuals under law and the Games are committed to protecting human rights.
They will also be the first carbon-neutral Games. The stand-out initiatives include the creation of 22 acres of forest and 72 tennis court-size mini forests to be built in urban areas across the West Midlands. Each mini forest will be linked to one of the nations and territories competing in 2022. This is a fantastic initiative, utilising sustainable practices and subscribing to the UN Sports for Climate Action Framework—again, a first for the Commonwealth Games. To summarise, the commitment to sustainability will be based on four Cs: certification, carbon, the circular economy and conservation.
The West Midlands is one of the largest networks of urban communities outside the capital and home to over 4 million people. Its central location places it at the heart of the UK’s transport network and firmly positions the region as a dynamic and ambitious place to live and work. But the region is not without challenges. It has a higher than average unemployment rate, and overall deprivation is high, with 34.5% of local areas among the most deprived in the country.
The Covid-19 pandemic has exposed pre-existing disparities in the local economy, highlighted the growing challenges that the region faces and exacerbated the inequalities in health, education attainment, innovation and economic development. But as we emerge from the pandemic, there are now opportunities to do things differently—to champion the region on the world stage, transform local infrastructure and stimulate job creation, securing an inclusive workforce that is fit for the future.
Following his re-election in May 2021, the mayor, Andy Street, must continue to champion a strong economic vision for the region, working collaboratively with both the private and public sectors to capitalise on future opportunities, such as the UK City of Culture coming to Coventry and, of course, the Birmingham Commonwealth Games, which will bring new investment opportunities, showcasing the region’s dynamism on the international stage.
The CBI, of which I am president, has created a business manifesto for the West Midlands, developed in partnership with our members, setting out three guiding principles for the mayor. The first is to champion regional dynamism and global competitiveness to raise living standards—the Commonwealth Games will do that. The second is to transform digital and physical infrastructure in the race to net zero—the Games will help to do that. The third is to stimulate job creation and secure an inclusive workforce for the future—and the Games will do that too.
The challenges faced by the region are by no means insurmountable, and this manifesto sets out a way in which business and local government can work together, in collaboration, to ensure that the West Midlands achieves its full potential during the economic recovery and beyond. We stand ready to support the West Midlands and help the Games to succeed.
The Games present an opportunity and a challenge. The region is gearing up for a once-in-a-generation platform which will make a real difference, far beyond the 11 days of the Games. Regional and national stakeholders must come together, ahead of the Games, seize the moment and put in place meaningful commitments that will create meaningful benefits and a positive legacy for local communities. Does the Minister agree?
While 2022 might seem a very different world, given the struggles of the past 15 months with the Covid pandemic, we must all recognise and embrace this. Businesses have struggled during these turbulent times; for a city which prides itself on being a visitor destination, this year has been devastating. The need for the Games to deliver tangible benefits is more important than ever. The region must seize the moment and capitalise on this, while fostering local economic recovery, and remain a vital visitor attraction. To realise its full potential, more must be done to engage and inspire the local business community. Again, the CBI stands ready to help.
To conclude, 2021 has been and is a watershed year for the UK, post Brexit and post pandemic. We have just successfully chaired and hosted the G7, and there is COP 26 to come. Looking ahead, we have the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee and the Commonwealth Games 2022. Seize the Moment, our economy strategy for the UK, identifies £700 billion of opportunity and six pillars, including clusters. The West Midlands is a model cluster, and the Commonwealth Games will highlight its power through the power of sport.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, if there were gold medals for ingenuity, breadth, scope and extent, and enthusiasm about these Games, the two speeches we have just witnessed would win them. It is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, having won his gold medal for covering virtually every aspect of what will, undoubtedly, be a great Games, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I echo everything he said in emphasising that a sport, recreation and active lifestyle legacy for all ages and people, not just in Birmingham and its surrounding area but in the United Kingdom as a whole—indeed, in the Commonwealth—is vital. He was completely right to remind us that that was the one element we did not deliver post London 2012. We had an extraordinary Games and wonderful urban regeneration in the East End of London, but we missed out on a sports legacy. We must not do so in Birmingham 2022.
My comments will be a little briefer, less extensive and not of such gold medal-winning proportions as the previous two speeches. I thank my noble friend the Minister for plugging an important gap and for the clarity that these new regulations provide. As she knows, I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ticket Abuse, which works hard in this area. My only concern about what she has announced in this context is that, just as the Delegated Powers Committee highlighted—and I declare an interest, having sat on that committee for a number of years—putting a lot of emphasis on the work of the local trading standards authorities has one problem: they are poorly resourced. They must be better resourced to take on their many responsibilities, not least their enforcement powers under Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which she referred to, for the purpose of enforcing an offence under Section 10 of that Act, on ticket touting, which is relevant to what we are discussing today.
With that minor but important point, I urge her to continue the good work she has done, not just on this Bill but in general, in making sure that we criminalise modern-day touting and that we have appropriate legislation in place for not just the Commonwealth Games, football and the Olympic Games but many other sporting events. When we get the opportunity to look at improving the legislation on this in due course, I hope she will stand shoulder to shoulder with many noble Lords in making sure that the lessons we are learning from the Commonwealth Games are put in place.
Finally, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her letter, which the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Bilimoria, mentioned. The pledge, which is now public, that has been made by the organising committee in the context of sustainability is exceptionally welcome. It is a first. I only wish that the Olympic Games in Paris, after Tokyo, had such a robust sustainability pledge, because it will deliver the most sustainable Games ever—by that I mean not just among the Commonwealth Games but when compared to Olympic Games, both present, in Paris, and in the past. It will deliver the first ever carbon-neutral Games, do so in a socially responsible and inclusive way, support region-wide economic recovery and ensure equal access to opportunities and participation for all.
I hope we can add a fifth to that list, which was rightly highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. He made an important point about how the level of participation has not in fact improved since London 2012; as a percentage of the increased population over that time it has, in fact, decreased. I hope that government will grasp the opportunity to make sure that one of the great legacies from what I am sure will be an outstanding Games will be a focus on developing opportunities for sport, recreation and an active lifestyle among all population groups, post Birmingham 2022.
With those closing words, I thank my noble friend the Minister, not only for her presentation of the regulations today but for the consistent hard work and enthusiasm she has shown to support the Commonwealth Games in their preparation and, I am sure, in their execution as well.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction of this regulation and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, for what he said—I believe he should get not only a gold medal but a diamond one, if that were possible. We should all support the Birmingham authorities and wish them well, but they must ensure a speedy resolution of the claims made by the citizens of Birmingham. Has the Minister made any calculations of how many millions will be spent by tourists during the Games?
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, I feel slightly intimidated in trying to match the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Bilimoria, in both their knowledge of Birmingham and their enthusiasm for the Commonwealth Games next year. As I explained before we began this debate, I am a late replacement for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, who is doing good elsewhere in the Palace of Westminster at this moment. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to consider me as a kind of Jack Grealish—a late replacement, or what I think they call in the sport an “impact player”.
Outside Birmingham, I have found almost entirely enthusiasm for the Birmingham Games. The only small thing I should report is that one colleague said, rather crustily, “Well, I hope they give a special medal for finding your way out of New Street station”. It may be a cruel joke but there is an important lesson there, as one of the factors in the Commonwealth Games, and indeed the Manchester Games, is the great signage and the ever-present, helpful guides who help people; it makes a heck of a lot of difference to the success of an event if you have that kind of back-up.
The first real impact of athletics on me was the 1954 Vancouver Games, which featured the great competition between Roger Bannister and John Landy in the “miracle mile”. It certainly gave me an interest and an enthusiasm for athletics—which carried on until politics took over, I am afraid.
The fact is that the Commonwealth Games have always been a kind of family affair. They have a softer edge than the Olympics and are the better for it. Certainly, the host regions have benefited. I was an MP for the Greater Manchester area and still have strong links in the north-west, and so can say that the Manchester Games were a success; the new stadium, which is being put to quite good use by Manchester City, and the velodrome are just two examples of legacy benefits.
I have looked at the website and seen how much the organisers are making an effort to make this a real community effort. So I have every support for the SI. The right to protect, as it does, the organisers from fake products and ticket touting is very important because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, a good proportion of the budget will come from sponsorship. Are there any limits to sponsors? For example, are gambling or alcohol organisations allowed to be sponsors?
On one final point, I have long believed that sport can offer young people a diversion from gangs and crime—I was chairman of the Youth Justice Board. I know the statistics show that participation has not increased since the 2012 Olympics, but I still believe that sport can play a big part. As a kind of quid pro quo from sponsors for the protection that these SIs give, can they be encouraged to help with bringing hard-to-reach individuals and communities into the excitement of these Games, in preparation and while they are on? My successor as chair of the Youth Justice Board is Keith Fraser, who has strong roots in the West Midlands. I am sure he would be willing to give advice—as would, I am sure, James Mapstone from Alliance of Sport, which relates to the criminal justice system—on just the things that the YJB and the alliance are doing to attract youngsters into sporting participation and away from the kind of things that gangs provide them with.
I end with sending my best wishes to Birmingham. We will all be in whatever is the new normal of 2022, but in that new normal I hope that Birmingham has a Games that will be remembered as vividly by this generation of 11 year-olds as I remember the Landy-Bannister mile of 1954.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it is always a bit of a nightmare coming just before the Minister, when everybody is waiting to get their questions answered, but even more so today following the gold medal performance of the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, the keen advocate in my noble friend Lord Hunt, and the impact player who is undoubtedly the noble Lord, Lord McNally.
With so many sports fans focused on the current Euro 2020 championships, Wimbledon and the upcoming Olympic Games, it is easy to forget that the Birmingham Commonwealth Games will take place next year. We have recently seen the full competition schedule, which will help to build that sense of anticipation to which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred. The Bill to enable these Games did not of course have the easiest of journeys through Parliament, having to be reintroduced after it lapsed on the first occasion. However, it was rightly a piece of legislation for which there was cross-party support and enthusiasm, even if matters such as those before us today had to be left to regulations.
As with any sporting competition, there are rules on ticket touting, and in his contribution the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made a valiant plea to keep this at the forefront of our thinking. Regulations such as these deal with some of the supplementary issues arising from it, including the risk, cited in paragraph 6.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum, that damage may be caused to people’s property in the course of enforcement action being taken. It is right that the Government make this provision and our Benches welcome it being done well ahead of time. However, can the Minister outline whether an assessment has been carried out of the likely or probable costs that may arise? If so, can the Minister provide us with some details of this today?
Paragraph 11 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that no guidance has been published alongside this instrument, although the Government will continue to engage with local authorities and answer any questions on implementation. Can the Minister say a little more about their engagement with relevant authorities to date, both on this specific issue and more widely?
The issue being debated today is part of the wider discussion on the Bill, relating to how the Games and local communities can work in tandem to make the competition a success. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and my noble friend Lord Hunt about how that is working. During the passage of the Bill, some of my former Front-Bench colleagues and my noble friend Lord Hunt—[Inaudible]—relating to community benefit, and we are pleased that progress has been made on that. I noted that it included access to housing once athletes had left the city, which is a major issue in the West Midlands. I hope that issue does not fade away.
I ask the Minister if she can also assure us, and the Committee as a whole, that the Government are fully behind the cultural programme of engagement that runs alongside the Games and seeks to widen the economic, social and health benefits that the Games bring to the region as a whole. Today, we heard some pretty shocking figures on engagement after events such as the Commonwealth and Olympic Games, and we must ensure that we get full benefit from elite sporting events such as this to inspire the next generation. While I am broadening the scope of the discussion, can the Minister say a little more about what progress is being made on these areas, particularly in the light of the earlier decision not to proceed with the dedicated athletes’ village in the Perry Barr area?
During the passage of the Bill, we also raised concerns regarding the likely financial pressures on Birmingham City Council and the other local authorities. As this is our first opportunity to debate the Games in quite some time, can the Minister provide an update on these discussions, because there will undoubtedly be some quite severe or adverse impacts on the Games, which may not have been thought through or immediately apparent at the time?
With that said, I thank the Minister for her open approach, her recent communications and the active support role she has played on this. As other colleagues have said, this is a wonderful opportunity not just for the region but for the nation, and I am sure that Birmingham will do us proud.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank all members of the Committee for their consideration of the regulations today and their incredibly warm and enthusiastic welcome—I am not sure whether it was a gold or diamond medal performance, or many medals—for the Games in general and the regulations in particular. I will try to address the many points raised by your Lordships and, if I run out of time, I will of course write.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Bassam, both asked about progress on the implementation of the Games and funding, particularly in relation to Birmingham City Council. I am pleased to confirm that, despite an extraordinarily difficult period with the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Games remain on time and on budget. There has been a constant dialogue between the Government and the city council on all aspects of the Games, including the budget, and the Government have full visibility of all the financial plans.
I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam; the connection was slightly coming in and out, so I did not catch exactly his question on the athletes’ village in Perry Barr. The decision to move away from a single athletes’ village was obviously made as a result of the impact of the pandemic. The Perry Barr regeneration scheme is bringing more than 1,400 new homes to this part of the city and will still be delivered as planned by Birmingham City Council. We believe we have an excellent solution which will provide the 6,500 athletes and team officials coming to the Games with best-in-class facilities at three sites: the University of Birmingham, the NEC and the University of Warwick.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan talked about the importance of there being an ongoing legacy of physical activity and well-being. That portion of the legacy programme rests with my department, the DCMS, and is a real priority. Our focus is to use the momentum of the Games to tackle some of the stubborn inequalities which noble Lords referred to, and which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, linked to levels of crime. We will tackle those inequalities, focus on underrepresented groups and promote wider well-being across the region. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, set out so clearly, inactivity is a particularly acute problem in the West Midlands, which is classified by Sport England as the least active region in England. We have been working very closely with Sport England and it is bringing to the table £4 million to address this legacy.
The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord McNally—I gather that Jack Grealish is known as the “McNally” of the English team, so the feeling is mutual—raised issues of accessibility, including the signage at Birmingham New Street. I remember sending the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, a photograph of the signage when I was in Birmingham New Street station during the passage of the Bill, having been to visit the works at Sandwell to build the aquatics centre, so I share his pain about the signage. More seriously, the organising committee is committed to delivering a highly accessible and inclusive Games. Your Lordships may be aware that there is an accessibility advisory forum, which includes representatives from the disabled community across the region, to make sure that we can deliver on this commitment.
The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, spoke about the opportunity and the challenge presented by the Games. I think the Government would absolutely agree with him about the importance of a positive legacy for local communities. He listed some of the major economic benefits, both for Birmingham and the West Midlands and the wider UK. We also see this as a huge opportunity for local and regional suppliers to makes sure that they can really benefit from some of the expenditure that is going into the Games.
The noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, asked about tourism. An investment of £21.3 million for a business and tourism programme has been secured, which will help to ensure that the city, the region and the nation can take advantage of the economic opportunities that hosting the Games will provide. An additional £2.6 million of funding has been provided from the West Midlands Combined Authority.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan raised concerns about the impact on local authorities’ resources and their capacity to fulfil the role given to them in these regulations. Local authorities are working very closely with the organising committee to make sure they have the necessary plans and resources in place so that they can enforce these measures if needed. We are working with all partners within my department on the development of the advertising and trading provisions and the approach to enforcement to take resource pressures into consideration but, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we expect claims for compensation to be minimal.
On the wider issues of ticket touting, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan, we are absolutely committed to cracking down on unacceptable behaviour in the ticketing market and making sure that people can buy a ticket at a reasonable price. We have strengthened the law on ticketing information requirements and introduced a criminal offence of using automated software to buy more tickets online than is allowed. We are also working with the enforcement agencies in this area to make sure that these measures are effective.
I thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his very generous comments about the sustainability plans for the Games. We debated them at length, rightly, during the passage of the Bill and I am delighted that he, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and others recognise the work that has gone into this.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about sponsorship. The Government have made it clear that sporting bodies and events organisers must consider their wider responsibilities to fans and the wider community when entering into commercial arrangements. In the case of Birmingham 2022, any such arrangements should support the vision and mission of the Games. We will continue to work closely with the organising committee and the Commonwealth Games Federation to support that.
The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, asked me to confirm that the Government support the cultural events that accompany the Games and see their value. I have great pleasure in absolutely confirming that.
To close, I reiterate the procedural but important nature of these regulations, which are yet another milestone in the preparation for delivery of the Games next year. If your Lordships have any further questions about the progress being made to deliver the Games, I know that the officials in my department and the Games organising committee would be very happy to discuss them. With that, I commend these regulations to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 3.23 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
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 exceed or other safety requirements are breached, I will immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Introduction and the Import of Cultural Goods (Revocation) Regulations 2021
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
That the Grand Committee do consider the Introduction and the Import of Cultural Goods (Revocation) Regulations 2021.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this draft statutory instrument was laid before the House on 19 May 2021. This is a short but important instrument that will bring clarity and certainty for the UK’s museums and art market. Its effect is to remove from the statute book those provisions of the EU regulation on the introduction and the import of cultural goods which became UK law as retained EU law at the end of the transition period, but which are now redundant or legally deficient. It will not affect the provisions which already exist in UK law to protect cultural goods or our ability to tackle the illicit trade in cultural goods.
It may be helpful if I begin by setting out some context. EU regulation 2019/880 on the introduction and the import of cultural goods aims to tackle the illicit trade in cultural goods and to prevent the proceeds of that trade being used to fund terrorism. The regulation came into force on 28 June 2019. However, not all its provisions became applicable on that date. In particular, a provision known as the “general prohibition”, which prohibits entry into the EU customs territory for cultural goods which were unlawfully removed from the country in which they were created or discovered, only began to apply on 28 December 2020. Provisions which require importers of certain cultural goods to present an import licence or an importer statement, to guarantee the legal provenance of the goods, will become applicable only when an EU-wide IT system is in place, or from 28 June 2025 at the latest.
At the end of the transition period, on 31 December 2020, all those provisions of the regulation which had become applicable by that date became UK law as retained EU law—that is, those provisions which became applicable when the regulation came into force together with the general prohibition provision. The provisions requiring import licences and importer statements did not become UK law, and there is therefore no legal obligation for us to implement them. We have always made it clear that we would not implement these provisions if there was no legal obligation to do so.
Many of the provisions which have become UK law are redundant, because they create obligations in relation to the EU or relate to measures to prepare for the introduction of import licences and importer statements. The general prohibition provision has become legally deficient and cannot be enforced in UK law. It relates to the “introduction of cultural goods”, which is defined in the regulation as,
“entry into the customs territory of the Union”.
Great Britain is no longer part of the EU customs union, so the provision cannot be applied to Great Britain. We have therefore decided to address this legal deficiency, and at the same time remove the redundant provisions from the statute book, by revoking the regulation.
I make it clear that the regulation will continue to apply directly to Northern Ireland by virtue of having been added to annexe 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol. Revocation of the regulation from UK law does not affect this.
There are two important reasons why we have decided to revoke the general prohibition provision. First, even if this provision were not legally deficient in the way that I have described, it would still raise issues of concern and create complexity and confusion for importers and for our customs and border authorities. These arise because the provision applies to almost all cultural goods created or discovered in non-EU countries, regardless of their age, value or date of export, and because there is no requirement in the regulation for any person to provide evidence to demonstrate either lawful export or unlawful removal from the country of creation or discovery. In the event of a claim of unlawful export, it is not clear where the burden of proof would lie or what evidence would be required. These issues could result in cultural goods being delayed or detained at the border, and might deter people from importing cultural goods to sell in the UK art market or museums from lending objects for exhibitions in this country. It would be possible to address these issues, but we consider that this is not necessary. This brings me to our second reason for revoking the regulation.
We consider that we already have sufficient legal powers to tackle the illicit trade in cultural goods and the import of cultural goods which have been unlawfully removed from another country. These powers are set out in existing domestic law, and in some cases also derive from our obligations in international law—to name but a few, the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003, and the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017, as well as the Theft Act 1968 and the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017.
The effectiveness of our existing legislation was demonstrated very recently, when we returned to Libya a statue which had been unlawfully removed from that country and which was found and detained by HMRC at Heathrow Airport. This is only the most recent example. In the last few years, thanks to the diligent efforts of our police, customs and border authorities, we have been able to return other important cultural objects to the countries from which they had been unlawfully removed. In view of the existing, effective provisions in our law, we consider that the general prohibition in the EU regulation is unnecessary.
In summary, therefore, this instrument will revoke those provisions of the regulation which have become UK law. It will provide clarity and certainty, and ensure that there is no confusion as to the rules and requirements for the import of cultural goods, but it will not mean that we are any less able to prevent the import of unlawfully removed cultural goods. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his very good introduction to this SI. He covered all the ground and his commitment shone through in what he said, but I have one or two questions, some of which he may not be able to answer directly, as I am sure this is not his main centre of interest. I am happy for him to write to me with the answers, if necessary.
We have a short corporate memory in your Lordships’ House sometimes, despite our existence for so many thousands of years—as it sometimes seems. I will come back to the deficiencies the Minister raised on the existing legal framework, but will start with why the Government are seeking to revise this particular general prohibition by removing it entirely, rather than amending it. The main problem words in the regulation, which seem to offend, are
“entry into the customs territory of the Union”,
which the Explanatory Memorandum says,
“cannot be interpreted to mean the customs territory of the United Kingdom.”
It may not be interpreted as such, but I am sure it would be pretty easy to amend it. I therefore wonder why the trouble the Government have gone to to revoke the original regulation is necessary.
I say that in particular because of the reference to Northern Ireland, which the Minister, with his ease of manner and delivery, glossed over quickly. How have we got to a situation where one of the most complicated issues about the pursuit of cultural goods is different in one territory of the United Kingdom from the rest? GB will have a set of rules, which are set out in the Explanatory Memorandum, which I will come to in a minute. Northern Ireland will have those, as well as remaining in the EU, with its new, very important and rather clever IT-based, modern set of rules and regulations, by which information will swiftly move across the whole continent. Potential defaults and problems will therefore be picked up. I ask the noble Lord to comment further on that.
My second point relates to paragraph 7.5 and the succeeding paragraphs of the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 7.5.2 states that
“The United Kingdom has been a state party to the 1954 Hague Convention”—
1954 is a long time ago—
“for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict”.
My first point is that that is limited to armed conflict. Secondly, the corporate memory to which I referred should be invoked at this stage because during the debate on the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill that legitimated the 1954 Hague convention as far as the UK is concerned—we are a dualist state that cannot just accept agreements with foreign powers; they have to be brought into UK law—that was heavily criticised. The convention dates to 1954, and cultural goods had a different meaning then.
This morning, I looked up my rather excellent speeches —I can say that because I am sure nobody else has read them—about the need to update the cultural definitions portrayed in that convention and used in that debate. They entirely exclude media, cinema, digital art and related issues. In other words, we have a convention on which the Government are relying to get them out of an EU proposition they do not like, which does not, in the case of armed conflict, satisfactorily deal with the art that I care about. I was promised by the Ministers at the time that this would be looked at, so perhaps the Minister could remind me of what progress has been made to update the 1954 Hague convention. There was a proposal to update it in the wings. Have the Government looked at that and, if so, when will the House have a chance to debate and discuss it?
There is a minor point in relation to the risk of trade in cultural goods being used to finance terrorism, which the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, mentioned. There is a rather odd phrase in paragraph 7.5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum which I wonder whether he could unpick for me. It is normal for explanatory memoranda to have more descriptive comments, and I wonder whether there needs to be a bit more around the fourth line than currently. It says that the regulations—SI 2017/692—
“require art dealers and others even tangentially involved in a transaction of €10,000 or more to collect and report information about their customers.”
I think I get the message, but “tangentially” is not a word that really satisfies certainty about who is caught by that. Can the noble Lord respond, perhaps in writing, about the intention behind that phrase? As I say, this is a pretty minor point.
My third point relates to the assertion in paragraph 7.6. I return to the original point that the regulation is being brought forward in this form at the moment because of the uncertainty and complexity that might be caused if we had to rewrite it for the UK customs area with all the problems with Northern Ireland. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response, but the argument here is a little unconvincing. The main point seems to be that
“the Regulation is silent on who bears the burden of proof of the breach of the laws and regulations of that country, as well as on the evidence which would be required to demonstrate … the cultural goods concerned.”
It sounds a bit like a straw person being set up in order to be knocked down. I thought that was what lawyers were all about. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, when he comes to speak, will be able to justify in every sense the ability of lawyers to get to the bottom of who is responsible and what the necessary evidence would be and that he would enjoy the process of so doing.
Finally, the Minister’s argument ended with the point that this was a good SI and something that we can support—and I think that inevitably we will—because it brings clarity. I have already talked about the Northern Ireland situation, and I do not think he can defend that, but we are relying on a very disparate set of rules and regulations, set up over a long period of time, dating back to 1954, including regulations as recent as 2017 and later. Will the Minister consider a serious point from me, which is that if this is the route that we are going down—and I am sure we will—will he consider suggesting to the Government that there is a good case for the Law Commission to take away all these issues and come up with a consolidated set of rules and regulations for the transfer of cultural goods? It would mean updating the terms of culture, looking at where the actual powers and responsibilities are, assessing as necessary where the evidence needs to be sought and who should be responsible, should any cases be made, and generating a Bill that we could perhaps look at in a few years’ time that draws all this together. I would be very happy with that. Although I will not be opposing what is before us today, I hope that I have made the case that this is a bit flimsy and needs a bit more attention.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the objective of this legislation is to replace the EU regulations in so far as they have been operated by the UK prior to us leaving the EU with the existing laws that are already in place. They will, as the Explanatory Memorandum says, be primarily aimed at the 2003 legislation, as it states in paragraph 7.5.3:
“The principal domestic legislation relating to the illicit trade … is the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003”.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I believe that deficiencies are left by the process that we currently see. They fall into three areas: the geographical scope, which I will come to in a moment; weakened regulation over the requirement to be vigilant; and the loss of potential international reputation and data sharing.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, in looking at this matter, raised three issues on which it seemed to have got agreement from the department that there are problems with this legislation. The first is that the revocation of the EU regulation by this instrument could potentially weaken the legal prohibition currently provided by Article 3.1. The second is that the UK needs to do more to prevent the import into the UK of cultural goods that have been stolen, looted and/or unlawfully exported from other countries. The third is that there could be a perception that we are watering down our commitment to protect cultural property from illicit trade, which we will need to counter robustly. Those, roughly, are the three areas that I will cover and question the Minister on.
On the geographic scope, given that the primary piece of legislation is that 2003 legislation—not a weighty document; it takes up only a small number of pages—the last paragraph of that Act of Parliament, Section 6(3), says:
“This Act does not extend to Scotland.”
My first question is therefore: if these are devolved powers to Scotland—I suspect they are not—what legislation is in place from the Scottish Parliament to cover that gap? If this legislation, which is the primary legislation that the Government are falling back on, does not apply in Scotland, what is there to replace it? Clearly, I do not suggest this will happen, but these goods could be imported through Scotland and then even passed on to Northern Ireland or to other parts of the United Kingdom.
The second issue is Northern Ireland itself. The UK Government declared on 8 December 2020 that the regulation would be fully implemented in Northern Ireland, as I believe the Minister said in his opening. However, the government website currently states that Article 3.1 applies in Northern Ireland but that the Government do not intend to change the way they handle the import of cultural goods. There is a direct contradiction between what the Minister has explained to us today and what the Government have on their website. Northern Ireland cannot comply with its obligations and fail to change the way it handles the import of cultural objects. We need an explanation of that if we are to follow through and understand what the resultant revocation of these regulations means.
The second area of concern is weakened legislation. Article 3.1 of the European legislation significantly widened the scope of applicable cultural property and would apply in the UK today if we had kept it and moved forward with it. The scope of the objects concerned is wider, which reflects the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. However, the date threshold at which an object is considered illicit is longer and varies according to the country of origin of the object. The regulation itself places obligations on authorities to put measures in place to restrict import rather than creating a criminal offence for the individual knowingly dealing in tainted objects, which of course is in the 2003 legislation.
I will give an example of that, which I am grateful to Blue Shield United Kingdom for giving to us. Prior to Article 3.1 coming into force, it would not have been illegal to import into the UK an Egyptian cultural object simply because it had been illegally exported—but not necessarily stolen—from Egypt in 2000, despite Egypt having enacted national legislation. Article 3.1 has an impact. It requires that customs authorities permit the import of this Egyptian object only if it was legally exported from Egypt post 1983, which of course is 20 years in advance of the 2003 legislation, or if the importer can demonstrate that it was exported prior to the Egyptian law banning export. There is a danger and a perception that the legislation will be weaker than what we would have had before the revocation of the EU law.
The third area, of course, is that of potential loss of international reputation. This is significant, because there will be inevitable criticism for the way in which the UK Government have gone about this. We will have been clearly put in a position where there are deficiencies in our current legislation, and where the European legislation is providing a better and broader understanding of what needs to be done and is more up to date. There is no change proposed to the UK legislation—and, if any is proposed, surely it would have been better to consider these matters together rather than separately.
The third point is what the EU legislation proposed—the use of an electronic system for a centralised database to be shared between EU member states so that people can easily track and follow goods that are particularly concerning or worrying. Will we have the opportunity to be part of that electronic database, or at least have access to it? Clearly, it will provide a safeguard that would be helpful going forward and it would protect us a little bit from having our international reputation chipped away at.
The way the Government have done this has left us with a shoddy mess of inadequate and conflicting law that will damage our reputation worldwide. There is a need for extra actions to be taken. It may have been better to try to amend the legislation; revoking it without looking at the consequent legislation that we are left with seems inappropriate and certainly not helpful to our reputation. It will give the impression of a reduction in the scale of protection in the objectives that we have set out ourselves and which are in the EU legislation, as well as those that lie behind it. Overall, it is not a helpful position for us; it would have been far better to have done this in a more comprehensive manner.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for his introduction today. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lord German.
The Government have adopted what can be described only as a cavalier approach to the repeal of an important regulation designed to prevent illicit trade in cultural goods in the EU. I am glad that the advice of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has been heeded, and that we have the opportunity for this debate today. I understand that new provisions are needed on our exit from the EU, but a complete repeal without any replacement mirroring the provisions for the UK by itself raises serious questions of the kind that both the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend have raised. On these Benches, we do not support this SI, for the reasons set out by my noble friend, the noble Lord and, shortly, by myself.
There are real issues here about what consultation was carried out, what the result of the consultation was, who was in support of this solution and who wanted to see a different solution. Were the requirements on provenance the key objection to the current regulation? If so, in what respect? Does not the sum total of what the Government are proposing mean that illicit and looted artefacts will now enter the UK more freely?
The timing of the tabling of the SI was a surprise to expert organisations such as UK Blue Shield, the organisation so instrumental in campaigning for the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017. Indeed, we had little notice in Parliament that this was coming before us. UK Blue Shield rightly raised the question of whether the decision to revoke the regulation intended to prevent the funding of terrorism, as one of the UK Government’s first post-Brexit repeals, may well cause international controversy and criticism. It calls into question the UK Government’s recent declaration in the integrated review, Global Britain in a Competitive Age, that culture is key to their soft power agenda.
The Explanatory Memorandum and the de minimis assessment are highly misleading. They suggest that existing domestic laws are sufficient to prevent illicit trafficking, but they say little about the practice of those laws. As Blue Shield says, referring to the 2003 Act and the Hague convention mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson,
“in reality, they are not actively enforced in the UK and do not require active checks of imported cultural goods. Furthermore, not all legislation applies equally across the UK, a fact which is notably absent from the Memorandum.”
This was expertly brought out by my noble friend Lord German, who is a great deal more expert in the vagaries of devolution than I am. It goes on:
“As a result, by trying to reduce the requirements imposed by the Regulation, UK customs authorities will have to understand and operate three different sets of rules and laws to ensure no illicit cultural objects enter UK borders, depending on the point of entry.”
My noble friend shared with us the very graphic example of an Egyptian artefact.
Blue Shield sets out three major risks with which I entirely agree: that Northern Ireland may be used as a gateway to move illicit cultural property into Europe, that there would be reputational damage to the UK and that the UK would be a target for illicit cultural objects. It quotes Alexander Herman, assistant director of the Institute of Art and Law, who comments:
“The EU Regulation’s Article 3(1) prohibition on introducing cultural goods presents a significant expansion of the usual import restrictions for this sort of material. By repealing it, the UK may be seen to be facilitating the illicit trade, even if that is not its intention. Rather than a ‘quiet repeal’”—
more like “virtually invisible”—
“the UK should instead come out and demonstrate its commitment to fighting illicit trade by ensuring that its existing national legislation is properly implemented and enforced at the border. Only through such actions will the UK be able to ensure that its art and antiquities market remains legitimate going forward.”
Why is the UK repealing this regulation with a whimper and not this kind of commitment?
I assume that the current GOV.UK link is to out-of-date guidance on licences by the Arts Council England—at least, I hope it is out of date—which was last updated in December. The GOV.UK site says:
“You need a UK licence to export cultural objects from the UK to any destination outside the UK. You do not need a licence to move objects of cultural interest from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.”
That, I assume, will have to change. Can the Minister confirm that checks will be required by the regulations on cultural goods going into Northern Ireland, or are the Government planning to break the terms of annexe 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol EU agreement?
It is clear that the Government risk getting us into a muddle and allowing confusion on the rules, which will give a real opportunity for those dealing with illicit works. I hope that is not the Government’s intention, but they seem to have listened to the wrong advice on this. Will they rethink their approach or are they in the pockets of the art dealers—the “art market stakeholders” so frequently mentioned in the assessment —who want to continue with the practices of the past?
The SLSC pointed to fears in the de minimis assessment, and I think it is worth quoting from that. It says that:
“It is likely to be criticised by those who consider that the UK needs to do more to prevent the import into the UK of cultural goods which have been stolen, looted and/or unlawfully exported from other countries. They are likely to argue that we should have fixed the provision to make it operate correctly in UK law. They may also argue that we should retain the other provisions to facilitate the eventual implementation of the whole of the Regulation, including the import licence and importer statement requirements.”
Bullseye—that is exactly the criticism being made of these regulations.
I thought the constructive suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—that the Law Commission could get involved—was very good. Others have been put forward around co-operation with UNESCO that Blue Shield would be keen to see. I think there are a number of ways forward, but they all involve putting something in place which brings us closer to the original impact of the regulation and does not simply repeal the EU regulation in the way that the Government have suggested.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this SI. I have taken careful note, as I am sure he has, of the contributions from my noble friend Lord Stevenson and the noble Lords, Lord German and Lord Clement-Jones, who brought their collective attention to this matter. I have a sense of foreboding that the Minister may regret introducing this short statutory instrument by suggesting that it is simply a matter for clarification, as it seems to have required yet further clarification in the course of this debate.
This is a short statutory instrument—the main provision is one sentence long—but it sends a worrying signal to those who are concerned about the protection of items of cultural significance. We are grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for recommending that this SI was upgraded from the negative procedure to the affirmative, and for the additional information provided in its fourth report of the Session.
DCMS insists that this instrument is merely an exercise in tidying up the statute book, but, as the SLSC noted, the department’s decision will give many a perception that the UK is watering down its protections for cultural goods that have been stolen, looted and/or unlawfully exported from other countries. That is not the message that this Government should be sending.
This is undoubtedly a highly emotive subject. It is also a live one. In recent weeks, we have seen the case of a British auction house removing two looted Ethiopian objects from sale, following an intervention by that country’s embassy. Elsewhere, in Italy, authorities recently recovered what has been described as an “archaeological treasure trove” of almost 800 stolen artefacts from Belgium. I am sure we all agree that it is a tragedy that criminals commit these acts, but for as long as that occurs, we have to ensure we have the appropriate protections in place.
The Explanatory Memorandum helpfully lists a number of the statutory provisions and international conventions that the UK has or is party to, but can the Minister outline what steps are being taken to keep them under review? As with other areas of crime, there is a worry that the trade of stolen cultural items is increasingly taking place online, and potentially through platforms on the dark web. Is the Minister able to comment on this trend and the steps that his department is taking in response to it? Can the Minister comment on how he feels the current system is working and how well our domestic rules are doing?
Finally, in response to the disruption of trade flows following the end of the transition period, HMRC waived administrative requirements on certain imports and exports. In doing so, it conceded the risk of security issues at the border. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, committed to write to my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe on this issue. However, until then, is the Minister able to say whether these temporary waivers could have inadvertently aided those seeking to get cultural items into or out of the country? I look forward to the Minister’s response on these points and the other points that were raised during the course of the debate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments and questions on these regulations. I will do my best to cover the range of questions raised but, as ever, will make sure I consult the exchanges and write with further detail, where I am not able to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, asked why we have chosen to revoke rather than amend the regulations. As I tried to set out in opening, even if these regulations were not legally deficient, the general prohibition would raise other issues of concern for us. It applies to a wide range of cultural goods, regardless of their age or value, who is importing them, for what purpose or when they were exported from their country of creation or discovery. That gives it a very broad scope. Any cultural goods within its scope could be prohibited from entering the United Kingdom if they were believed to have been unlawfully exported from their country of creation or discovery, even if they have been, to all intents and purposes, lawfully owned for years, decades or, in some cases, even centuries by private owners or museums, without their legal provenance being questioned. We think that it could prevent cultural goods created or discovered within Great Britain from being returned, if they had previously been unlawfully exported from this country.
Moreover, there is no requirement for anyone to provide evidence of either lawful export or unlawful removal from the country of creation or discovery. In the event of a claim that cultural goods were unlawfully removed, it is not clear where the burden of proof should lie. I hope that sets out some of the concerns we had with the regulations and the thinking that underpinned our decision to revoke. As we already have existing legislation that has proved to be effective in tackling the illicit trade in cultural goods, we think it better to revoke the general prohibition to clarify the position and avoid confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, also referred to the Hague convention of 1954 which, he rightly points out, is some time ago. The UK is also party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The requirements and obligations of both those conventions are reflected in our domestic law, most notably in the Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Act 2003 and the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017, both of which are more recent pieces of legislation. The UK and its authorities are members of international organisations, such as Interpol and the World Customs Organization, which enable them to co-operate and share information and intelligence with their counterparts in other countries, as well as make sure that our response is fully up to date in the ways the noble Lord raised. I should point out that the other types of culture that he mentioned in his question are not reflected in the EU regulation either.
I will take the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, up on his offer to write, after I have checked with lawyers why they chose the word “tangentially” in paragraph 7.5.9 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I would be happy to write when I have that explanation, and I shall take back the suggestion that he made about the Law Commission to the department.
The noble Lord politely suggested that I had glossed over the impacts on Northern Ireland. That was not my intention, although I do not think that is what he was suggesting either. The Northern Ireland protocol has been and continues to be well debated in your Lordships’ House. We do not expect the general prohibition to have a significant impact on the import of cultural goods into Northern Ireland, including from Great Britain. At this stage, it is not possible to say how significant that impact might be.
The noble Lord, Lord German, asked about the application of the law to Scotland. The 2003 Act does not apply to Scotland, but other legislation and relevant international law does. I mentioned a couple of Acts in opening—the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 and the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Act 2017—both of which apply to Scotland. Retained EU law is, of course, a matter for the UK Government.
The noble Lord, Lord German, and others suggested that revoking these regulations might risk sending the wrong message about the UK’s commitment to tackling the illicit trade in cultural goods. We do not believe that is the case and are determined to tackle that illicit trade. The UK has a strong record of finding and returning unlawfully removed cultural goods. In opening, I mentioned the example of a statue that was recently returned to Libya. To give another example, in 2019, a Mesopotamian kudurru or boundary stone, which was probably stolen in 2003, was seized by HMRC at Heathrow Airport and subsequently forfeited to the Crown. It was formally returned to Iraq in March 2019. Over 150 Mesopotamian cuneiform tablets, seized by HMRC in 2011, were also returned to Iraq in August 2019. So I hope there is no doubt about our commitment, determination or track record in tackling the illicit trade in cultural goods.
We will explore the issue which the noble Lord, Lord German, raised about a database, but it is worth saying that we already share intelligence via our role in Interpol, where we are a key player, and through the World Customs Organization.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that Northern Ireland risks becoming a gateway for unlawfully removed cultural goods to enter the EU from the UK. We do not believe that will be the case. Importing unlawfully removed cultural goods into the EU via Northern Ireland would be a lengthy and costly route for anyone who chose to do so, and there would be many opportunities along the way for unlawfully removed cultural goods to be detected and seized. Our customs and border authorities will continue to do their utmost to prevent unlawfully removed cultural goods entering the UK and ensure that such goods are not transferred to Northern Ireland with the intention of moving them on from there to the EU.
To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, no export licence will be required for movement from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Other checks are a matter from HMRC but will not include any new measures for the general prohibition. The noble Lord also referred to our art market, which is the second-largest in the world and has a notable and deserved worldwide reputation. There is no evidence that it is underhand or acts outside the law. I am sure that is not what he was suggesting.
To respond to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, I do not regret the way I set out these regulations. I hope that the consideration that your Lordships have given them in Grand Committee today has afforded the proper opportunity for scrutiny and, through my answers, some clarification. I will follow up in writing with further points where that is needed.
We believe that this statutory instrument will provide clarity and certainty for the UK’s museums and art market, allowing them, and their partners and clients, to bring cultural objects into the UK without fear that they will be delayed or detained at the border because of any unsupported claim of unlawful removal from another country at some point in the distant past. Our existing legislation was robust in protecting cultural goods before the general prohibition came into effect, and it will continue to provide protection against the illicit trade in cultural goods. In cases where there is evidence or information that an object was unlawfully removed from another country, our customs and border authorities will still be able to detain it and deal with it accordingly, using their existing powers and procedures. I end by re-emphasising that this statutory instrument will not change that.
Motion agreed.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
The Grand Committee stands adjourned until 4.10 pm. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
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 shall immediately adjourn the Committee. If there is a Division in the House, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.
Criminal Justice (Electronic Commerce) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice (Electronic Commerce) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2021.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, this is a technical instrument concerning EU jurisdictional rules. I make it clear at the outset that these regulations do not create new policy nor change the nature of the related offences; they are merely measures to fix failures of retained EU law arising from the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. If time had allowed, the Government would have brought forward this regulation before the end of the transition period. However, as we are not aware that the rules in question have ever been relevant to a prosecution for the offences that this instrument relates to, we prioritised other, more urgent, legislation. Now that such other more important legislation is in force, it is necessary that we address any remaining deficiencies in retained EU law.
This instrument concerns an internal market measure contained in article 3 of the EU’s e-commerce directive. Although that directive is largely being retained in UK law, a key aspect of the directive is the country of origin principle, which establishes jurisdictional rules that operate across the EEA. Following the end of the transition period, these rules, which rely on reciprocal application between the EEA states, no longer operate as intended. The removal of the country of origin principle from legislation under the responsibility of my department is, therefore, the objective of this draft instrument.
The rules contained in the country of origin principle here apply to online activities which meet the definition of information society services, known as ISS, which can be understood as a service offered for payment, at a distance, by electronic means, and at the request of the recipient of that service. ISS could provide services such as online retailers, video sharing sites, search tools, social media platforms and internet service providers. Because of their reciprocal nature, these rules aimed to make it easier for organisations to operate online across borders. They did this by making ISS operating in more than one European Economic Area state subject only to the law of their home country unless certain conditions were met. This meant that, for relevant offences, ISS needed to comply with only one set of laws, those of the home state, rather than those of each state they operate in, thereby reducing the regulatory burden.
The implementation of these rules in connection with this statutory instrument has two strands. First, it creates a procedural bar, restricting prosecutions of ISS based in the EEA for their conduct in another EEA country; the procedural bar is based on the proposition that the ISS could have been prosecuted by the state in which they were established—that is, the home state. Secondly, it makes ISS based in one EEA state subject to the law of that state for their conduct across the EEA. This instrument fully removes the UK’s implementation of both aspects of the retained rules from legislation for which the Ministry of Justice has responsibility. As a consequence, UK ISS operating in the EEA will be subject to UK law only to the same extent as they would be when operating in other foreign countries. There will be no distinction between operating in an EEA state and operating in any other foreign state. It also means there will no longer be a procedural bar restricting prosecutions of EEA-based ISS operating in the UK, meaning that proceedings against an ISS based in an EEA state would operate in the same way as proceedings against an ISS based in any other foreign state or a domestic ISS.
The key points here are three, and those I made when I first rose—using that term somewhat loosely in this Room. First, we are unaware of any prosecutions of ISS for the offences this instrument amends, let alone any cases to which these jurisdictional rules have applied, so the direct impact of this instrument is low. Secondly, these exit-related deficiencies need to be resolved, because the rules were based on reciprocity which no longer exists and, if left unresolved they could, in future, place UK businesses at a disadvantage. Thirdly, the approach taken in this instrument is not only a suitable method of dealing with this issue but, I suggest, the only method of addressing these deficiencies. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to join me in supporting this instrument and beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I heartily support the Motion. Information society services that operated from within the EEA were subject only to the law in their place of origin, as the Minister has explained. When we left the EEA, this could no longer apply, and the provisions for implementation of this system inserted into our law could no longer apply. This seems simple to deal with, and this statutory instrument just deletes them from our law. If a society has its origin in a devolved Administration, it is the law there that requires the deletion.
This was originally put forward as a statutory instrument with no need for approval, but the committee raised some questions that seemed to suggest it should be altered. Therefore, we have this before us today with rather a short consideration, I believe.
It has been suggested that a new provision is required to make services established here subject to remote control here, but I cannot see that that is appropriate. While the previous system operated, it did not affect non-EEA countries. This instrument leaves that as it was and puts EEA countries in the same position as those leaving the EEA, which makes our relationship with EEA countries the same as with others. Therefore, all we have to do is leave it alone. I can see there is room to consider harmonising policies on these matters across the world, but this statutory instrument—or statutory instruments generally under this power—are not appropriate for that.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, for his introduction. The Explanatory Memorandum could have done with illustrative examples to clarify the new position following the implementation of these regulations. I support the committee in insisting that this instrument had a hearing.
As I understand it, the e-commerce directive applied to companies engaged in internet trading, search tools, social media platforms and the like. A trader based in this country trading online in the EEA could be criminally liable under the laws of this country only, and would not have to comply with the criminal law of any EEA state in which he was trading. The strength of the country of origin principle, “the CoOP”, was that it was reciprocal; other countries dealt with traders operating within their jurisdiction similarly.
However, since the end of the transition, UK internet traders or social media platforms have had to adhere to the laws of each EEA country in which they operate. Equally, EEA traders can be prosecuted if they do not comply, when operating in the UK, with our criminal law. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that a UK trader now must have regard to the criminal law in each EEA country in which he operates, but will not be liable in this country for offences committed abroad, because the courts of this country will have no extraterritorial jurisdiction to prosecute here for such offences. If, therefore, a trader wishes to advertise his wares on the internet in, say, Belgium, Denmark or Germany, he will have to ensure that his advertisements or the products he is selling comply with the criminal laws of each country.
Take pornographic material, for example. If a trader in London publishes obscene material in EEA countries, he can be prosecuted there but no longer in the UK. He can be prosecuted by the appropriate prosecuting authorities in those countries but, unless the material is published in the UK as well, no prosecution is possible here.
Does it then follow that such a trader can sit in London and purvey his material in EU or EEA countries, safe in the knowledge that, in the absence of the European arrest warrant, it would be extremely difficult to extradite him to Belgium, Denmark or Germany, where the offence is committed? The converse is that, if a European trader publishes obscene material in this country, he can be prosecuted in UK courts if we can get hold of him. Absent the European arrest warrant, that is likely to be difficult.
The Explanatory Memorandum says:
“Removal of the CoOp”—
the reciprocal arrangements—
“will only bring regulation of UK ISS operating in the EEA in line with their operation in other foreign countries, and does not affect our ability to prosecute UK nationals or residents who commit offences outside the UK”—
this final section is underlined—
“where our courts have jurisdiction to do so.”
The Minister will know how limited extraterritorial jurisdiction is in this country: for murder, manslaughter in certain circumstances, sexual offences against persons under the age of 18, forced marriage and female genital mutilation—a short list. We are about to consider legislation which implements the Istanbul convention—ironically, the convention promoted by more Europeans than the Council of Europe—on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. The fact sheet published by the Home Office last month indicates the extent of the proposed extension of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It does not include publicly publishing obscene materials or fraud.
Personally, I am sick to death of scams from abroad, sometimes from west African countries, which force every one of us to set up barriers on the internet, email and telephones. I hate the idea that persons could set up in this country to defraud people on the continent or flood their markets with pornography. Would it not be simpler if, rather than drawing up our skirts to avoid contamination by the EU or the EEA on every occasion, we now negotiated to enter into a new reciprocal agreement? As I see it, these regulations are a necessary consequence of Brexit, but creating a platform for criminals to defraud European citizens is in no way desirable. I await to see whether I have misunderstood the whole purpose of these regulations.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we in the Labour Party accept that this instrument is necessary to address the current lopsided arrangements following the end of the transition period of the UK leaving the EU. The Explanatory Memorandum states:
“Its purpose is to address failures in retained EU law to operate effectively and other deficiencies arising from the withdrawal of the UK from the EU by amending the domestic legislation which implements a reciprocal arrangement known as the ‘Country of Origin principle’”.
The instrument amends primary legislation, and the changes made to each Act have substantially the same effect. In respect of domestic information society service providers, they remove liability under UK law for offences committed in EEA states, as well as the ability to prosecute those offences in the UK. In respect of EEA-based information society service providers, they remove the restriction on bringing prosecutions in the UK for offences committed in the UK.
The European Statutory Instruments Committee has expressed concern that
“the effect of this instrument could be to dilute regulation of the international effect of publication of certain kinds of material (particularly online material with global reach) as it is not clear whether equivalent offences exist across the EEA. We therefore requested further information from the Department on this question. The Department’s response … states that it has not carried out a thorough review and is therefore not in a position to explain the extent of any dilution of international regulation. Given the serious nature of the offences covered by the instrument, and the ambiguity surrounding parallel offences in other EEA countries, the Committee believes that this issue is of sufficient political importance to justify the scrutiny and debate afforded by affirmative resolution.”
I have read the response to the points raised by the committee in certain paragraphs of the Government’s Explanatory Memorandum and listened to Minister Chalk’s response to my honourable friend Alex Cunningham when he raised these points in yesterday’s debate in the House of Commons, so I will not ask the Minister to repeat the points made yesterday.
However, given the sensitivity of the various acts to which this instrument applies and the wider context of the substantial legislation we are expecting, in the form of the online harms Bill, for example, can the Minister say something about how he sees international legislative co-operation developing to combat international crime and exploitation? I note that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, essentially asked the same question about future reciprocal agreements, and I also note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, asked about harmonisation of policies. It is a much wider question than the narrow but important remit of this SI, but I think that all Members participating in this debate would be interested in the answer to it.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, sometimes a debate is short but it sets up some interesting points, and this is one of them.
First, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for his comments. He makes an important point that this instrument essentially means that an ISS will be treated the same way under our law, irrespective of where they are based, for their conduct here. Now that we have left the EU, maintaining different and indeed preferential treatment for EEA-based ISS would be inappropriate. That theme runs through a number of the points which we have debated this afternoon.
Given the time limits I have, I will not say anything more about the sifting committee recommending that we have an affirmative procedure this afternoon; we have set that position out in writing.
I can confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has not, as he put it, misunderstood the whole purpose of the SI. I take his point that an Explanatory Note might sometimes be more useful if it has worked examples. However, the problem with a worked example is that, if you do not cover every example, the danger is that the Explanatory Note could prove to be more misleading. The noble Lord highlighted that, since the end of the transition period, ISS have been liable to the laws of each country in which they operate. These changes mean that they will no longer also be liable in the UK, thus removing dual liability.
The noble Lord described a theoretical scenario, but I have to say that his concerns about bringing foreign offenders to justice in the context of cross-border offences was really the focus of his comment. This instrument specifically addresses reciprocal jurisdictional rules. On the wider point he makes, it is fair to say that those rules were never intended to contribute to the wider regulation of the publication of illicit materials internationally. They apply only to organisations meeting the definition of ISS, which is a limited definition, and only to activity in the EEA. The purpose was a much narrower one, simply to make it easier for such organisations to operate in multiple countries by simplifying the legal and regulatory framework which applied to them. Therefore, while in theory the co-operation agreement made it possible to prosecute UK-based ISS, and in some cases individuals, for conduct that occurs in EEA states, in practice, as I said in opening, we are not aware of any such prosecutions.
Generally, to meet the noble Lord’s point head on, the Government’s view is that criminal offending is best dealt with by the criminal justice system of the state where the offence took place. In any event, leaving in place rules that flow from EU reciprocal arrangements that no longer apply to the UK, and which are limited to UK ISS operating in EEA states, would not be an effective approach to address the concerns the noble Lord identified. Where we have extraterritorial jurisdiction, that is always on the basis that we look at all countries in the world on the same basis, and we do not distinguish between EEA states and other foreign states. Ultimately, therefore, this instrument means that we will treat EEA countries in the same way as any other foreign country. Now that we have left the EU, I suggest that that is entirely appropriate.
Towards the end of his comments, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said that he was
“sick to death of scams from abroad”.
For the briefest of moments, I thought the noble Lord had converted to the hardest of hard Brexiteers, but then he referred to west Africa and I realised he was making a different point. But that point underlines the philosophy that underpins this statutory instrument. Whether the scam comes—so to speak—from west Africa, from an ISS in the EEA or from anywhere else, we have left the EU and will therefore treat all foreign countries in the same way. That is generally consistent with the way we approach extraterritorial criminal jurisdiction in this country.
I turn last to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who referred to the “current lopsided arrangements”. If I may say, with respect, that is absolutely right. That is why we need this statutory instrument, as we have a lopsided position without it now that we have left the EU. I am grateful that he did not ask me to repeat the answers given in another place yesterday, but I will turn to the particular question he asked me on how I see international legislative co-operation developing to combat international crime and exploitation.
The noble Lord raised the important issue of protecting the vulnerable from exploitation online, which is something that the Government fully agree and sympathise with. This is a challenging problem, not least because the underlying technology is constantly changing. It therefore needs to be tackled both by working with our international partners and through updating our domestic legislation. We have previously indicated that we intend to bring forward a draft Bill to address online harms and make the UK the safest place in the world to be online, setting the global standard for safety online, with the most comprehensive approach yet to online regulation.
I said a few words about this when I opened the relevant day of the debate on the humble Address to Her Majesty the Queen. The draft Bill will include placing a duty of care on companies to improve the safety of their users online. It will require major platforms to set out clearly, in their terms and conditions, what legal content is unacceptable on their platform and to enforce those conditions, consistently and transparently. It will require platforms to have effective and accessible user-reporting and redress mechanisms. I know that people often complain about that: when you see something online that you want to complain about or refer to the online platform, it is often very difficult to do so. It will designate Ofcom as the independent online safety regulator and give it the power to levy very large fines indeed. It will also boost public resilience to disinformation through media literacy and supporting research on misinformation and disinformation. The last is something that, in our modern society, is becoming increasingly important.
I hope the Committee will forgive me if I do not say too much more about that prospective legislation, because I would be straying a little too far from the direct subject of the SI. Coming back to that, it is of limited but focused application, as I have said, and I commend it to the Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)
That completes the business of the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.
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 wear face coverings while in the Chamber, except when speaking. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Oral Questions will now commence. Please can 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.
Covid-19: Wuhan Institute of Virology
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Ridley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the possibility that the COVID-19 virus escaped from a laboratory at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, with the increasing threat of zoonotic diseases crossing the animal-human divide, learning how Covid was transmitted to humans and is spread is absolutely crucial to preventing future pandemics. The much-delayed WHO-convened Covid origin study reported on phase 1 of its investigation in March. The report made recommendations for further studies. The Government’s belief is that it is vital that phase 2 of the investigation does not face the same delays and that it is given full access to the data necessary for the next part of its work.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Viruses like this have not been found near Wuhan in bats or any other animals. The closest relative to this virus was brought to Wuhan by scientists from 1,000 miles away to a laboratory that had been manipulating SARS-like viruses for 15 years. There it was sequenced in 2017 and 2018 in a biosecurity level 2 laboratory. Most of that information was found out by independent investigators, not volunteered by the Chinese authorities. Will my noble friend unequivocally condemn that lack of transparency and join other nations in calling for a full and independent investigation? Will he clarify who is in charge in the British Government of answering that question?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend. We are absolutely calling for a timely, transparent and evidence-based phase 2 study, including further investigation in China, as recommended by the experts’ report. We agree with the Independent Panel for Pandemic Preparedness & Response that member states should give the WHO greater powers to investigate outbreaks of pathogens with pandemic potential within member states.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I commend the Minister for an excellent reply to the noble Viscount’s Question—a reply obviously informed by the excellent staff at the Department of Health and Social Care. In the light of that, can I gently ask why, as a Minister, did he feel it necessary to have a parliamentary research assistant?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I have written to the commissioner for standards in response to that precise question and I should be glad to share that correspondence with the noble Lord.
Baroness Walmsley (LD) [V]
It is believed that given the slow rate of mutation of Covid viruses, Covid-19 would have taken around 35 years to evolve from its nearest known relative. What has been done to identify any intermediaries in which it may have lived during that period and any knowledge useful for preventing future pandemics that may arise from that knowledge?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness. It is extremely frustrating that we do not know the steps of evolution that this virus went through. It has come to us completely out of the blue. That leaves us in a vulnerable state when we are preparing for the next pandemic. It is absolutely essential, as any epidemiologist will say, that one knows and understands where the virus came from—whether that is the water pump handle for an outbreak of cholera or a virus from China.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, the situation could not emphasise more clearly the need for genuine global participation in transparency in surveillance and pathogen sequencing to respond to future pandemics and epidemics. I was pleased to see the progress at the G7 on this but, if the global anti-pandemic action plan is to have any teeth, we will need to ensure that countries such as China contribute trustworthy data to global surveillance in the future. What steps does the Minister envisage to ensure that this happens?
Lord Bethell (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend. The international health regulations need to be amended in that respect. It was one of the aspects of the pandemic preparedness treaty that was brought to Carbis Bay for the G7 earlier this year. We are working extremely hard, through our G7 chairmanship, to ensure that this relatively obscure but absolutely critical international treaty has the teeth it needs to do the work on genomic sequencing and pathogen identification that needs to be done.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that for a better understanding of the current pandemic and future pandemics, identification of the progenitor genome of SARS-CoV-2 is important? We need more data, despite having sequenced more than 1 million SARS-CoV-2 genomes. The escape of pathogens from labs is not new. Examples are smallpox and anthrax, and also SARS, which escaped from several labs in different countries in 2003. Does the Minister agree that we urgently need to address global regulation of labs that undertake gain of function experiments on pathogens?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord’s appeal for more data—but, candidly, as I know he knows, it is not just quantity of data that we need; it is the right data. Where we are struggling is in getting genomic sequencing of new mutations from the furthest reaches of the virus’s spread. We need a systematic programme around the world that shares the sequences of new mutations with academics who can study and assess them. Without such a systematic programme we are flying blind. That is why we are working on the new variant assessment platform and other pandemic preparedness projects.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, scientists are warning that we are in an era of pandemics, and that viruses more deadly, contagious or resistant to antibodies than Covid-19 could emerge. What steps are the Government taking to prepare themselves and the country for the next potential pandemic, and will the Minister commit to ensuring that future pandemic preparedness plans are independently assessed and reported to Parliament?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, who is leading the pandemic preparedness work. He is doing an enormous amount both on the international treaties through our G7 chairmanship, and on the internal domestic re-envisaging of our healthcare system. We need to invest more in public health, and we also need the data, the diagnostics and the patient behaviours that support really rigorous tracking down of diseases when they arrive. The noble Baroness is entirely right: pandemics will come, sooner rather than later.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
Why, within days of becoming Prime Minister in July 2019, did Mr Johnson scrap the Threats, Hazards, Resilience and Contingency Committee, which was set up precisely to ensure that the UK was ready to cope with a pandemic?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, with the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, I am not sure whether the pandemic that just hit us could have been solved by a committee, however august and impressive. We need a national response, and the national response to this pandemic came from the Prime Minister and the top of Government, and involved the entire nation. For that we are enormously grateful.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, in an article in the Financial Times in May, Sir Patrick Vallance said that the Prime Minister had asked him, ahead of the G7, to pull together relevant experts to start looking at how a future pandemic could be dealt with more swiftly—and, most importantly, on a global basis. Can the Minister advise us what progress has been made on this?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I attended the presentation by Sir Patrick Vallance at the G7 health track in Oxford in June, which was received extremely well, both by Health Ministers from the G7 countries and by the chief executives of the major pharmaceutical companies that are partners in that work. We are using our chairmanship to nudge it along, and it will cover both the pharmaceutical and the demographic elements of pandemic response. This is an example of where Britain is showing leadership in the world to carve out a clear idea of how we can respond to pandemics better in the future.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I return to the point made by the noble Viscount earlier. Who in the British Government is in direct touch with the US National Institutes of Health, and especially Professor Jesse Bloom, about the deletion of genomic sequences, which he said had no plausible scientific rationale? If it is proven that the virus came from the Wuhan laboratory and that that fact has been concealed by the Chinese Communist Party, does the Minister agree that Magnitsky-style sanctions against individual officials would be the beginnings of an appropriate response by our Government?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, specific official engagement with the investigation is done through PHE, and we have a PHE official sitting on the investigation. That is the right way of conducting a scientific dialogue. The DHSC and FCDO also have extremely active interests in this. As for the tone in which the noble Lord talked about how we should approach this challenge, I say that we have to work in partnership with other countries. There is no way in which we can demonise one country or another in this matter. Partnership is the only way ahead. What we can, I hope, bring to the party is a sense of urgency and a sense of focus.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Choirs: Restrictions
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the guidance restricting the performance of indoor amateur choirs to no more than six people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, I know that the restrictions on singing are frustrating to large numbers of amateur choirs and performance groups across the country. Following the move to step 3 of the road map on 17 May, non-professional groups of up to six people can now sing indoors, while multiple groups of 30 can sing outdoors. We will continue to keep guidance and restrictions under review. Further details of step 4 will be set out as soon as possible.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a supporter patron of the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra, which has more than 400 adults in its various amateur choirs. I can see no specific evidence to support the restriction on choirs. Indoor choirs are limited to six people, whereas last night at Wembley 40,000 people were singing, and the night before at Wimbledon the court was covered and people were cheering to the rafters. That apparently is allowed but indoor choirs, which can exercise proper social distancing, are not allowed. This is nonsense. The Government should reverse it immediately.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am sure the noble Lord is aware that the events to which he refers are part of the events research programme, and particular public health measures are taken for all those attending. The evidence is clear that, sadly, singing increases the risks of transmission. Hence, we have the guidance we have been given.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, bearing in mind that on Monday in the other place the new Health Secretary said he hoped that church congregations would soon be able to sing together, could the Minister please give us some clarity on this and say what plans the Government have now to review the research on congregational singing with the use of face coverings, given that singing is not an add-on to worship but integral to it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely recognise the right reverend Prelate’s final remarks about singing being integral to worship. We continue to be led by the science and the experts, and to follow the public health advice. As soon as that changes, we will of course update the guidance.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, the Chelmsford Singers, a flourishing group not far from Lexden in Essex, would like to know why the current guidance with its totally unexpected restrictions, promised by the Government on 27 April
“in advance of step 3”,
was in fact published after step 3, causing them and so many choirs throughout the country to cancel their first rehearsals for over a year at short notice and, in some cases, with severe financial penalties.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can only apologise to my noble friend and the choir in Chelmsford for the disruption to their plans. As my noble friend is aware, guidance is now available on the GOV.UK website. It will be updated in time for step 4. When it is updated, it will be clear, practical and simply set out.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is completely illogical to say that a group of more than six professional singers can meet and sing but a group of amateurs cannot. It makes no sense at all. What does the Minister think people feel when they sit at home, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, and watch all these people getting together, singing, kissing, hugging and chanting?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Lord’s tone expressed very well what many people feel. We absolutely hear that frustration. He will be aware that all ministerial and MPs’ inboxes are full of correspondence on this issue, so we are aware. We are also aware that some amateur groups perform in a professional context, as the noble Lord set out. As a department we cannot advise on individual events or activities. It is up to the organisers to operate in accordance with the published guidance.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
I think all of us share considerable dismay about the answers we have just heard. Although we feel sorry for the Minister for her attempts to try to add a veneer of respectability to her responses, neither the science nor the reality of common sense back her up. As a member of the Parliament Choir, I want to meet with other members in a socially respectable way to sing the music that inspires us and to lead our lives as close to normality as we can. What we want is a road map and a timescale.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I can only repeat what I said in response to an earlier question: we will provide that road map as soon as possible and in time for step 4.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the board of governors and trustees of the Parliament Choir. Last year, the evidence that came to the Government said that singing was no different from speaking loudly or taking physical exercise indoors. With both of those now permitted—your Lordships will know that I can speak loudly, as can many other noble Lords—what is the evidence that says that speaking loudly in this Chamber is permitted but singing together in a Covid-compliant way is not permitted? Where is the evidence for that and will the Minister publish it?
Baroness Barran (Con)
There are references in recent research done, for the events research pilots in particular, that links to the evidence, but the decision has been based on three scientific studies: the NERVTAG Assessment of Transmission of Covid-19 through Musical Events study, the Public Health England paper Aerosol and Droplet Generation from Singing, Wind Instruments and Performance Activities, and the PERFORM study.
Lord Pickles (Con) [V]
In both the county of my birth, Yorkshire, and the county of my home, Essex, there are great choral traditions. My noble friend will realise that these amateur choirs go beyond just singing; they are an important part of what makes the community tick. Given that she said that amateur choirs can rehearse indoors in a professional capacity, why not follow the science? If members of the choir have been double-jabbed and it is in a well-ventilated room, why should that not be permissible?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend that amateur choirs are an important part of communities. Indeed, I do not want to diminish in any way the frustration expressed by your Lordships, but we have seen remarkable performances by Zoom choirs and others. I can only repeat that we are following the Public Health England guidance.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard today and on many other occasions, members of choirs and communities across the country are feeling both fed up and overlooked. Does the Minister personally feel comfortable with the fact—and can she offer an explanation for it—that so-called business VIPs are exempted from the range of Covid-19 restrictions while choirs, singers, actors and other artists who have endured over a year of hardship remain subject to a set of rules that, unlike in other areas of life, have remained absolutely static?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I know that the noble Baroness recognises the difference in the public health risks between the two activities to which she refers. I also acknowledge that she might be expressing broader sentiments in relation to this.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Royal Choral Society is a brilliant choir, but it is an amateur one. On 30 May it performed Handel’s “Messiah” at the Royal Albert Hall, with 117 singers producing a brilliant performance. I applaud its decision to go ahead, but could the Minister tell us what sanctions there are for those who break the regulations? I am sure the House and the country would like to know what sanctions there are.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will need to write to the noble Baroness with details on sanctions, but I assume that they are available on GOV.UK.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does not my noble friend understand that she has been trying valiantly to defend the totally indefensible? Does she not accept that the cultural life of this country rests to some degree on the continuance of amateur choirs? If she goes on repeating these answers and the Government do not show a proper degree of flexibility, many of these choirs will cease to exist.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government have acted incredibly powerfully to support the cultural life of this country. We absolutely recognise its importance in relation to amateur choirs and the whole spectrum of performing arts, which is why we are progressing with phase 3 of the more than £2 billion Culture Recovery Fund.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the third Oral Question.
House of Lords Reform
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, for reform of the House of Lords.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Conservative manifesto committed to looking at the role of the House of Lords. That is the manifesto position. We are keeping these issues under consideration but have been clear that we do not want piecemeal reform.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, with respect to the Minister, I do not think that was much of an Answer. It was a pretty simple Question; a yes or no would probably have been acceptable. The Minister has been involved in these issues for a long time and will be aware of two proposals for reform that are strongly supported in all parts of the House. The first is to reduce the size of the House to around 600 Members. The second is to end these ridiculous by-elections for hereditary Peers. Given that these two reforms are simple and popular and would cost nothing and hurt no one, will he tell us whether the Government are prepared to support them and, if not, why not?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, on a cap on the size of the House, which we have frequently discussed, both the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister have made it clear that it would require further consideration and wider engagement and have not accepted that proposal. As for the noble Lord’s repeated efforts to put forward his Bill, we look forward to discussing his Bill. I will ask him to explain, when he introduces it at Second Reading, why he supported the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, which reinforced and entrenched the position of hereditary Peer elections in this House.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I think there might be general agreement that the reputation of this House has been enhanced by the way in which we were able to continue our business with the hybrid system over the last 15 months. The reputation of this House would surely further be enhanced if we brought ourselves from the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries by backing my noble friend Lord Grocott’s Bill to abolish something that is clearly an anachronism.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I always pay tribute to the noble Lord opposite, who has been a distinguished servant of this country, this House and the other House. When we are looking at the role, future and reform of your Lordships’ House, perhaps we need to look a little wider than the speck of dust to which the noble Lord referred.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The Minister has been in his Cabinet Office post since February 2020, so was it he who told the Prime Minister that it was perfectly okay to ignore the Burns committee report on the House of Lords, which was trying to reduce the size of this House? It was a two-out, one-in policy. Did he tell the Prime Minister it was okay to just keep on putting Peers here?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it is perfectly reasonable, given the House’s membership—not least the fact that its average age is 70—for it to be refreshed from time to time. I repeat an answer I gave before: neither the previous Prime Minister nor this one has accepted that the House of Lords should be able to impose a cap on its own size.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
First, does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that, now that the other place has agreed that it will stay at 650 Members, we can review our aspiration of 600 to 650? Secondly, we should recognise that unlike in the other place we are not salary men. We represent a wide pool of expertise and experience that needs to be deepened and strengthened. By admitting more Members to this House, we will counter the correct allegations of underrepresentation of minorities, women and businesspeople.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend’s suggestions seem to arouse laughter on the other side. I strongly agree with him and suspect that many of the British people agree that this House needs refreshing from time to time. I will not get hung up on any number between 600 and 650. The membership should be appropriate to enable the House of Lords to carry out its role in a way that reflects that role and the primacy of the House of Commons as the elected Chamber.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister explain why dedicated, public-spirited, widely respected people of high integrity should continue to serve on the House of Lords Appointments Commission, which is independent? The Prime Minister, Mr Johnson, seems determined to treat its recommendations with complete contempt.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord opposite’s assertion, which seems one of the most sweeping examples of the generalisation of a particular that I have ever heard. He may have a case in mind. The correspondence on that case has been published with proper transparency, and for my part I welcome the presence of that new Peer in this House.
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not realise that the best way of solving the problem presented by the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Blunkett, is to fulfil the promise—laid out in the Parliament Act 1911 and successive recent manifestos of the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and, indeed, the Liberal Democrats—to select this House on the basis of popular representation?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, as we look forward, clearly that is an option for considering reform. I do not note enormous enthusiasm for that in the many debates in your Lordships’ Chamber. My noble friend is absolutely right to say that everybody opposite campaigned in 2019 on the creation of an elected senate.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is scathing about piecemeal reforms, but I would have thought that, this week in particular, the Government would be sensitive to issues of propriety and impartiality in the processes for public appointments. I make it clear that this is not a new or an ad hominem issue but one I have been raising for more than a decade. Will the Minister now accept that we need an independent, statutory House of Lords Appointments Commission to vet all appointments to your Lordships’ House on the grounds of both suitability and propriety?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, we have an advisory House of Lords Appointments Commission, whose advice is given careful and full weight. The constitutional position in this country is that the Prime Minister is responsible for advising Her Majesty on appointments to the House of Lords. I do not believe that that responsibility can be passed from a Minister, who is ultimately responsible to Parliament, to an extra-parliamentary statutory body.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am not really sure I understood the Minister’s answer on that point. The point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, was making was that the commission’s advice on membership of your Lordships’ House at present is only advisory.
To reach a point of agreement, the Minister is quite right that this House needs to refresh its membership, but on his basis the House would just grow and grow until there were no room at all on the Benches for noble Lords to sit and debate issues. There has to be an optimum size range at which this House is most effective and does its work best. Piecemeal reform is not something to be dismissed and disregarded but a way of getting things done where there is broad consensus. There is broad consensus on the end of hereditary Peer by-elections and overwhelming consensus on a statutory body for appointments—not one the Prime Minister can ignore when it suits him.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will not repeat the answer I have just given. The commission is an independent, advisory, non-departmental body. It has an important role, but the sovereign, on the advice of the Prime Minister, formally confers all peerages. It is the Prime Minister who must advise on that. Ultimately, the Prime Minister is responsible for the way in which he conducts that duty.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, further to his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, the Minister will be aware that the reason the House of Lords Reform Act 2014, put forward by Lord Steel, did not include the abolition of by-elections for hereditary Peers was the threat of filibuster and of the tabling of hundreds of irrelevant and repetitive amendments to avoid this House being able to express its wish on the issue and allow the vote to go to the other place to consider it. Does the Minister consider that a legitimate tactic?
Lord True (Con)
The noble Lord writes his own history. I observe that, given your Lordships’ interest in the Burns committee recommendations, perhaps the Liberal Democrats should do something about their own numbers.
Baroness D’Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, reducing the size of the House is clearly the most urgent issue. That said, would the Minister agree that there has been a fall-off in the courtesies normally observed by the House, including in participants’ failure to attend the greater part of debates, the conventions of respect towards the Lord Speaker and Deputy Speakers and forgetfulness about registering relevant interests? Furthermore, does he agree that these issues contribute to the public’s negative view of the work of this House?
Lord True (Con)
I would not agree with those generalised comments. I believe that all of us should be mindful of our manner of behaviour and our manner in referring to and engaging with each other. I do not believe that making comments in general terms about the weakness of this House necessarily improves its reputation. One of the most remarkable things about this House is that last night 467 of your Lordships were following and voting in a debate on the Republic of Cameroon, rather than watching the England and Germany match. Nothing can be wrong with a House with such a deep attachment to its public duty.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Unidentified Flying Objects
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sarfraz
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by the United States Office of the Director of National Intelligence Preliminary Assessment: Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, published on 25 June; and what data they hold on unidentified flying object sightings in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence notes the content of the report. The department holds no reports on unidentified aerial phenomena but constantly monitors UK airspace to identify and respond to any credible threat to its integrity, and is confident in the existing measures in place to protect it.
Lord Sarfraz (Con)
My Lords, for decades, people who have been concerned with UFOs have been dismissed as fantasists, but now the US Director of National Intelligence, who oversees 17 intelligence agencies, has published a report saying that the data on UFOs is inconclusive. The report offers several possible explanations and does not rule out that these could be military aircraft with very advanced capabilities or even extraterrestrial phenomena. Either way, can the Minister reassure members of the public that the Ministry of Defence takes reports of unidentified flying objects in our airspace very seriously? Will she consider publishing a detailed assessment of the data that we hold?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The MoD deals with actual threats substantiated by evidence. The Government continue to take any potential threat to the UK seriously. The integrated review and the defence Command Paper published in March set out the MoD’s assessment of the threats we face and how we will meet them.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, unidentified does not mean suspicious. Does the Minister recognise that the US report referred to says that there is no clear indication that there is any non-terrestrial explanation for the 144 sightings that it specifies? The idea that, in an era of mobile phone cameras, drones and frequent travel, there could possibly be alien spaceships whizzing about undetected in our atmosphere on a regular basis is not very plausible. It is much more likely that these blurred images have boring explanations, alas. Does my noble friend agree?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The important point, on which I wish to reassure your Lordships, is that the UK air defence community detects and monitors all flying air systems 24 hours a day to provide an identified air picture as part of the UK’s national security posture and our commitment to the integrity of NATO airspace. That is supported by Typhoon aircraft at RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Coningsby, which are held at high readiness to intercept any threat to UK airspace.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in 2008 the MoD began the process of releasing all its UFO files. In 2009 Sir Bob Ainsworth, the Secretary of State, accepted the advice that:
“In more than 50 years, no UFO sighting … has indicated the existence of any military threat to the UK; there is no defence benefit in … recording, collating, analysing, or investigating UFO sightings”
and
“the level of resources devoted to this task is … diverting staff from more valuable defence-related activities”,
and he closed the relevant unit. Does the US report reveal any evidence containing any reason to review that advice?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I simply say to the noble Lord that I seek to reassure him that, as I have indicated, we deal with actual threats substantiated by evidence. He is quite right about the closure of the UFO desk in 2009. I can confirm that the department holds no reports on unidentified aerial phenomena and that all relevant material created and held by the UFO desk has been passed to the National Archives.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, turning to identifiable flying objects, does my noble friend agree that the UK has a tremendous opportunity to develop its new space industry, not least in low-earth orbit, in the build, development, launch, operation, recovery and rebuild of small satellites for both positive-purpose defence and civil opportunities?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My noble friend makes an important point with which I entirely agree. That is clearly an area of exciting future development for the UK Government.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Given the subject, it is very reassuring to see the Minister here physically, not beamed in. The Pentagon has said that unidentified aerial phenomena are a serious national security threat. Notwithstanding what she has just said, does the Minister agree with the Pentagon’s analysis of the threat from unidentified aerial phenomena? Is the UK therefore suffering from a threat similar to that identified by the US? Given that the MoD abandoned its UFO desk in 2009, where are such sightings to be reported and to whom? The truth is out there and, we hope, in the Minister’s answer.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I endeavour to provide veracity to this Chamber on all occasions. Again, the underlying important point is the security of our airspace. I have already indicated how we address that potential threat and how we are well sustained and well provided to deal with any such potential threat. However, we regard threats as having to exist in the first place and to be substantiated by evidence because we need to know what we are addressing and how best we can address it. We are of course aware of the US assessment. The MoD has no plans to conduct its own report into UAP because, in over 50 years, no such reporting indicated the existence of any military threat to the UK.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
The recent report from the United States task force dedicated to investigating UFOs has neither confirmed nor rejected the idea that such sightings could indicate alien visits to earth. I believe that Cardiff Bay is the alleged location of the Torchwood Institute, set up to deal with incidents of extraterrestrials. Indeed, the Ianto Jones shrine forms part of the tourist trail at Mermaid Quay. Seven decades after unidentified aerial phenomena first appeared on the radar, defence ministries around the world ought to know what they are. The recent report does not require us to accept the reality of alien visitation, but it does require us to take UFOs seriously. Therefore, how seriously do Her Majesty’s Government now take UFOs in the light of this report?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I refer the noble Baroness to my previous answers. The short response is “very seriously”—in relation to addressing threats where those threats are identifiable and can be substantiated.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con) [V]
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the role that one of the largest single-dish telescopes in the southern hemisphere—in Parkes, New South Wales, the place of my birth—played in transmitting the TV footage of the Apollo 11 moon landing? More recently, it tracked NASA’s Curiosity rover during its descent over the surface of Mars in 2012. Might it be of assistance to the Government in helping to modify, monitor and assist any unidentified sightings?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I would say to my noble friend that the MoD and particularly our air defence community have the most sophisticated electronic surveillance. I myself witnessed how this operated when I visited RAF Coningsby. There is also the added support of visual identification, if that is thought to be necessary, by alerting a rapid reaction from our Typhoons, which are able to take on a visual inspection if there is any doubt about the nature or character of an alleged threat.
Lord Rogan (UUP) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to read the report and the frankness with which it was written. Have the report’s contents yet been raised by Her Majesty’s Government with representatives of the United States Government? The Minister has said that our Government have no reports on this matter, but given the interest that it has generated around the world—and, indeed, perhaps other worlds—do Her Majesty’s Government now have plans to produce a similar document summarising any recent UAP or UFO sightings within UK borders and overseas territories?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As I indicated earlier, we have no opinion on the existence of extraterrestrial life and we no longer investigate reports of sightings of unidentified aerial phenomena. We have no plans to conduct our own report into UAP, because in over 50 years no such reporting has indicated the existence of any military threat to the UK.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Marriage Act 1949 (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 30th June 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Marriage Act 1949 (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Marriage Act 1949 (Amendment) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Lord Gardiner of Kimble be appointed as a member of the Parliamentary Works Estimates Commission in place of Lord McFall of Alcluith.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the first Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Marta Phillips, Dr Simon Thurley and Simon Wright be appointed as external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House.
Secret Documents
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Minister will know that this is the third known MoD security breach this year including documents marked “UK eyes only”, so it is no wonder that an investigation is needed. Can the Minister confirm that all the documents lost have been recovered? How can evidence of preparations for future Armed Forces conduct around the world have been leaked? Can she reassure our excellent Armed Forces personnel that there has been no jeopardy to current or future operations as a result of the breach? Will she also ensure, as was said in the other House, that the investigation is completed by early next week and the results are published as promised at that time? The public and the House need to be reassured that Ministers have taken all the necessary actions to stop this series of breaches.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his points. Let me make it clear that this was a most regrettable breach of security and is being taken extremely seriously by the department, hence the investigation to which he refers. I confirm to him that the BBC contacted MoD to say that it had the papers. MoD then worked with the BBC to ensure that nothing was reported which materially affected national security, and the papers have now been safely returned to MoD.
The investigating team will, of course, consider a wide range of circumstances—the breaches of protocol that seemed to surround the loss of the documents—and whether recommendations need to be made to improve procedures. However, I reassure your Lordships that very robust procedures already exist and documents of such a sensitive nature are accompanied by a very strict management regime. The investigatory team will be looking at all these issues. As to the timing of the investigation’s report, my understanding is that there is a desire to have some initial comment by next week. However, the noble Lord will understand that I am reluctant to be specific about a date, lest other material emerges which the team requires to investigate. But yes, it would be the intention of the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that the team’s conclusions and findings are made available to Parliament.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Anything other than full disclosure—always taking account, of course, of the national interest—would not be welcome, so I am grateful to hear the noble Baroness give that undertaking. I also understand the constraints she has to operate under at the moment, but noble Lords who have served on the Intelligence and Security Committee will recall that there was an absolute prohibition on any documents of any kind being taken out of the committee office. Can the Minister tell us what the policy was in the Ministry of Defence, and in what circumstances anyone was, by way of policy, entitled to remove documents from the main building?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It is within the rules to remove documents from the building in certain limited circumstances, so long as they are recorded and secured in the appropriate fashion. In short, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, there are policies and procedures in place that allow for the removal of classified information. It will be for the investigation team to determine whether these procedures were followed correctly.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
This was indeed an important security breach and really quite concerning, but we bandy the word “secret” around without necessarily understanding what it means. There are different levels of classification, of which “secret” is just one. For example, “UK eyes only” is not a classification; it is a national caveat. However, if it genuinely was a secret document, why did it leave the building when it never should have? Does that imply that we should make this inquiry wider, looking at what exactly the procedures are, to ensure that this really does not happen again?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The loss of MoD documents of this classification is extremely rare and I reassure my noble friend that there has not been such a loss within the last 18 months. Despite that, we take the matter very seriously. We have launched a full and thorough investigation and will look at the actions of individuals, as well as the procedures, policies and processes in place. I reassure your Lordships that any recommendations or lessons identified by the investigation will be considered as a matter of urgency.
Lord Truscott (Non-Afl)
My Lords, General Sir Nick Carter, Chief of the Defence Staff, has said that incidents such as the recent confrontation with Russia in the Black Sea are “giving him sleepless nights” and could lead to a “miscalculation”. Can we assume that yet another MoD whistleblower leaked the documents because they felt that HMS “Defender” sailing so close to the Russian Black Sea Fleet headquarters was both provocative and dangerous? Can the Minister remind the House how many wars Russia has fought over the centuries to keep Sevastopol Russian, including the Crimean War of 1853?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I am not going to speculate on the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the documents or their ultimate transmission to the BBC; that is for the inquiry team to determine. I am also not going to discuss the content of the documents, for obvious reasons. As the noble Lord raises issues already in the public domain in relation to HMS “Defender”, and as he will be aware that there was a Written Ministerial Statement on 24 June, I can confirm that HMS “Defender” was proceeding entirely in accordance with international law, behaving entirely appropriately and conducting innocent passage through a stretch of water open to international navigation.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, breaches of security at such a high level are rightly of concern to members of the public and Members of this House. This Question has important implications regarding blackmail and breaches of the Official Secrets Act. Can the Minister clarify the circumstances in which the documents were found? Can she also say whether it is normal practice to hard copy security materials that can be handled digitally and securely? Will the identity of the negligent official eventually be made public?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As far as the noble Lord’s question relates to the process of investigation, he will appreciate that I am unable to comment on any details pertaining to that. As I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, suitable IT platforms exist across government but it is within the rules to remove documents from the building in certain limited circumstances. However, very strict rules and procedures govern their removal. How the breach occurred is a matter for the investigating team to determine.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in the aftermath of the discovery of the papers, the BBC—as the Minister noted—rightly protected operational matters that might have put servicepeople at risk. Its reporting focused on the debate around the decision to send HMS “Defender” on that route. Does the Minister agree that that is a reflection of public interest—in the most genuine sense of the term—in the route decision, which was apparently a subject of disagreement between the two departments concerned? Is it not the case that, while the right of innocent passage may need to have been asserted, the UK might not have been the right country and this might not have been the right way to do it?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
Again, I have said that I am not going to comment on the content of the documents, but in so far as matters relating to HMS “Defender” are in the public domain, I will simply repeat to the noble Baroness that HMS “Defender” was acting in accordance with international law and that it was entirely appropriate and legal for the Royal Navy to sail this route; it is an internationally recognised shipping route. Importantly, it is the most direct route from Odessa to Batumi in Georgia. The United Kingdom does not recognise any Russian claim to these waters. The noble Baroness will be aware that, in the Black Sea at that time, there was not only a UK naval presence; allies were present as well.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, there has been a suggestion that some of the documents were printed on pink paper, indicating the sort of material that should not be removed from the MoD except under exceptional circumstances and according to strict procedures. What were those exceptional circumstances in this case and what are those strict procedures?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Baroness is posing questions about issues that it will be for the investigation team to investigate and determine and, to which it will need to find answers. As I have said, the removal of documents from the building is not unprecedented and, in very strict and regulated circumstances, is permitted. It will be for the investigating team to ascertain in full detail what happened and whether appropriate policies, procedures and processes were duly complied with.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.
Environment Bill
Wednesday 30th June 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 16-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (30 Jun 2021)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including those in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. A participant who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.
Clause 29: Advising on changes to environmental law etc
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, explained her Amendment 103 extremely well. I will speak to my Amendment 109. We have Euro 2020, Wimbledon, the cricket and the Environment Bill—how much better could it be for all of us? There is so much pleasure in such a short time.
My Amendment 109 would introduce a new clause into the Bill that is intended to address some extensive governance gaps in environmental law that have arisen because of the UK’s departure from the EU. Amendment 109 places an obligation on the Secretary of State to report to the office for environmental protection “any information” that was previously required to be reported to the European Commission relating to environmental law and its application. This could include, for example, requirements to report on ambient air quality and pollutant emissions or on the implementation of key fisheries rules, both of which were previously required to be reported to the European Commission but are now no longer required under UK law. These are two helpful examples but reporting requirements were removed through EU exit statutory instruments across the whole spectrum of environmental policy areas. Without such a replacement, there will inevitably be a reduction in transparency and accountability, both of which are crucial to the effective implementation of environmental legislation.
To ensure that the amendment does not place an unnecessary burden on either the Secretary of State or the office for environmental protection, the latter must review these reporting requirements
“no later than two years”
after the Environment Bill has passed into law. If the OEP determines that an existing
“reporting requirement is no longer necessary to contribute to environmental protection or the improvement of the natural environment, it must arrange for a report setting out its reasons to be ... laid before Parliament, and ... published.”
The Secretary of State is then obliged to
“lay before Parliament, and publish, a copy of the response”
to the report within three months.
Why is this amendment necessary? The reporting of information relating to environmental law is absolutely vital to ensure transparency and accountability in environmental policy-making and ensure that government and stakeholders can identify and address environmental impacts. Continuity over time in the information being recorded and reported can also help to reveal trends and increase transparency.
However, several requirements for the Secretary of State to report information to the European Commission in relation to environmental law have been lost because of the UK’s departure from the EU and the subsequent adoption of new statutory instruments. This poses a serious threat to the effective application of environmental law in the UK—because we all know that there are quite a lot of people who try to evade these particular laws—and the Government’s ability to achieve their stated aim and manifesto promise of leaving the environment in a better state than that in which it was found.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. I put my name down to speak on this group expressly to support Amendment 103—because, given our earlier debates on the office for environmental protection and its independence, I want to test the extreme limits of Defra’s control, if there are any. I would have thought that it is a given that Amendment 103 should be accepted. If it is not, that tells us something about Defra’s controlling nature regarding the work of the office for environmental protection. That is the only point that I want to make.
A subsidiary point is that I also support Amendment 114, and, later today, I will also speak to Amendment 114A, which is effectively a fallback position for the amendment in this group.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Amendment 114 operates in close relationship to Amendment 78, which we debated on Monday, to which I had attached my name. Both amendments address the relationship between the Armed Forces and the Treasury in the Bill and certain exemptions provided to them.
Amendment 78 and our debate on it talked about exemptions for action; Amendment 114 talks about removing exemptions for disclosure of or access to information. The arguments for the Government to hold their current position and not include this amendment are even weaker when we talk about information—because we are not talking about actual action.
However, it is worth going back to what the Minister said in the debate on Monday, which can help to inform this amendment. He said that including Amendment 78
“could restrict our response to urgent threats. Policy decisions concerning defence are often made rapidly, or even in real time”—[Official Report, 28/6/21; col. 579.]
due to “urgent … operational imperatives”. In that debate, we talked about a couple of interesting case studies: a new housing estate and, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned, a pile being driven into a creek because it might assist in the mooring of submarines. Neither of these in any way fits the definition of urgent defence imperative.
However, I acknowledge that there are occasions on which there may be a need to, perhaps, put in some very urgent flood defences or build a pandemic hospital—the kinds of security threats that we are now facing on a regular basis—so it may be necessary to act urgently. However, I come back to that debate on Amendment 78, in which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, cited some detailed legal material, saying that the precautionary principle, which those who are seeking to amend the Bill desire, “already includes proportionality”. Of course, if something is needed for an urgent matter of national defence, clearly it would be proportionate to act as necessary. It would not be unreasonable to then provide information about what damage had been done in terms of defence. I cannot think what one might conceivably claim regarding why information should not be provided about the damage that the Treasury might have had to do to the environment for whatever reason, if one can possibly imagine such a thing.
We are talking a lot today about openness and informing the public about what is being done to the environment. In that context, Amendment 114—I still stand by Amendment 78 in some combination when we get to Report—is essential.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has withdrawn from this amendment, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 103 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. Clause 27 attempts to delineate the OEP’s scrutiny and advice functions, but it is too tightly drawn. It is much to be welcomed that the OEP can monitor and report on environmental improvement plans and targets, and on the implementation of and changes to environmental law, but, for the avoidance of doubt, the amendment is necessary to enable the OEP to give advice on any other matter relating to the natural environment. It is a sweeping-up amendment so that if there is some environmental ghastliness that otherwise would not be within the OEP’s ambit, this provision would allow it to take up the issue and give advice. It is a sensible provision which enhances the OEP’s independence and flexibility, and I hope that the Minister can simply accept it.
I also support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, requiring the Secretary of State to report to the OEP anything he used to report to the European Commission. I know that the Government do not want to carry on as if Brexit had never happened, and unnecessary reporting could be ceased provided that it was reviewed by the OEP and an adequate reason was given. However, several areas of data and reporting have already been lost as a result of their no longer being reported to the Commission, including issues of ambient air quality, pollutant emissions and the implementation of some key fisheries rules.
The issues lying behind Amendment 114 have already been aired in the debate on Amendment 78, so I shall not labour them. Environmental protection is indeed as vital as defence and security to our well-being and our very existence. The importance of issues of taxation and spending or the allocation of resources for the environment has already been demonstrated. The exclusions listed in Clause 45 cannot go forward without the OEP being debarred from some key areas. Subsection (1) must also be challenged. Environmental law is there defined as
“legislative provision … that … is mainly concerned with environmental protection”.
Many laws would be not be considered to be
“mainly concerned with environmental protection”,
but they have a big impact on the environment. There is a huge list—I think immediately about planning legislation, transport legislation, energy, agriculture, fisheries, housing and food. I could keep on listing, but your Lordships would be here all day. We need to press the Minister on whether he truly believes that the OEP should be able to consider these issues and not just what is in the tightly prescribed provision in the Bill.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I was pleased to put my name to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Parminter. It seems obvious, as many noble Lords have said, that for the OEP to have the stature that the Government want it should be able to give advice as it sees fit without constraint. Clearly, it will be constrained anyway in terms of its budget, its resources and its capacity so, like any similar authority, it is going to be careful about what it concentrates its resources and time on. That is quite a sufficient constraint on the OEP’s work and what it does. As the legislation says, if the Minister or the Secretary of State want advice in certain areas, it can give it, whatever that area is, yet it is strongly constrained in terms of reports on its own initiative. The noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, laid out that long list of areas where it would invaluable for the OEP on occasion to give its own opinion unprompted by the Secretary of State. As we have said many times before, the Climate Change Committee, which is respected nationally and internationally, is able to do that, and it uses that power well, responsibly and to effect. I see no reason why the OEP should not be able to do that as well.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I shall speak to Amendments 103 and 114 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and Amendment 109 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb—whose final reply in the earlier debate on Monday was very candid.
In normal times, one would hope that something like Amendment 103 would not be needed. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Rooker said, it should be accepted; it is a given. The ability of experts to advise Ministers should be central to how government functions each and every day. However, it seems that expert advice does not carry the same weight with certain Ministers as it once did. Amendment 103 is therefore most welcome.
While the OEP will have a specific remit given to it by the Bill, it appears entirely reasonable that it should also act as a general champion for the natural environment. Amendment 103 would clarify that the OEP is empowered also to give advice to Ministers on other natural environment matters. The amendment would broaden the reach of Clause 29(3) by increasing the discretion afforded to the OEP on how it exercises its advisory powers and enable it to advise Ministers on a fuller ranger of matters, improving the evidence-gathering and assessment process on important policy decisions. When the body was first announced, we were told that it would be given licence to engage with and freely challenge Ministers. The amendment would be one means of giving statutory backing to that commitment.
Amendment 109 returns to an issue that has been discussed at length. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made clear, it is about accountability and transparency. The issue was discussed at length during debates on EU exit statutory instruments under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, where references to the European Commission in domestic law and retained EU law were to be replaced by supposedly suitable domestic alternatives. However, in some cases, this has left Secretaries of State reporting to themselves or to bodies over which they have responsibility or, in some cases, not having to report at all. We reluctantly accepted this as a short-term logistical fix, in part because assurances were given that as domestic bodies were established, they would begin to take on some responsibilities previously held by the Commission. Given the challenges to retained EU law, we are not certain that this amendment would function exactly as hoped, although it enables the Minister to clarify how Defra plans to meet its previous commitments and whether it has any plans to allow the OEP to undertake the kind of review envisaged in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause.
Finally, Amendment 114 would remove the “Excluded matters” list in Clause 45 to ensure that the term “environmental law” has the broadest possible application.
We strongly welcome the tabling of this amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, whom we wish well, as she has been “pinged” today. We appreciate the case she made at the beginning of this debate.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions. Before I start, I would like to wish my noble friend a very happy birthday and thank her for spending it with me on these Benches. That is very kind.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for tabling Amendment 103 and for her compelling speech on Monday. I appreciate the amendment’s intention. The concern is that it could be duplicative, and I would like to direct her to Clause 19, which already places requirements on the OEP to give advice, on request, to Ministers on any matter relating to the natural environment and, on request or on its own initiative, on any proposed changes to environmental law. It builds on Clause 28(2), which gives the OEP the power to report on
“any matter concerned with the implementation of environmental law.”
It is in these areas that the OEP will have the greatest expertise, and that its advisory and reporting roles should be focused. To be clear, this will include planning legislation where it relates to the environment, including environmental impact assessments, strategic environmental assessments and all the measures in the Bill relating to planning. Other bodies, such as Natural England and others, have functions to advise government on matters concerning the natural environment. Amendment 34 would risk duplicating this and directing the OEP away from its core functions.
Turning to Amendment 114, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, Clause 45 is vital in defining and establishing the OEP’s remit, and each of these exemptions serves important purposes. Clause 45(2)(a) excludes the
“disclosure of or access to information”
from the OEP’s remit in order to avoid overlap with the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office. The exclusion of legislative provisions concerning the Armed Forces and national security is important to the protection of the country. Such legislation would concern highly sensitive matters and it is therefore appropriate to restrict the OEP’s oversight and access to information in such areas.
However, public authorities such as the MoD would not be exempt from scrutiny by the OEP in respect of their implementation of environmental law, including in respect of SSSIs and the MoD’s statutory duties in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act. It is clear to us—this is a point made by a number of noble Lords—that the MoD, as one of the country’s biggest landowners, has a direct impact on the natural environment. We will need to be absolutely confident that the exemptions do not in any way loosen the MoD’s responsibilities for managing those natural assets.
Turning to Clause 45(2)(c), legislation regarding
“taxation, spending or the allocation of resources”
is developed by HMT and needs to be developed with the flexibility to meet the nation’s revenue requirements. However, the spending of government resources may well be a relevant consideration in the OEP’s review of the implementation of environmental law, and it may refer to this in its scrutiny and advice reports to government. Additionally, legislation relating to regulatory schemes such as the plastic bag levy is not part of the exclusion and is within the OEP’s remit.
Turning to Amendment 109, following EU exit, Defra’s secondary legislation programme ensured that reporting requirements in EU legislation were generally converted into a requirement to publish environmental information online, meaning that information about the environment will be publicly available.
Additionally, when we left the EU our domestic legislation was updated to meet domestic rather than EU objectives. For example, where EU law required the UK to report to the European Commission on pesticides residue monitoring, our domestic legislation now provides for an equivalent national report to be published online and, therefore, to be made public.
I should add that if the Government wished to seek the OEP’s advice on matters relating to environmental law, including on reporting arrangements, it could do so under provisions made in Clause 29.
I hope that this goes some way to reassuring noble Lords that the amendment is therefore not needed. It could serve to blur the lines or even distract the OEP from the core functions it will be required to undertake. I ask therefore that the amendment be withdrawn.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his remarks and all those who have spoken in this short debate for their universal support for my Amendments 103 and 114.
I listened carefully to the Minister but I have to say that I still do not think he has quite answered the question raised by Amendment 103. He said that the OEP can give advice on matters such as planning—if it is asked. The point behind my amendment is that, as it stands, the OEP cannot give advice on those matters if it is not asked.
When we were debating this amendment late on Monday, I did not make the point—I will make it now—that Environmental Standards Scotland can make recommendations to any other body on matters relevant to its function. It can go right across the piece but, importantly, the OEP cannot, so its powers are narrower than those currently given to the parallel Scottish body. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that this is an indication of Defra’s controlling nature, and I am afraid that I am not satisfied by what the Minister has said. Nor is he prepared to accept the broad thrust of my argument as set out in Amendment 114: the massive carve-out in terms of disclosure of information on the MoD’s spending.
The Minister has not responded satisfactorily to the concerns raised by Members here today or to those raised in the linked amendment, 78, which we also discussed on Monday and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but we will be returning to this issue on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 104. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 104
“Penalty notices
(1) If the OEP is satisfied that a public authority has failed to comply with a decision notice, the OEP may by written notice (a “penalty notice”) require the public authority to pay to the OEP an amount in sterling specified in the notice.(2) A penalty notice may not be issued before the earlier of—(a) the end of the period within which the authority must respond to the decision notice in accordance with section 35(3), and(b) the date on which the OEP receives the authority’s response to that notice.(2) When deciding whether to give a penalty notice to a public authority and determining the amount of the penalty, the OEP must have regard to the matters listed in subsection (3).(3) Those matters are—(a) the nature, gravity and duration of the failure;(b) the intentional or negligent character of the failure;(c) any relevant previous failures by the public authority;(d) the degree of co-operation with the Commissioner, in order to remedy the failure and mitigate the possible adverse effects of the failure;(e) the manner in which the infringement became known to the OEP, including whether, and if so to what extent, the public authority notified the OEP of the failure;(f) the extent to which the public authority has complied with previous enforcement notices or penalty notices;(g) whether the penalty would be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.(4) Once collected, penalties must be distributed to the NHS, Mayors for combined authority areas and local authorities for the treatment and research of illnesses related to air pollution.(5) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, set the minimum and maximum amount of penalty.(6) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
It is my pleasure to open the debate on this group. It includes some amendments from some very esteemed noble Lords which I will no doubt comment on at the end. While all these amendments take different approaches, what is common is that we all recognise that this Bill will fall far short of what is needed without some significant changes to the enforcement mechanisms. I would not dare to disagree with a group of noble Lords that includes the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Krebs and Lord Duncan of Springbank, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
These amendments can meld into something extremely positive. For example, the proposals by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will significantly improve the judicial process for environmental review. In particular, they remove from the Bill the absurd provision whereby an adverse ruling does not affect the validity of a government decision.
My amendment and Amendment 107A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, take enforcement one step further. Our amendments recognise that there is a whole realm of conduct that goes further than a judge giving the Government a strong telling off, and which may require actual penalties to be issued. Amendment 104 would enable penalties to be issued, taking into account a whole host of factors such as the gravity of the failure, any intention of negligence, and previous failures by the authority. The inclusion of the principles of effectiveness and proportionality makes my amendment wholly reasonable, and is necessary for ensuring that the ambition in this Bill is not trashed by poorly governed public authorities.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, whom it is a pleasure to follow, that the risk of penalty fines concentrates the mind wonderfully. When I used to defend Defra from the attentions of the European Commission in urban waste-water cases, I suspect the prospect was quite useful in concentrating the mind of the Treasury when money was requested for the Thames super-sewer and other mitigations. The Minister will say that no fining mechanism is necessary when the OEP has at its disposal a sufficiently intimidating set of judicially enforceable remedies. In the abstract, he may have a point, but, when looking at the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, said at Second Reading, it is important not to confuse a full set of teeth with a flashy set of dentures. My Amendments 105 to 108 seek, in particular, to equip environmental review, the only route generally available to the OEP, not with dentures but with teeth.
The crucial amendment, to which the noble Baroness has already referred, is Amendment 107. In any case likely to prove contentious, it will be worthwhile for the OEP to pursue environmental review only if strong and enforceable remedies—notably, the power to quash unlawful decisions—are available at the end of the road. Clause 37(8), which is without precedent in any Act of Parliament, removes the court’s power to grant such remedies, no matter how much or little time may have elapsed, and no matter how serious the damage to the environment or public health, unless the court can satisfy itself that the grant of a remedy would not be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person. This is, though disguised in the drafting, a rebuttable presumption against the grant of any remedy at all.
There is a yet further hurdle: the court would have to be satisfied also, before granting a remedy, that a remedy would not be “detrimental to good administration”—although how good administration could be founded on policies and decisions that are unlawful is certainly an interesting conundrum. Take the example of an air quality case: just the sort of systemic issue of national importance that is identified in Clause 22(7) as particularly suitable for the OEP. Let us say that the court hearing an environmental review finds that a public authority has failed to produce legally compliant air quality plans and, to ensure that the law is enforced, wishes to require it to do so. Clause 37(8) would stop it from doing so unless the court was satisfied that no one would be likely to suffer substantial hardship or prejudice as a result. The evidence of one taxi driver who had recently sunk his savings in a non-compliant vehicle would be not only relevant but determinative of the issue, no matter serious the breach of law and no matter how many lives might be saved by a compliant plan. Indeed, even if there were no such evidence, the court could still not grant a remedy without, in effect, proving a negative: that there is nobody out there who could suffer the requisite substantial hardship or prejudice.
Similarly, an unlawful failure to designate a nitrate-vulnerable zone could not be corrected unless the court could be sure that no affected landowner would meet those thresholds. An unlawful permit for an oil refinery would have to stand if the owner had invested on the strength of it, whether in good faith or otherwise. A future judgment that new gas boilers are incompatible with statutory net-zero obligations would be unenforceable too. Irrespective of the benefits, there always would be people with something substantial to lose. In short, the more significant the issue and its environmental impact, and the more it is capable of impacting on private or even administrative interests, the more likely it is that the grant of any remedy will be automatically excluded by this clause.
Of course there will be cases, including some cases decided long after the event, in which a private interest is so strong, and the environmental interest so relatively weak, that a court would be justified in refusing a remedy in respect of unlawful conduct. That is precisely why the grant of remedies by courts of judicial review is, and always has been, discretionary and flexible. Amendment 107 would do no more than replicate that orthodox and unobjectionable position in the context of environmental review. It does not even require the normal remedy of damages to be available. Clause 37(8) places private and bureaucratic interests in the perpetuation of unlawful decisions on one side of the balance, and decrees that even the heaviest public interests will never outweigh them. The twin attributes of justice are her scales and her sword; Clause 37(8) would remove them both. All we ask if that she should be allowed to keep them, so that public authorities can be kept to their legal obligations in this most vital area.
Amendment 108 would give the OEP an alternative to environmental review by opening up a wider range of cases in which the OEP could pursue the established route of judicial review. Clause 38(1) uniquely handicaps the OEP as a claimant in judicial review by requiring it to surmount two extra hurdles of seriousness and urgency—nobody else faces those. By removing at least the second of those hurdles, which was only inserted in the Commons, we would go some way towards redressing the OEP’s disadvantage and putting it on the same footing as any other interested group or individual.
Amendments 105 and 106 address further points on environmental review. The point of 105 is to reduce the scope for procedural game-playing by lawyers. It is the nature of things that unlawful practices may spread, or be repeated, during the course of the OEP investigation that is a precondition for the commencement of environmental review. It is surely sensible that the scope of any environmental review should not be frozen at the time, months or even years earlier, when the investigation began. If later conduct raises the same issues, there should be no obstacle to putting it before the court. I hope the Minister will agree with that, and also that Clause 37(2) is too narrowly drafted for this subject to be adequately dealt with by assurances from the Dispatch Box.
Amendment 106 focuses on the statement of non-compliance, a concept introduced to the law by Clause 37. As the department has accepted in its FAQs, published on Monday, such statements may have reputational or political effects but are not in themselves a legal remedy. So they are not a prize to which the OEP is likely to feel justified in devoting its limited resources. This amendment would remove the most obvious statement of their legal powerlessness—that they do not affect the validity of the conduct in respect of which they are given—but would not, I freely accept, be a substitute for the remedies whose full application would be restored by Amendment 107.
Finally, and in response to a concern I raised at Second Reading and in person, the Minister has been good enough to write in an all-Peers letter that it is the Government’s view that OEP complaints and enforcement functions will not affect the rights of other persons to bring legal challenges against public authorities by way of judicial review. It would be the final irony if the imperfect mechanisms of environmental review were to be advanced in the courts by public authorities as a reason for withholding access to what remains, at least for now, the gold standard of judicial review. I accept that such decisions are ultimately for the courts, but the Government’s view is significant and I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat his assurance from the Dispatch Box so that it appears in the official record.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble Lord. I support the amendments in this group. I join my noble friend the Minister in congratulating my noble friend Lady Bloomfield on her birthday; I am sure there is nowhere she would rather be celebrating her birthday than with us this afternoon. Her support on the Bill is greatly appreciated.
My starting point is what my noble friend has said on a number of occasions: that we are seeking to achieve a regime whereby we replicate, as closely and as effectively as possible, the regime to which we signed up with the European Union. I go back to Britain in the 1980s, when I was working as an adviser; an A-grade woman, and a woman administrator in the Conservative group in the European Parliament, was quite a thing in those days. Noble Lords may recall—the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, recalls only too well—that the United Kingdom had a terrible reputation as the dirty man of Europe, with the dirtiest waters, some of the dirtiest rivers and some of the dirtiest beaches. Many maintain that change came not just by signing up to high-reaching directives, such as the EU water directive—I pay tribute to the Secretaries of State for the Environment at the time—but also the massive investments that water companies made over successive years and, obviously, the sterling efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who made sure that he held the water companies’ feet to the fire.
I am concerned that there will be no real teeth. I hate using that word because I went to the dentist recently and it brings back too many memories of that, but I think it is a good word to use. I believe that one reason why the European regime has been so successful in holding water companies, chemical companies and agricultural processes to the fire is because it had very real sanctions. I therefore pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for their amendments. Mine, as the noble Baroness said, goes a little further. It says:
“In the event of a severe breach of environmental law, financial penalties may be imposed.”
This echoes a lot of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
The offending subsections of Clause 37 include subsection (7), which states:
“A statement of non-compliance does not affect the validity of the conduct in respect of which it is given.”
They also include subsection (8) in particular, which goes further:
“Where the court makes a statement of non-compliance it may grant any remedy that could be granted by it on a judicial review other than damages, but only if satisfied that granting the remedy would not … be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person other than the authority, or … be detrimental to good administration.”
My noble friend the Minister has to put our minds at rest this afternoon and show that it should not really be just the courts that are left to impose the penalty. If the OEP is to be worth its weight in gold, which I hope it will be, it has to have the power to implement the decisions that have to be taken when holding public bodies to account—it is extending to public authorities for the first time—and would mirror the powers that currently exist under the European Commission, which is the body that we are told the OEP is meant to replicate in fulfilling our environmental sanctions post Brexit.
I am grateful to the Bar Council for its help in preparing my amendment. As I have said before:
“The requirement that the breach be severe to justify a financial penalty is noted. It is assumed that this is to ensure that a financial penalty be the exception rather than the rule”.
So, it should not just be a minor infraction; it should be a major infraction and a severe breach. Also, this is
“in the context that the OEP’s power to apply for an environmental review is already on the condition that it considers the authority’s failure to comply to be serious. To that end, it might be less open for debate as to whether it is severe or serious if the court’s discretion were wider, and therefore based upon all the circumstances of the case, but to be exercised where those circumstances are exceptional.”—[Official Report, 28/6/21; cols. 562-63.]
In making an argument to reject Amendment 107A, my noble friend has to give us the alternative that there will be very real and immediate powers. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, will say, if the OEP were to impose a penalty, it would be more or less instantaneous. Going to court means that there will inevitably be a delay, so the spillage and the damage could take more effect than if we had the OEP imposing the penalty, which is my preferred route. I hope that I will get the support of the House for Amendment 107A.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 105, 106, 107 and 108 in this group. Indeed, I raised the issue of Clauses 37(7) and 37(8) at Second Reading and made it clear that I, as a non-lawyer, was relying on the Bingham Centre’s rule of law analysis of this part of the Bill. I am going to leave the experts—we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—to deal with the legal flaws. I just want to give a couple of examples that Second Reading did not allow because of the time limits.
The first is the culling of sea-birds in the Ribble estuary. The case of RSPB v Secretary of State in 2015 concerned the decision by the Secretary of State to grant permission for a cull of sea-birds. The Court of Appeal ruled that the direction to cull was not consistent with the objectives of managing their population. Under this Bill, the statement of non-compliance would declare such a cull not in compliance with environmental law but it would not stop the cull. What would be the use of such a declaration? A paper remedy is no remedy at all.
A second, more recent example, concerns Manston Airport. Permission to use Manston Airport was given by way of a particular kind of statutory instrument: a development consent order, or DCO. The DCO was contested and the Secretary of State conceded that it had been made unlawfully. The planning court quashed the DCO, meaning that it had no legal effect. Under Clause 37(7), notwithstanding it was unlawful, the DCO would remain valid.
The third example, which I will not go into in detail, concerns the case of Dover District Council v CPRE Kent. This regarded a proposed development in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The Supreme Court quashed the permission. Under Clause 37(7), there would be nothing to prevent it going ahead.
Clause 37(8) also presents problems with the rule of law, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said. A local authority could give a developer the right to clear woodland to build houses. In so doing, the local authority could be breaching environmental law. The developer will have spent money on paperwork and planning. It may become non-compliant at an environmental review but, because the developer has spent money and expects to profit from the development, the development must go ahead. This is absolutely crazy. According to the Bingham Centre, this introduces
“a new ‘polluter doesn’t pay’ principle into environmental law.”
This is a new normal: unlawful actions by a public authority remain valid; it restricts the awards of a remedy by the court; it requires a court to endorse unlawful action if quashing that action would hurt a person who stands to benefit from it. The Minister must have some really good, detailed answers to these points and the others he is going to hear this afternoon—far more satisfactory than what he has managed to conjure up so far on the Bill. He must appreciate that there will be chaos on Report as the Bill gets torn apart.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and speak to the same amendments.
If the Bill is to be effective and to work, there are two main areas that need change. The first is clarity in relation to all the duties imposed because without clear duties, interlocking targets, interim targets and environmental plans, there is no effective concrete law that can be applied.
The second area where it has changed is enforcement. On Monday we had a useful debate on the independence of the OEP. Today, we turn to a second aspect of enforcement: the remedies that must be available if court proceedings are required. I very much hope that the independent strength and force of the OEP, together with clear duties set out in the Bill, will mean that recourse to courts is rarely necessary. However, that may be a pious hope because it is obvious that in this area there are immense conflicts of interest between those looking at the long term and those who seek to protect short-term or other interests. It seems to me, therefore, that an amount of litigation and enforcement action taken through the courts is inevitable.
I believe that view must be shared by the Government because why, otherwise, would they seek to constrain two important aspects of our common-law tradition? The first is to curtail the judicial function and the second is to curtail the discretion of the enforcer. I will deal with each aspect in turn but, unless changes are made to this part of the Bill, I entirely agree with everyone who has spoken about teeth. I will not attempt to describe the kind of teeth required, only to say that they must ensure that the Bill is not a long series of statements but will actually work for future generations.
I will now deal with each amendment in turn. I will deal with them briefly and in the order in which they are set out, not as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, did, but I entirely agree with him that the critical amendment is Amendment 107. Amendment 105 changes the provision in the Bill that seeks to stop proceedings at a particular point in time being brought together. I find this very difficult to fathom. It is a very inefficient way of dealing with things, apart from being unjust. A court always likes to have all the relevant cases in front of it so that it can do justice. I ask the Minister: why do the Government wish to impede justice in this respect?
Amendments 106 and 107 can be taken together because they deal with the consequences of a decision by the court that what has happened has not been lawful. It seems to me very difficult to understand how a Government who believe in the rule of law—and I believe this Government firmly believe in the rule of law—wish to say that there are to be no consequences of a failure to comply with the law. That is very difficult to understand. However, much more serious, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others have pointed out, is the restriction on remedies. I have no doubt that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its very able lawyers are well aware that, from time to time, in several cases, judges have to deal with circumstances where the rights of other people are affected or there is a question about good administration. A judge then takes, for example, the prejudice to the rights of certain people on the one hand and balances it against the considerations on the other. That is an ordinary judicial function.
The Bill seeks to take that function away from a judge by imposing a restriction that requires a judge to be satisfied that if one single person would suffer hardship or prejudice to his rights, that means the court cannot do justice. I ask why. To my mind, it is a very undesirable attack on the way in which traditionally in this country we have approached matters of judicial review of government action. Until now, the judges have been trusted. It is a remarkable fact that, although there are complaints from time to time that far too many decisions are overturned on judicial review, the general effect of judicial review and the knowledge of the consequences of the remedies has been to improve good administration. The Government are successful in the overwhelming number—a percentage in the high 90s—of cases. I therefore wonder: what is driving the Government in this case to curtail the doing of justice by judges? It seems to me that there is no reason whatever for it. Surely, they can trust the judges on this aspect.
The last of these amendments is to the provision that seeks to curtail the right of the OEP to bring judicial review. Why take away its discretion? Do the Government not trust it? Surely, with an agency that is independent and to be chaired by a person of the calibre of the chairman designate, it is very difficult to understand why a Government wish to restrict its discretion for the future in bringing cases. They must also appreciate that if a judicial review has brought late, the judge can refuse a remedy. There is the lock of the discretion of the trusted OEP, with judicial discretion as a backstop. Why do the Government need more? We should trust our common-law traditions and leave matters to the discretion of the judiciary and to the discretion of the enforcer.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great please to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I have put my name to Amendments 105, 106, 107 and 108, together with my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich, my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank. As a mere lay man on legal matters, I have little to add to the points made so beautifully by my noble friend and my noble and learned friend. However, it would be hard to argue against the view that the OEP, if it is to be an effective enforcement body, needs to be able to wield a big stick, even if the stick is rarely used. As it stands, the Bill gives the OEP a stick more akin to a matchstick than a knobkerrie, cudgel or shillelagh.
I am very grateful to the members of the Defra Bill team for having spent two sessions with my noble friend Lord Anderson and me trying to explain why Clause 37(8) biases the scales of justice against protecting the environment and in favour of commercial interests that might harm it. Three arguments were put forward. First, environmental review will take some time to reach the court stage as it passes through the two earlier stages of an information notice and a decision notice. Therefore, a third party may have already committed a great deal of resource to a project before it comes to court and it would be then unfair to stop the project in its tracks. Secondly, it was said that the OEP has wider powers than those covered by the European Commission and court and therefore needs to have its teeth blunted. Thirdly, in some cases, for instance planning approvals, giving environmental protection too much weight might cut across other government priorities.
I do not find these arguments at all persuasive. For instance, the argument that the environmental review process is so slow that a third party could be heavily committed begs the question of whether the design of the whole process needs to be reconsidered, as Amendment 108 proposes, rather than using Clause 37(8) as a sticking plaster to rectify the problem. As it stands, it is a bit like a manufacturer making a chair with legs that are too long and then selling it with a requirement that the customer cuts the legs down before use.
Defra officials have also produced a very helpful note summarising their arguments for this part of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to a few minutes ago. The note makes it clear that one of the Government’s concerns, perhaps even a major concern, is that the OEP might get in the way of the planning system. My noble friend Lady Boycott referred in earlier debates to instances where housing developments could cause serious harm to valuable habitats. Perhaps a powerful OEP would be able to discourage or stop these developments—but if it did, would that be a bad thing? It certainly would not be for the species that depend on those habitats for their survival.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, before I speak to the amendments, I apologise to my noble friend the Minister for including his name in what I said about the Forestry Commission on Monday. It was quite of wrong of me to do so, and I apologise to him for that. He has confirmed that he does not agree with me, in any case.
As I turn to the amendments, there is now very little for me to say. The Bill has been savaged by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, a former Lord Chief Justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern will doubtless similarly savage the existing wording.
My concern is that the OEP must be not only independent but seen as such, and it must be authoritative. If it is not, it is not going to work; it will get into disrepute. The Bill as it stands does not help in seeking to achieve the goals that we all want. This takes me, finally, on to the question of financial penalties. I know how effective the threat of financial penalties has been on the Government, but I actually see little point in the OEP being able to fine the Government, because it comes out of one pocket and goes straight back into another pocket to be recycled. It is not the threat that the Europeans had of a financial penalty on the Government. There has to be a better way of making certain that the OEP’s decisions have the cudgel that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has withdrawn, so I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendments 105 to 108 and to endorse all that the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Krebs, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, said about them.
Rolling up multiple instances of misconduct into a single application, as Amendment 105 seeks to permit, makes obvious sense. There are limits to the extent that rules of court may go to promote that objective, although this is certainly something that the courts would like to do. Amending Clause 37 in this way will significantly improve the process, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said in introducing this group, and it will also avoid abuses. Therefore, I warmly endorse this amendment.
Clause 37(8), which seeks to restrict the discretion of the court to grant a remedy, raises the threshold on what the court may do too far. Removing that restriction is what Amendment 107—the crucial amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said—is all about. Along with others who have worked with judicial review in practice, I regret what the Government are proposing. I understand the points made in the Defra note about innocent third parties and the effects of delay in some cases when issues come to court, but the courts themselves have no difficulty in taking points of that kind on board and making allowances for them. The flexibility of judicial review, which is one of its strengths and ought also to be part of environmental review, must be preserved.
Clause 38(3) about the urgency condition, which Amendment 108 seeks to remove, is another fetter on the jurisdiction of the courts which is hard to justify, as others have said.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said to me one day years ago, I think shortly after he entered this House as Lord Advocate and began to see what Governments can achieve by legislation, “legislation is a blunt instrument”. I have never forgotten that remark. All too often legislation has unforeseen consequences. His wise remark serves as a warning to legislators not to trespass too readily into areas of law and practice which depend on the exercise of judicial discretion, and this is such an area. The point is that while legislation lays down rules, only other legislation can change those rules, and they are rules which the court must obey. By contrast, the common law which judges apply can and does adapt itself as case law develops. That is its strength and what judicial review has been doing for decades. That is why it is much more sensitive to the demands of each case and the kinds of problems that the Defra note refers to. It should not be impeded in the way that the Government are seeking to do in these clauses, and that is why I support these amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
Although she is in her place, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, is not participating in this debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, when amendments are supported by noble Lords of the calibre of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, a renowned scientist and environmentalist in the shape of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and a former Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank—if I were the Minister, I would roll over and accept them. I hope he will do just that. I cannot add to the lucid case made in support of Amendments 105 to 108 by those noble Lords I have mentioned, other than, in layman’s terms, to add my voice of concern about the proposed restrictions on judicial discretion to grant remedies when it is found that there has been a breach of environmental law on an environmental review and the limitations on the OEP’s powers to bring judicial review proceedings.
The proposed statement of non-compliance is risible, since the public body can publish a response but carry on regardless, with whatever it has done wrongly remaining valid and in place. This is not a toothless remedy; it is no remedy at all and will bring the OEP immediately into disrepute. To make matters worse, a judge cannot issue a stronger remedy if it would
“be likely to cause substantial hardship to, or substantially prejudice the rights of, any person”
or
“be detrimental to good administration.”
We have heard cases from across the environmental spectrum from previous speakers. Can the Minister tell the Committee how this provision can possibly work, as there is bound to be an individual or group who could be shown to have suffered some adverse impact? It is called life, I think.
Environmental review is supposed to complement rather than replace judicial review, but the Bill allows the OEP to use judicial review only where an urgency condition has been met:
“to prevent or mitigate serious damage to the natural environment or to human health.”
Other similar bodies have access to judicial review at their discretion, and that cannot be denied to the OEP without it becoming ineffective in its enforcement role.
Amendments 106 to 108 would enable the OEP to exercise at least some effective powers to hold government and public bodies to account for compliance with environmental law. Personally, I would also give the OEP whacking great powers, as outlined in Amendment 105 from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. There is nothing like an eye-watering fine of the scale that the European Commission used to apply as a last resort to change the mind of a government department or an agency that has gone off-piste.
I have chaired a regulatory body that attempted to regulate government bodies and the Government themselves, and I tell the Committee that it is not easy. If you do it with rigour and toughness, the Government hate you and take revenge. If you do it in a toothless way, the public lose confidence in you and take revenge. It is difficult enough with a full set of tools in the toolkit. Unless these amendments are passed, the OEP’s toolkit will be significantly bare.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I add my voice in support of Amendments 105 and 107, and I shall speak to those amendments together. My right reverend friend the Lord Bishop of Oxford would have spoken to them, but is unable to be here, so I am glad to be able to speak and endorse what other noble Lords have said.
From this Bench, we welcome much of the content of the Bill, and we believe deeply in the importance of the good stewardship of creation. We recognise the need for global solutions to an international challenge and that any solutions will take leadership and require harmonising regulation on a global scale. As others have said, it is essential that the new OEP be given the appropriate teeth—not dentures, perhaps jaws—to hold business and government at all levels, national, regional and local, to account.
As drafted, the Bill centralises power and control into the Government’s hands rather than entrusting the powers to the regulator. If we truly want to be taken seriously as an international trailblazer for environmental legislation, we ought not to be afraid of creating a robust regulator. It would be a signal of confidence by the Government in their own programme to equip the regulator with the powers it needs to be properly effective. Although I recognise and applaud the passion with which the Minister has championed the Bill so far, if the Government are not prepared to support these amendments, I should like to hear more from him about how the OEP will be so equipped. Simply stating that it will be independent does not make it so. Given that the new OEP’s resources will be significantly less than its predecessor body, the new regulator will need to be more targeted and strategic about its activities. However, Clause 37 will significantly restrict the power of the courts to grant remedies, and I believe that the powers detailed in Amendment 107 will be essential for the OEP to do its job effectively.
In the year we are hosting COP 26, we should be showing the world that, even if we are to miss our climate goals, as the Committee on Climate Change has suggested we will, we have put in place a body that can genuinely help us to get the rest of the way to the target and beyond—especially when facing the tricky balance between competing commitments made in trade deals, environmental protection and agricultural production.
We know that the window to make a meaningful impact on climate change is closing. We need the Bill to be as fit for purpose as possible from the very beginning. I hope that the Minister will agree that an independent and effective OEP needs to have proper powers to hold to account, and I hope that the Government will support these amendments.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments and support in detail all that has been said by noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas. I want to ask a rather fundamental question. The environmental review can be taken on only where the OEP considers that, on the balance of probability,
“the authority has failed to comply with environmental law, and … it considers that the failure”
is “serious.” That is the start: a failure
“to comply with environmental law.”
Subsection (6) states:
“If the court finds that the authority has failed to comply with environmental law, it must make a statement to that effect (a ‘statement of non-compliance’).”
That is to say that the court has held that the authority in question
“has failed to comply with environmental law”.
It goes on to state:
“A statement of non-compliance does not affect the validity of the conduct in respect of which it is given.”
What does that mean? That means that the conduct in question cannot be a breach of the law. It is a failure of environmental law, yet it is not a breach of the law. Is that another way of saying that environmental law is not a law at all, and that planning law must prevail? Is that really what this is saying, or can my noble friend explain to me how you can have a law which has been breached yet the conduct is not regarded as improper?
It is a simple question that supports all these amendments, if answered properly. There is an underlying feeling that environmental law is to be a grade below some other laws so that, although you fail to comply with it, you can still be all right. That does not accord with our understanding of law—certainly not mine for a considerable period. I do not see how it can work that you can have a piece of legislation that describes something as law—environmental law—yet it is not law that, where you breach it, renders your conduct wrong.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a delight to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who is in many ways the embodiment of wisdom in your Lordships’ House. How good it is to have him back with us and speaking as vigorously and to the point as he always does.
I cannot begin to rival the expertise or knowledge of the noble and learned Lords who have spoken, but shall give my noble friend the Minister a secular analogy. When we enter this Chamber from the Prince’s Chamber, we have in front of us that great classical sculpture by John Gibson of Queen Victoria. It is flanked on either side by the figures of Justice and Mercy. The figure of Justice holds in her hands, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, reminded us earlier, the sword and the scales.
Would my noble friend Lord Goldsmith seriously think, as he entered the Chamber, of removing that sword and those scales? Because that, metaphorically, is what he is proposing to do this afternoon if he does not accept the spirit of these amendments. It is palpably absurd—I refer to the interesting contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—to have an Environment Bill that has as one of its slogans, “The polluter need not pay”. It is absurd. Can my noble friend not recognise that absurdity?
I have said before in these debates that it is essential that an environmental Bill should command the support of Members in all parts of your Lordships’ House, particularly one that is meant to stand the test of not just some time but generations. We cannot have a Bill enacted that, in effect, does what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay has just said and contradicts one of the fundamentals of English law.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith will do what I urged him to do when speaking to an amendment on Monday. I said that because it was so important that the Bill should command the support of your Lordships in all parts of the House, he should convene some sort of round table and talk to us all. There is an answer to all these conundrums and problems that we are highlighting, because we all support the basic premise of the Bill. However, if we support that premise and intention, we cannot allow the Bill to go on to the statute book so fundamentally flawed as it is at the moment. So I say to him again, “Please talk to those of us who wish you well, who wish the Bill well, but who can never lend support on Report to a Bill that is so riddled with absurdity”.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my interests in the register, notably the chairmanship of the National Forest.
I was pleased to put my name to Amendments 105 to 108, because they are necessary and they make the Bill better. We have heard echoed by a number of noble Lords how that can be achieved and I hope that the Government hear that. In many ways, this clause is like a Monet painting. It looks fine from a distance, but the closer you get the more the detail seems to disappear. What we need now is clarity and for that detail to be recognisable. Non-compliance must affect validity. That is a simple statement of fact. The beneficiary of an environmental deterrent or damage cannot escape sanction because he is materially affected by the sanction. That cannot be a useful way of moving forward. The remedies available must be a deterrent. If they are not, the system will be gamed. Individuals will find ways through, between and under, and they will be able to make a mockery of what should be a very important institution.
The OEP is a successor to a body that was able by its threats to bring about fundamental change in how environmental laws were enforced—and it made the environment better, safer and healthier by doing that. The successor body must be able to do the same and have available to it each of the elements that can allow it to achieve that outcome. That is why I was very pleased to put my name to these amendments.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, we on these Benches thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for these amendments, which expose the fundamental flaws in the proposed enforcement powers of the environmental watchdog. We support all the amendments, particularly Amendment 107. As others have said, lawyers in this Chamber have eloquently made the case, so I will merely reflect on two points.
First, the Government have said that they want the OEP to be world-beating in its role. Yet a cursory review of its remit, as opposed to that of the body in Scotland, Environmental Standards Scotland, suggests that that is absolutely not the case and that the powers of the OEP are far more prescriptive than those of Environmental Standards Scotland, which has the power to take the steps that it considers appropriate—I repeat, the steps that “it” considers appropriate—to secure public authorities’ compliance with environmental law and how it is implemented or applied. So, if the Government want the OEP to be a world-beating watchdog, they need to look at the options rather more carefully in order to ensure that that is delivered.
Secondly, on Amendment 107, which seeks to remove the restriction on the ability of the court to grant remedies, such as squashing orders, where that could cause severe hardship, we agree very much with the noble and learned Lord, Lords Thomas of Cwmgiedd, who said that we should trust the judges. As it stands, the Bill fetters the discretion of the judiciary and radically alters the balance of power in favour of the Executive.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked: who bears the brunt of this weight in the change in the balance of power? He rightly reflected that it is nature—but, equally, it is the people of our country. It has been a fundamental cornerstone of British democracy that people have a right to environmental justice and to hold the Government to account. It is also a right guaranteed to the British public, given that we are signatories to the Aarhus convention. Therefore, as it stands, unless these amendments are accepted, we the British public will have weaker rights to environmental justice than we had previously under the European Union. We therefore urge the Government to accept these amendments and to ensure that the OEP has the robust powers that it needs in order to be—and, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, to be seen to be—an effective and robust environmental watchdog.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, first, I am grateful to the noble Lady, Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb, for tabling Amendment 104. It enables us to have a discussion about what penalties are appropriate to ensure compliance with environmental law and to ensure that breaches are dealt with appropriately.
We agree that, as the Bill is currently worded, issuing decision notices has nothing like the impact that we previously enjoyed in the EU, whereby Governments could incur substantial fines. As the Bill stands, decision notices are not binding and it is not clear that these would be an effective way in which to remedy failures to comply with environmental law. We believe that the OEP should have much broader powers to make judgments, case by case, about what an appropriate remedy should be, including making amends and repairs and, in some cases, paying a financial penalty. I rather liked the rather creative proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that the revenue from those fines could then go to the NHS.
A more substantial point about financial penalties is made in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. She gave an excellent insight into why these are necessary. We also agree with her that these decisions need to be enforceable and to send a clear message that would dissuade other public bodies from similarly breaching the law. The remedy should also require the public body to make a public declaration of the steps that it will take to put the matter right.
I know that the Government have consistently argued that financial penalties are not appropriate within the UK, as that would simply transfer money from one government pot of money to another. But we have to face the fact that it was a considerable deterrent in EU law and that nothing yet proposed in this Bill has anything like the same deterrent effect. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, penalty fines concentrate minds. Meanwhile, he and other noble Lords have all, in a powerfully co-ordinated way, taken apart the judicial processes in the Bill and exposed their weaknesses. They have made the case much better than I ever could. I am grateful to the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and the legal analysis offered from ClientEarth for setting out in some detail the failings in the judicial clauses of the Bill.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions and assure them that the Government are committed to establishing the OEP to effectively hold public authorities to account, and have provided for an enforcement framework which will allow it to do so in a manner appropriate to our domestic context.
I shall begin with Amendments 104 and 107A, tabled respectively by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. In our domestic legal system, provision for a system of fines is unnecessary because of the strict requirement for public authorities to comply with court judgments and the stronger legal remedies available. I will come back to this in a moment. Fines play an important role at the EU level, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, explained, because the Court of Justice of the European Union has no other tool by which to bring about compliance with its judgments. Unlike our courts, it does not have the ability to impose mandatory court orders directly on public authorities. If a member state does not comply, the Commission can only bring the case back to court some years later and seek a financial penalty against the member state.
Incidentally, financial penalties under the EU framework were pushed as a compliance mechanism by the UK Government when the UK was a member of the EU. Given the nature of the European framework, we felt that it was necessary at the time to ensure that no member state could simply ignore the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union.
By contrast, under our proposed framework, if a public authority took the extraordinary step of failing to comply with the stronger remedy of a binding court order, the OEP would be able to bring contempt of court proceedings. Being held in contempt would have serious implications and could not be ignored, as noble Lords know. There are clear requirements in the Ministerial Code for Ministers to comply with the law, including court orders. I emphasise this point. Having heard my noble friend Lord Cormack, I think that this may be an area that he has perhaps not fully understood. The prospect of a fine pales in comparison with the risk of being held in contempt of court.
I also note that the amendments would go further even than allowing the court to impose a fine where an earlier judgment had not been complied with. One amendment would grant a power to the OEP itself to impose fines, and the other would grant the court a power to issue fines, effectively as a punitive step. The Government consider that both of these options would be inappropriate. Amendment 104 would in effect allow the OEP to superimpose its own decisions in place of those made by authorities appointed by Parliament itself. The OEP would be able to prematurely sanction public authorities, without reference to the courts, and with no appeals mechanism through which this decision could then be challenged.
Incidentally, the European Commission cannot directly fine member states, public bodies, or private bodies for environmental infractions, as a number of noble Lords have implied. Only the Court of Justice of the European Union has this power, and only if a member state has failed to comply with an earlier judgment.
Additionally, Amendment 107A would grant the court a power to issue fines, effectively as a punitive step rather than to bring about compliance. This is not the role of environmental review or the OEP.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I thank him for his conversations on this subject with myself and my officials. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I would be very keen to continue those discussions if he is willing, as I hope noble Lords will appreciate I have been throughout this process. Before I go into the specifics of his amendments, I will explain why we have designed the OEP’s enforcement framework in the way that we have, and why it is so important.
The OEP’s enforcement framework must be considered in the round. It delivers numerous benefits as an additional—not a replacement—route through which alleged instances of non-compliance will be addressed. Our proposals increase access to justice by allowing anyone who has been affected by, or is aware of, an alleged breach of environmental law by a public authority to make a complaint to the OEP free of charge. Notwithstanding the comments by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, this matters, given the costs of action outside of this proposal and outside of this new system.
By liaising directly with public authorities to investigate and resolve alleged serious breaches of environmental law in a targeted manner, the OEP will be able to drive systemic environmental improvements. Wherever possible, this will be without the need to resort to costly and time-consuming litigation. In many ways, therefore, the OEP will be fulfilling a similar role to that carried out by the European Commission in the EU infractions process, but with a significantly wider remit and the ability to act directly against public authorities.
The vast majority of EU infraction cases are resolved in a similar way to how we expect the OEP’s enforcement framework to operate: through dialogue, not in front of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The cases taken by the EU Commission are also intended to drive systemic environmental improvements by clarifying the law and dealing with ongoing failures, and this is the role that we have in mind for the OEP. Our new framework will lead to better outcomes for complainants, the public and the environment. It is right that as many cases as possible are resolved through this route.
There has been a great deal of discussion of Clause 37(8) in this debate, but it must also be right that we have adopted an approach which ensures fairness and certainty in these provisions. This is entirely consistent with other forms of legal challenge in our domestic justice system, where, for instance, provision for strict judicial review time limits demonstrates that relying on judicial discretion alone is not sufficient.
Turning to the detail of Amendment 105, the court should be asked to examine issues only where the OEP has given the public authority adequate opportunity to respond. That is only right and appropriate. Active discussion with a view to resolving the issue would take place in the course of an investigation and through the service of an information notice. Where necessary, this would then be followed by a decision notice. Amendment 105 from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would therefore circumvent this process, limiting the benefits that this new system could deliver. Noble Lords will note that it would still be possible for the OEP to put evidence to the court regarding actions by a public authority related to conduct described in a decision notice. The court would then have the flexibility to consider this in relation to remedies.
Turning to Amendment 106, the OEP’s enforcement framework will drive systemic environmental improvements and deliver better outcomes for the public and the environment. It will allow the OEP the time and space to resolve issues directly with public authorities through investigations and its notice processes. Litigation will, of course, sometimes be necessary, but as a last resort rather than as the default or the norm. This is entirely consistent with the approach taken in EU environmental infractions, which is focused on addressing ongoing non-compliance, not trying to overturn decisions years later that have been reasonably relied on by individuals. It is as a direct result of this extended enforcement process that some safeguards are required to avoid the negative effects of decisions being undone potentially many months after they have been taken. Clause 37(7) does this.
However, a statement of non-compliance is none the less an important means by which the court can clarify the law for future cases. Given that the court will have ruled on the correct interpretation of the law, this will ensure that public authorities avoid future breaches and will prevent any ongoing non-compliance, which is ultimately the aim of the OEP. The EU infractions process is also exactly that: it seeks to address ongoing non-compliance, rather than undo specific local decisions made years previously. We want the OEP to be a forward-looking organisation, driving better environmental outcomes for the future.
In response to comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others, I want also to reassure noble Lords that the existence of the statement of non-compliance does not in any way limit the granting of remedies by the court. A statement of non-compliance is not itself considered a remedy. Subject to the important protections in Clause 37(8), the court will have full discretion to grant normal judicial review remedies. This includes quashing orders, prohibiting orders, mandatory orders and declarations.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is reassured that we have carefully considered how best to balance this provision to ensure that the OEP and environmental review will be able to drive meaningful environmental improvements, while also ensuring that there is not an open-ended ability to overturn decisions potentially years after they are made. As such, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary.
Turning to Amendment 107, environmental review by its nature allows time for information and decision notice stages. This will enable the court to make orders outside of the normal judicial review time limits. Judicial review time limits are to ensure certainty and provide a fair process that protects the rights of third parties who act reasonably on the decisions of public authorities. These very strict time limits are set out in the Civil Procedure Rules at Part 54. Rule 54.5 specifically provides that these time limits may not be extended, even by agreement between the parties. If judicial discretion alone were sufficient to protect fairness and ensure certainty, why, then, would these time limits be necessary?
The Government consider it entirely necessary to recognise the unique context in which environmental reviews will occur and protect third parties in this way, just as others did in the past when establishing the judicial review procedure in law. It is not a novel approach to protect such rights in legislation. Indeed, this provision is an extension of the position for existing challenges: under Section 31(6) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and Sections 16(4) and (5) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the court has a discretion to refuse relief in such circumstances.
The protections in Clause 37(8) make it possible for the OEP to have a more collaborative, but potentially extended, process of investigation and notices, which will enable issues to be resolved more effectively in the interests of the public and the environment. But to be clear, it is also not the case that these safeguards will be triggered in all cases. Indeed, the Bill steers the OEP to prioritise cases with national implications, so individual local planning decisions affecting third parties are unlikely to be considered. The safeguards provided by Clause 37(8) will not be relevant to most cases that the OEP will pursue. A requirement to change future policy or how legislation is to be interpreted will not trigger the safeguard. After all, no-one is entitled to demand that government policy be fixed for ever more.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened very carefully to this debate, particularly to the many noble and learned Lords who gave very powerful arguments in support of the amendments we have been discussing. I certainly believe that they have made some very strong cases. I was particularly interested in the comment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, about the two levels of law, environmental and other ones. That is pretty fundamental. We have had a lot of discussion about penalties, enforcement, fines and the relationship with the ECJ, and whether fines are important or whether reputational damage is perhaps worse. There is also judicial review, which I will not go into now.
I am sad that it appears that the Minister has rejected all the arguments in these amendments. If they get through in Report, they will make a much better Bill than we have at the moment. I was really impressed with the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that there needs to be much more round-table discussion on this before the next phase. If not, I foresee big problems on Report. The most important thing is that the House and Members from all sides achieve something that we can all be proud of. From listening today, I certainly am not proud of it at the moment, but I hope that the Minister will reflect on this and organise something before the next stage.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. It is absolutely not the case that I or the Government have rejected all the arguments put forward today, or indeed in any of the debates we have had. This is a lengthy process of scrutiny, discussion and debate and, as I have said many times, it is unlikely that a Bill that begins this process will end it in exactly the same form. I am as keen as anyone in this Committee—probably keener than most people in this Committee—to ensure that the Bill is as good and strong as it possibly can be. That is why I am very keen to continue discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and many other noble Lords on their areas of expertise.
The environmental review is a bespoke and additional jurisdiction, not a replacement vehicle. This is additional—for the court to hear claims outside the usual time limit for judicial review or statutory review. As I said during my speech, the court retains all available remedies where decisions are challenged by way of judicial review within the existing time limits, including, where appropriate, by the OEP. I hope that addresses the noble Lord’s concern.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Given the strength of feeling in the Committee this afternoon, I hope my noble friend might agree to meet the authors of the amendments before us. I come back to the point that many have referred to from my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. We are left with the impression that an environmental law is set out before us in the Bill but that a breach of that environmental law does not amount to a breach of the law. That is unsatisfactory.
I also press my noble friend on his comment that rather than have a fine, which would be punitive, it is better to have a compliance effect such as holding the company—it could be a chemical company or a water company—to be in breach through the OEP applying for contempt of court. I am just trying to think how long those proceedings would take after the horse has bolted and the stable door is left open for the damage to carry on. I would still prefer the options in either Amendment 104 or, ideally, Amendment 107A of leaving financial penalties on the table.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her comments. I hope I addressed fines and why the prospect of being held in contempt of court is a far greater concern for a Minister than the prospect of the department that Minister belongs to being fined by a Government and the money being recycled through the same Government.
I reiterate that the system we are replacing is not one that can fine those chemical companies or even local authorities—it can deal only directly with member states—so the remit here is far greater than the remit of the system being replaced. I understand that we may have to agree to disagree, but I refer my noble friend to my argument in relation to fines earlier in the discussion.
On her first point, I am of course very happy to have meetings with any number of noble Lords to discuss these issues, as I have throughout this process.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments, especially about continuing dialogue and revisiting this; that is incredibly important. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. It is obvious that we all think there are problems with the Bill. I hope that not just the Minister is listening but the Government, and that they understand the depth of concern we are expressing here.
The noble Lord, Lord Khan, called my previous summing-up speech “candid”. At first I thought that was a compliment, but then I thought that it actually sounds like something out of “Yes Minister”, when the civil servant says: “Yes, very brave, Minister—very candid.” I hope I am candid, but at the same time I try not to be rude—I do not always succeed.
I welcome the support of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, however tentative, and thank him for his examples. Quite honestly, I wish I had asked him to present my Amendment 104. I think he would have made a superb job of it, and I look forward to him using his teeth on Report. Quite honestly, if it comes to a challenge between the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, my money is on him. He has my full backing.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering—I sympathise with her visit to the dentist and hope she is feeling better—is right to say that our amendments take things forward. I will be keen to push this on Report.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, used an extremely good phrase about working for future generations that I wish I had used. That is absolutely crucial when we are dealing with this Bill. It is not just for now, the next six months or the next few years but for future generations. He was also quite generous when he said that the Government believe in the rule of law. I have huge respect for the noble and learned Lord, but I am not sure that is true. I think the Government talk about the rule of law but do not actually observe it; that is my observation of how they behave. We must trust the judges, as he says.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for whom I have huge respect, said that the office for environmental protection has to wield a big stick. That is absolutely right; it has to have the authority and the power to achieve all sorts of things. He also felt that Amendments 104 and 107A were a step too far, but I do not see why that is a valid argument. Quite honestly, giving up money hurts, and somehow we have to make it punitive.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that the OEP has to be independent and authoritative; that is absolutely right. He also said that financial penalties can be effective but then suggested that, because the money was recycled, perhaps it was not that effective. Again, I disagree. It is not only the pain of the penalty but a visible example of the fact that the Government are wrong.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his support. He emphasised the value of case law—something that was used a lot when we were in the EU—where the Government are really held to account.
The lay woman’s view from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is extremely valid and very cogent. I thank her for her support.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester talked about leadership and COP 26. The fact is that we need an Environment Bill that will look good on the statute books when we get to COP 26, or our Government will be seriously embarrassed. The fact that the OEP will have fewer resources than the preceding body is a matter of huge concern. She also said that the window for action was closing, which is absolutely true, not just of this Bill but of all our actions on the climate emergency. At the moment we are seeing endless examples of very unusual weather patterns, whether in Canada or over much of Africa. We have to understand that we have to act urgently.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, pointed out the illogicality of the Bill—I really enjoyed that—and the fact that environmental law is seen as a grade below other law. That is absolutely true. I think Defra has much lower status than other parts of the Government, and that is a terrible shame. It should be involved in absolutely every part of government.
I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, with his customary common sense, support the polluter pays rule. Of course polluters have to pay and the Bill has to stand the test of time. He said that it is “riddled with absurdity”. I wish I had said all this; it is much tougher than what I said.
The noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, freed from the shackles of collective responsibility of his ministerial post, has joined our forces—I welcome him—and spoke strongly about the need to give real teeth to the new system of environmental protection. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, for her support of Amendment 104. She made the very valid point that the Scottish body is more powerful. Why would we do less than our Scottish cousins? The idea that the Government are using the term “world-beating” alongside the words “office for environmental protection” here in England is ridiculous.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 108A. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division, must make that clear in debate.
Clause 42: Confidentiality of proceedings
Amendment 108A
Lord Rooker
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would exclude from the prohibition on disclosure in Clause 42(1)(a) information obtained by the Office for Environmental Protection under Clause 26(1).
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
In moving Amendment 108A, I will speak also to the other amendments in this group, all originally tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Wills, who regrets that he is unable to be with us today. The first four refer to Clause 42, and the final one to Clause 45.
My main concern is the effect of Clause 42 on the right of access to environmental information under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004—the EIR. Clause 42(1) prohibits the disclosure of several classes of information by the office for environmental protection. These are: information provided to the OEP to assist it with its functions by a body with public functions under Clause 26(1); and specified information about OEP enforcement action, including any information notice or decision notice it serves, any related correspondence with an authority, and information provided to it by the authority.
Clause 42(2) describes the circumstances in which disclosure to the public will be permitted. These are: if the body supplying the information, the OEP or authority, consents—but this does not apply to an information notice or a decision notice—or if the OEP has concluded that it intends to take no further steps in relation to the matter. That is set out in subsection (2)(h).
Clause 42(3) prohibits disclosure of certain information by public authorities, particularly those which are the subject of OEP enforcement action. Clause 42(4) provides exceptions to the prohibition. None of the exceptions to the prohibitions under Clause 42 permits disclosure for the purpose of complying with the EIR or the Freedom of Information Act.
However, the Explanatory Notes set out an entirely different view. Paragraph 365 says that Clause 42
“does not override the EIR which will still apply to the OEP and other public bodies. The OEP will be required to consider requests for disclosure of information made under the EIR on a case by case basis, including assessing whether any appropriate exception will apply.”
Paragraph 366 adds:
“This clause will also not override or disapply other existing legislative provision on public access to information such as the Freedom of Information Act 2000”.
This second statement is plainly wrong. Section 44(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act exempts from access any information whose disclosure
“is prohibited by or under any enactment”.
This is an absolute exemption to which the Freedom of Information Act’s public interest test does not apply. Any statutory prohibition which applies to the information overrides the FoI right of access.
The position under the EIR is more complicated. Regulation 5(6) of the EIR states:
“Any enactment or rule of law that would prevent the disclosure of information in accordance with these Regulations shall not apply.”
Prior to Brexit, that would have guaranteed that a statutory prohibition could not undermine the EIR right of access, as the regulations implement an EU directive. The supremacy of EU law meant that it could not be set aside by domestic law. That principle no longer applies.
The EIR are now retained EU law. As I understand the position, from various briefings and from our own discussions, it is that, following the implementation period—IP—completion day:
“The principle of the supremacy of EU law does not apply to any enactment or rule of law passed or made on or after exit day.”
That is in Section 5(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
“So domestic law passed after IP completion day will trump provisions in retained EU law that are of EU origin and which would have benefited from the principle of supremacy before IP completion day”—
that is the legal opinion given out by firms such as Gowling WLG.
The Bill’s prohibitions on disclosure postdate the implementation period and are clearly incompatible with the EIR rights of access. So long as the prohibitions apply, they appear to override the EIR right of access to the information concerned. Let us take an example. The OEP will be prohibited from disclosing any information supplied to it by a body with public functions under Clause 26(1). This requires such a body to provide information to the OEP if it asks for it in connection with its functions. Substantial classes of information could be affected, given the OEP’s broad functions. These, of course, include monitoring progress towards improving the environment, meeting environmental targets and implementing environmental legislation, as well as advising Ministers and investigating failures by public authorities to comply with environmental law.
Let us suppose that the OEP receives a request for the underlying data on which it has based a statement about air or water quality. If that information has come from a body with public functions, it will be subject to the prohibition. The OEP could disclose this after it had decided to take no further steps about the matter—but when would that happen? Monitoring is an ongoing process. The publication of an annual monitoring report under Clause 27(7)—which is unlikely to contain the complete monitoring data—will not mark the end of the OEP’s involvement. The problem revealed by the monitoring may persist for years, endangering human health or the environment. The OEP may need to advise the Minister, perhaps repeatedly, to address the matter. It may need to investigate any failure to comply with environmental law. The more serious the problem, the longer the prohibition will continue to prevent disclosure—an absurd situation.
The information, of course, might be disclosed if the body supplying it consents; but it may not do so, particularly if the information shows that the problem is the result of its own failings. The withholding of such information would be a serious blow to the public’s right to know, to informed public debate and to public confidence in the OEP. It is almost inconceivable that such data could be withheld under the EIR. To do so, an authority would have to show that disclosure would “adversely affect” a specified interest, consider whether the public interest required disclosure, and apply
“a presumption in favour of disclosure”.
If the information concerned emissions, significant EIR exceptions, such as those for commercial confidentiality or the interests of a person supplying information voluntarily, would be disapplied altogether. How does a blanket prohibition on disclosure, which takes no account of the public interest, advance environmental protection? And by the way, I realise that a member of the public could go with an FOI request direct to the body concerned, but how do they know what the body is going to be? That is the point: we will not know unless people are told.
The same obstacle would apply to information which an authority had supplied to the OEP in the course an OEP investigation. It could be disclosed only when the OEP had decided to take no further action or the body supplying the information consented. Again, this contrasts this with the EIR approach. EIR regulation 12(5)(b) allows an authority to withhold information if disclosure would
“adversely affect the course of justice, the ability of a person to receive a fair trial or the ability of a public authority to conduct an inquiry of a criminal or disciplinary nature”.
The Information Commissioner’s guidance highlights the “very wide” scope of the “course of justice” limb of this exception, which it says applies to information about law enforcement investigations or proceedings and civil and criminal investigations and proceedings. This is how information the disclosure of which might undermine law enforcement is protected by other regulators, including the Environment Agency, local authorities, the Health and Safety Executive and the police. To withhold information, they must show that disclosure would adversely affect the course of justice and that, on balance, the public interest favours confidentiality.
In 2017, the tribunal that deals with EIR and FOI appeals ruled on a request relating to a factory at which a fatal explosion had occurred. It held that a request for the findings of an earlier investigation into the factory should be denied because the information was likely to form part of the prosecution case, and media coverage of that investigation would have compromised the remaining police interviews and risked jeopardising a fair trial. However, in a 2007 decision involving a fatal outbreak of food poisoning, the tribunal found that disclosure in that case would not affect the trial. It commented:
“A blanket refusal to disclose all potentially relevant information may well not be justified. A public authority … ought to give careful consideration to the potential effect on the criminal proceedings of the particular information being requested ... but if, on a sensible reading of the documentation in question, its disclosure would not adversely affect the prospects of a fair trial, then the fact that the information has some connection with the subject matter of a prosecution will not be sufficient justification for nondisclosure ... on the special facts of this case, the disclosure ... would not have adversely affected the accused’s ability to have a fair trial.”
Amendment 108A would remove the reference to Clause 26(1) from Clause 42(1)(a). Information provided to the OEP by bodies with public functions could then be disclosed on request, subject to the EIR exceptions. Amendments 108B and 108C would permit disclosure for the purpose of complying with the EIR or FOI Act or subject access under data protection legislation. This is what the Explanatory Notes say is already the position. If so, the Government should have no objection to stating that on the face of the Bill. If the prohibitions in fact override EIR right of access, the UK will be in breach of Article 4 of the Aarhus convention, which requires the UK to provide a statutory right of access to environmental information. It does not permit information to be withheld on a class basis. The public interest in disclosure must be taken into account and exemptions applied in a “restrictive way”.
Clause 42(7) addresses a separate issue. It refers to the information to which Clauses 42(1) and 42(3) would apply, disregarding the exceptions to these prohibitions. The clause provides that, where information is “environmental information”, it will be considered to be held
“in connection with confidential proceedings”.
This would bring it within the range of an exception in EIR Regulation 12(5)(d), which states that
“a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that its disclosure would adversely affect ... the confidentiality of the proceedings of that or any other public authority where such confidentiality is provided by law”.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I entirely share the concerns expressed with such clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I am a total devotee of freedom of information; indeed, I managed to get a Second Reading of my Freedom of Information Bill in the House of Lords on 10 February 1999, rather in advance of the Government’s own. As the Minister knows from our previous discussions, I am also a total devotee of openness. Both those concerns of mine are engaged by the Bill as it is now written.
When it comes to environmental information, we ought to be more open, not less. Environmental information is so much a public matter and of such widespread individual public concern that we should not be looking, simply for the convenience of the system, to hide it away. I very much look forward to the Minister’s explanation of why the Bill is written as it is.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I hope to speak quite briefly on this issue. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rooker for spelling out the case so thoroughly and for raising the important question of transparency. He has rightly underlined the importance of open government and of the OEP being seen to act in the public interest. That is particularly true on environmental matters, where in the past there has been a tendency to cover up environmental damage and pollution, and those accused have deliberately drawn out proceedings to delay prosecution.
As it stands, the Bill contains two prohibitions on disclosure of information. The first appears to override the existing right of access to information under the environmental information regulations. The second appears to contravene the Aarhus convention, the international treaty that underpins the EIR.
Under the Bill, the OEP has a clear obligation to monitor progress in environmental protection and investigate complaints of serious failure by public bodies, but it seems that the OEP could not disclose information obtained for these purposes unless the supplier of the information consented. Similarly, information obtained during the OEP’s enforcement activity would be kept secret until the OEP decided to take no further action. That appears to be much more of a blanket ban than the current provision of the EIR, which limits disclosure only if it would
“adversely affect the course of justice”.
The Explanatory Notes take a different view, claiming that Clause 42 is compliant with the Aarhus convention, but it creates a caveat based on a “confidentiality of proceedings” exception. It is not clear how that will be defined.
To avoid any confusion on the important issue of public access to information, and to protect the OEP from accusations of unnecessary secrecy, it makes sense to clarify in the Bill that the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 and connected freedom of information Acts take precedence. We therefore welcome the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Wills that have been ably moved by my noble friend Lord Rooker. I hope the Minister will see the sense in these amendments, which would provide useful clarification of our obligations under national and international law.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for his introduction. He is right to emphasise the importance of transparency, a point made equally well by my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
I reiterate the position on information disclosure for the OEP. The Government have been clear that the environmental information regulations and the Freedom of Information Act will apply to information held by the OEP and public authorities. The Bill does not in any sense override that legislation. The OEP would have to consider any request against the relevant legislation on a case-by-case basis.
The OEP will assess whether any exemption or exception to the relevant regime applies to the information. If so, it will consider whether a public interest weighing exercise is required under that exemption. If a public interest test is required, it will carry out a balancing exercise before deciding whether the public interest requires that the information should be disclosed or withheld.
Turning to Amendments 108A to 108D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, although I agree that it is important that the OEP operates transparently, it must be allowed the discretion necessary to operate effectively. The OEP’s enforcement framework has been designed to resolve issues as effectively and efficiently as possible. To do so, it is important to have a safe space where public authorities can confidently share information and allow the OEP to explore potential pragmatic solutions before issuing formal notices. The noble Lord’s proposals would effectively remove that forum, meaning that public authorities might prefer to advance to more formal stages where information disclosure exemptions may apply due to confidentiality of proceedings. That would undermine the framework and result in slower resolution and poorer value from public funds.
On Amendment 114A, Clause 45(2)(a) excludes the disclosure of or access to information from the OEP’s remit. These matters are explicitly excluded in order to avoid overlap between the remit of the OEP and that of the Information Commissioner’s Office. This is further clarified in paragraph 383 of the Bill’s Explanatory Notes. The existing drafting of this provision allows greater flexibility to ensure that overlaps are avoided. Not only does it allow the OEP and courts to decide on the meaning of the exemption to the OEP’s remit on a case-by-case basis; it accounts for any future changes to relevant legislation that may cause overlap between the two bodies. The Information Commissioner’s Office will still have the remit to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals.
I hope that answers the noble Lord’s questions and I ask that he withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has spent just three minutes on this crucial part of the Bill. I will not try to respond now; I will take advice on what he said, but we will no doubt come back to this issue on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
We come to the group beginning with Amendment 110. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Clause 43: Meaning of “natural environment”
Amendment 110
The Earl of Caithness
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, we change topics. We leave behind the OEP, important though that was, and move on to Chapter 3, “Interpretation of Part 1”, which is equally crucial to the success of the Bill. I am extremely grateful for the support for my Amendment 110 from my noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
Clause 43 relates to the meaning of “natural environment”. It begins by saying:
“In this Part the ‘natural environment’ means”
and it lists various things, but there is a glaring loophole or error in the Bill because it misses out the soil. My Amendment 110 seeks to insert, after “habitats” in Clause 43(b), the words “including the soil”. Habitats depend totally on the soil. It was the 32nd President of the United States of America, Franklin Roosevelt, who wrote to all the state governors, after the terrible Dust Bowl there, that:
“A nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.”
The destruction of soil is a worldwide problem but it also affects the UK. Many countries in the world have the same problem. We have not looked after our soil in the way that we should and we are now paying the price for that.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
It is always a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Caithness. In many ways, my Amendment 112, which I am speaking to, echoes exactly what his is and in some respects may be regarded as superfluous.
My amendment is a simple one that merely adds the word “soil” to what the natural environment means. As we know, the Bill currently states that
“the ‘natural environment’ means—(a) plants, wild animals and other living organisms, (b) their habitats, (c) land … air and water, and the natural systems, cycles and processes through which they interact”.
As we have just heard so eloquently from my noble friend Lord Caithness, however, it misses out what I—and I am sure many other noble Lords—feel is the very core of our natural environment. Too often soil, which is pivotal to biodiversity and a functioning environment, is considered as an afterthought or as an inert substrate. It needs to be specifically referenced to ensure that targets and set policies are developed and funding applied. The lack of such an approach means that we may not deal with issues such as soil health, which is generally acknowledged to be in pretty poor shape, as we have just heard.
Soil health problems in the UK’s 700-plus soils vary across types, regions, geography and weather. No clear figure exists for the health of the UK’s soils, but a 2020 review estimated that only 30% to 40% of Europe’s soils are healthy. We can be confident that soil degradation is a huge problem across the UK and that urgent action is needed. Average organic matter levels are declining, especially in arable soils. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, soil was inserted into the Agriculture Act and it is very important that we put it in this Bill too, because it is critical for agriculture, biodiversity and other reasons.
Organic matter is critical to soil health, biodiversity, productivity and carbon storage. UK soils store an estimated 10 billion tonnes of carbon, dwarfing the 0.2 billion tonnes stored in UK vegetation. In 2013, soil carbon loss was estimated to amount to 4% of UK greenhouse gas emissions, higher than for many industrial and energy sources combined. Losses appear highest from peat and arable soils.
Soil erosion remains a critical problem. A 2020 review of studies found that 16% of arable farms had soil erosion so high that it was a threat to future food production. Increases in growing maize is a major problem. A survey of over 3,000 maize-growing sites in south-west England found that 75% of fields could not let rainwater in deeper than the upper soil layers, such that a heavy rainfall could wash the soil away. Sedimentation—linked to soil erosion on land—is a major problem in 5% of UK rivers.
We must not forget that peat soils are widely damaged. Around 8% of deep peat soils in the UK are being wasted, eroding or are bare. Upland peat soils are damaged from nitrogen deposition, overgrazing, drainage and, of course, burning. Lowland peat soils suffer rapid erosion from extraction and pump drainage for cultivation. Cultivated deep peat in the lowland fens, where a third of England’s fresh vegetables are grown, is also rapidly eroding. As peat soils have dried out, the land has sunk, exposing it to flooding from rising sea levels caused by the climate crisis. Many peat topsoils will disappear within decades unless they are rewetted so that peat formation can rapidly build them up again. Soil life has suffered.
Unlike terrestrial and aquatic wildlife, our soil life has not been well monitored. However, we know that many of the chemical actives applied to farm soils negatively affect soil microbial functions and biochemical processes, altering soil communities and diversity. Combined with ploughing, reducing crop diversity, acidification and losses in organic matter—a key source of food—soil life is being impacted. Research suggests that reduced soil life can affect crop growth, development and disease incidence, potentially resulting in a negative cycle of more agrochemicals being needed.
Only today, in a timely contribution, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee, under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend Philip Dunne, published its report Biodiversity in the UK: Bloom or Bust? The report highlights the importance of soil in its summary, where it states as one of its recommendations:
“We support the recommendations of the Natural Capital Committee that the development of soil indicators should be fast-tracked; that a shadow target for soil health should be established urgently; and that a legally-binding target for soil health ought to be established as soon as monitoring data allows. Healthy soils should be a priority outcome for the Environmental Land Management Schemes, so as to encourage farmers to adopt beneficial agri-environmental practices.”
The simple addition of a word would ensure that soil is properly considered as a priority alongside air, water and biodiversity within environmental plans, and of course by the OEP.
The amendment from my noble friend Lord Caithness is probably superior to mine, but I am not fussed about that. I am rather simple; I just like one word here and there. But, whatever it is, the Government have to take serious note and insert “soil” into the Bill.
Finally, before I metaphorically sit down, I also support Amendment 113, which has yet to be spoken to by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. It would ensure that the marine environment is included. I have a slight difficulty on whether it is necessary when talking about marine wildlife to particularly include marine mammals. I think they should be included anyway in the whole general thing, but I will leave that for others to discuss. I hope that we can insert “soil” into this Bill.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge and I am grateful to him for his support in principle for Amendment 113. I pay huge tribute to his work and his interest in birds—of the feathered variety—whereas I have to confess that water is my element. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for their support for Amendment 113. I thank the Marine Conservation Society for its support and briefing as well.
Why is Amendment 113 necessary? The Bill at present makes only a passing reference to the marine environment. I wonder why that is the case, particularly as our seas represent over 50% of the environment of England. Anyone who has even a passing interest in the work of David Attenborough on plastics in our seas and oceans will realise how it has captured the public imagination, in this regard.
My noble friend Lord Caithness spoke eloquently on why soil should be included, as did my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. In his Amendment 113B, my noble friend Lord Caithness goes on to say why
“terrestrial … marine, and … other aquatic ecosystems”
should be included. I believe that Part 1, and indeed the Bill in its entirety, is relevant to the marine environment, and I would welcome the greater clarity of putting “the marine environment” into the Bill, in this regard.
I also acknowledge that, in replying to a Parliamentary Oral Question either a week or 10 days ago, my noble friend Lord Goldsmith acknowledged that there is a “tension”, to use his word, between inshore fisheries and offshore wind farms. So my question to him is: how will that tension be eased and resolved if we do not place, as I have chosen to phrase it here,
“the sea, the marine environment and maritime wildlife, sea mammals, flora and fauna”
on the face of the Bill?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because they have proposed additions to the definition of the natural environment. When I started looking at this, I thought, “Well, everything’s covered anyway”. In debates on many previous Bills, Ministers have always said that they do not like lists because you always leave something out of lists, and that is serious. But the arguments from the three noble Lords who have spoken indicate an obvious concern that water and soil are not in fact included in this definition. I hope that the Minister, when he responds, will confirm that they are, and maybe even add them in.
My small addition is to suggest that “ecosystem” should be included as well because it covers everything that is in paragraphs (a) to (c) of Clause 43 but also soil and the maritime area—I shall come on to water later—and, I think, it goes wider. On the role of ecosystems, the definition that I found included this:
“A community is created when living and nonliving components in an environment are in conjunction with each other.”
The components, including “biotic and abiotic components”, “interact as a system” to form an ecosystem. So, the word “ecosystem” covers everything. I am not suggesting that the Minister should leave out anything that is there at the moment or not include soil or water, but I think that there is an argument for having something that talks about the conjunction between them and the way they work together. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s comments on that.
I also want to speak briefly to Amendments 194AB and 194AC in this group, which are in my name. They also cover the issue of ecosystems but relate to the condition of planning permissions in Clause 92. I think that “water” should also be included in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and maybe “rivers” as well. That is something we should discuss.
A week or two ago, I came across an example that illustrates why this is quite important. I understood that the Port of London Authority had applied to extend the jurisdiction—that is, ownership of or responsibility for—of its water, as I suppose it is, by changing the definition from a limit of mean high water to mean high water springs. Many noble Lords may think, “Well, what does that matter?” In terms of the maritime definition, it is actually a height difference of about 50 centimetres. When you have a river wall, like we have out here, 50 centimetres is probably neither here nor there, but I am told that the extent of the River Thames—the tidal part of it—covers 190 miles of riverbank. On the bits that are pretty flat, as opposed to vertical walls, the extension would have allowed the PLA to extend its planning development potential quite dramatically. There was a big campaign against this at the last general meeting of the PLA; in the end, it withdrew it. Obviously, I welcome that, but it does indicate the difference between and the challenge of biodiversity and ecosystems and the planning condition.
I have one more example. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, talked about offshore wind farms and things like that. A similar debate, which occasionally I get involved in, goes on regarding the role of marine conservation zones and what the boating and yachting community think that it wants. One is environment and the other is leisure. I got quite involved in debates about whether it is possible to have a marine conservation zone in the south-west, or even around the Isles of Scilly, to prevent any ships going there unless somebody had changed the route. This was all resolved, but it is an example of the importance of keeping biodiversity and ecosystems in mind when it comes to planning issues.
I am sure that we will talk about that much more, but this has been a very useful little debate. I hope that, when he comes to respond, the Minister will add in some of these extra suggestions to what we have in paragraphs (a) to (c) at the moment. I also hope that, if he says that he cannot do so, he will tell us why.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like to say a word or two on behalf of soil and in support of Amendment 110 from the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
We are often told how much of the earth’s surface is covered by water and how we must take care of it—and so we must. However, we are told less often that the remainder of the world is covered largely by soil—or was, until we decided to spread concrete and tarmac over huge sections of it. That includes motorways, airports, houses and factories—even putting slabs over our own front gardens so that we can park our car. This has taken huge quantities of soil out of commission, with deeply damaging effects on the environment. A layer of concrete not only creates drainage problems by removing the soil’s ability to absorb water, causing the massive problems of run-off and flooding; it also sterilises the soil, cutting off oxygen from all living organisms beneath it. Nobody has yet tried to measure what the cumulative effect of this is but it will be huge.
Soil that has remained untouched for long periods of time is hugely beneficial to all kinds of flora and fauna. Sadly, it is all too rare. This is why our ancient woodlands are so very precious. Although it may not look it at first glance, soil structure is relatively fragile, ranging as it does from heavy clay through loams to sandy soils, and from acid to alkaline. Its health is valuable not just for growing crops and grass to graze but for supporting countless other organisms, some beneficial and some less so. All were held in a natural balance before man’s intervention.
Soil’s value to agriculture and the importance of keeping it in good health were first recognised formally by the great agricultural reformers of the 17th and 18th centuries, most notably Turnip Townshend and Coke of Holkham. The Norfolk four-course rotation was introduced; it varied the types of crops grown over a four-year cycle, sometimes allowing land to lie fallow. The practice of nurturing the land persisted until relatively recently when the pressures to produce more and more from the same acreage grew, with spectacular results. Some cereal crops have increased fourfold, but with this intensification has come a change of attitude to the soil. It is simply—and to some extent understandably, with modern technology—seen purely as a medium for growing crops. Systematic rotation has long since gone. The same crop is sometimes taken off the same land year after year. Spraying against pests and diseases has become regular and routine. To turn the clock back would be very difficult, although some organic farmers are now trying.
Food is essential but many would argue that it is much too cheap. A bottle of milk can still cost less than a bottle of fizzy water. Supermarkets, incidentally, have a crucial role to play in this regard. The proportion of our income that we spend on feeding ourselves has dropped hugely. The old links that customers made between production and consumption have long since been broken, although locally grown produce is increasingly popular. New government environmental policies are forecast to take 21% of land out of agriculture. Arable land and grazing, once carefully drained and cultivated, is going to be turned into marsh and swamp. Where the food lost will come from, nobody has yet told us.
These are very difficult issues requiring much thought, but they will have to be faced one day. Otherwise, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, our soils will simply, through infertility, disease or flooding, no longer be able to provide what we expect and have too long taken for granted. If I may, I, too, wish to quote what President Roosevelt said in 1937 in response to the huge dust-bowls that had been created in America; the noble Earl has already done so, but I think that it sums up the situation. He said:
“A nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.”
That says it all.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, I once again refer to my interests: I chair the Cawood group, which has laboratories and analyses raw materials, including soil, and I am a trustee of Clinton Devon Estates.
Amendments 110 and 112 propose that “soil” is included in the meaning of the “natural environment” in Clause 43. I fully support the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, and the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham, who has just spoken. I do not mind which amendment is adopted, but, in my view, the positioning in Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, flows more naturally in the text, following the listing of “air and water”.
The key issue is that “soil” is listed as a key component of the “natural environment”, and it is unbelievable that it is not already included in this definition. How can
“plants, wild animals and other living organisms”
be included, when they cannot exist without depending on soil? Soil is as crucial as air and water and fundamental to support life on earth. The natural world depends on it.
When the Minister responded to Amendment 11 in an earlier debate, he rejected its call to have “soil quality” as a priority area within the Bill on the basis that to do so would involve setting a target and that the definition and descriptor of “soil quality” were still not resolved and were a work in progress. It would not be the first time that the definitions underpinning a Bill were incomplete, and that is no reason not to have it included. A definition of satisfactory soil quality that supports sustainable food production, identifies the essential microbial organisms and life within the soil, and determines the level of organic matter to optimise carbon sequestration will be agreed. This will be resolved.
From current analysis by Cawood, I know that the level of sequestered carbon varies enormously from field to field, never mind farm to farm or region to region. It is essential that we address this opportunity and realise the carbon storage potential that the soil offers. Indeed, in the light of climate change, we would be failing in our responsibility if we did not do so. I encourage the Minister to seriously consider introducing an amendment on this topic before Report to save time, in view of the weight of opinion in support of this subject.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Curry, with his deep scientific knowledge of agriculture and soils. I declare my interests: my family runs a livestock farm and owns a series of SSSIs in two areas of nature reserves.
In this clause, we get to define the extent and, where necessary, the boundaries of what we want the Bill to influence. On soils, I support my noble friend Lord Caithness’s Amendment 110, which is necessary because the government strategy for carbon sequestration is considerably dependent on the soil and peat. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will respond positively to either of these amendments.
I will produce a quote from a rather different angle: 300 years ago, in Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathan Swift expressed the old saying that
“whoever could make ... two blades of grass … grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country, than the whole race of politicians put together.”
That was in his day. This has inspired our farmers for 300 years. To me, it is an environmental principle, but in the Bill the Government have given us as their environmental principles a set of prohibitions, protections and penalties.
The judgment, from the measures contained in the Bill, is that that earlier principle has now gone too far. The protections listed will be necessary, but we need to be sure that our purpose is not simply to put all the processes of the countryside into decline. It would be nice if someone could come up with a phrase that would draw all our aspirations together and point the way forward. The outcome will hang on the wording in these clauses and what we interpret as the meaning of “natural environment”.
I support Amendment 113, in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh and the others who have signed it. This draws our attention to the whole marine biosphere, an area that is under great threat at the moment. It is essential that this is not overlooked. The various marine organisations are still drawing up their inventories of what is in the natural environment at present, and a great deal of expense and research will have to be dedicated to that area. I too served on the EU Environment Sub-Committee that my noble friend Lady McIntosh mentioned, and I contributed to the work that was put in. There are huge areas where we have hardly any information.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh spoke of the importance of the marine area to the UK. In December, Scotland published its latest marine assessment report, which has to be updated every three years and which, in turn, covers an area six times greater than the Scottish landmass—so biodiversity is a very important field for that Administration.
At the same time, the Bill will incorporate the policies of species abundance and the encouragement of biodiversity. We have spent so much time discussing targets. Given the role that mankind has taken upon itself over the centuries, targets are necessary. The Secretary of State can introduce almost unlimited targets under the Bill, but Clause 3 has a number of subsections that must be observed if the Secretary of State wishes to reduce them.
However, there is no requirement for the Secretary of State to pay any attention to taking actions if a crisis develops when one element becomes prolific or threatening and the need to cull numbers requires some urgency. The nearest experience that I have had did not have the urgency in question: it was decided that the deer population in the huge Queen Elizabeth Forest Park, which is next door to me, was well above what was good for forestry purposes and that it should be reduced to four deer per square kilometre. They then set about culling 4,000 deer out of this area, which is not something that I would readily support, but it was a necessary management action and is an indication of what might be required if proliferation becomes extreme. In the spirit of the Bill, it will always be preferable to employ nature-based solutions, but, if diseases or threats to biodiversity occur, we must be prepared to act in whatever way will be effective.
My noble friend Lord Caithness’s second amendment raises the important question of defining biodiversity. “Biodiversity” in the Bill seems limited to the abundance of species, particularly in Amendment 22, moved by my noble friend the Minister on day 2 of our deliberations. Amendment 113B would mean that attention could be given to how far biodiversity should be supported.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to offer the Green group’s support for all the amendments in this group, which have given us the opportunity of an important debate about what we are trying to save, what we are trying to protect and what we are trying to improve.
Amendment 110, in the names of the noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Shrewsbury, and my noble friend Lady Jones and myself, proposes that soil be regarded as a habitat. I will address it with Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Curry of Kirkharle, that it perhaps does not matter so much where “soil” appears; it needs to appear somewhere. I would suggest that a very simple solution which the department could implement easily would be to go through the Bill and look everywhere where “water” and “air” appear and add “soil”. I doubt that there would be many problems when one looked at the result. We are of course revisiting our debate on day 1 of this Committee—which now feels like quite a long time ago—about Clause 1 and an amendment in my name which would have added soil as an important target. It needs to be in all these places.
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, will forgive me if I pre-empt a little what she is perhaps going to say, but it is so important that it needs to be highlighted. I saw that she was speaking to the Secretary of State at Groundswell. During that discussion, it was said that soil health was perhaps the most important thing and would be the focus of the sustainable farming initiative. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us more about that; it would be very interesting. The Government themselves identify soil as a huge priority. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and many others have said, we are talking about how the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill fit together. The Agriculture Act provides directions on the methods of action; this Bill judges how successful it has been.
I have circulated to a number of noble Lords—I realise that I neglected to circulate it to the Minister, for which I apologise and I will fix it shortly—a briefing paper that I received from a number of farmers, academics and farm advisers on the difficulty of being paid for results in managing soil health. It makes an argument for payment for practice instead, with the three key things identified as minimising soil disturbance, maximising soil cover and maximising diversity of cover. All are clearly good things to work towards, but we need to measure how the results come out, and that has to be in the Bill.
Following the coverage from Groundswell, there was a lot of discussion and excitement about work done on worms. There is perhaps an argument for the number of worms per square metre being a very good measure. I am not putting that forward entirely as a serious proposal although it is certainly something to look at, but I would point the Minister to the publication last week of a volume entitled Advances in Measuring Soil Health, edited by Professor Wilfred Otten from Cranfield University. It is a real sign of how much this field is moving forward. That brings me back to our discussion on Clause 1, when the Minister, in arguing why soil should not be included in the clause, said that
“the Government are working collaboratively with technical experts to identify appropriate soil health metrics … it is a complicated business”—[Official Report, 21/6/21; cols. 94-95.]
and that they were looking to develop a healthy soils indicator as part of the 25-year environment plan. This is a matter of extreme urgency and focus, as identified by the Secretary of State; it cannot wait for something off into the far distance. A great deal of new work is available now; a great deal of ideas are available now. The first metric that we end up with may not be perfect, but we need a metric, and if that needs to be improved in future, so be it. It could be dealt with by regulation, as the Government so like to tell us.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I support the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, as well as that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, about soil, that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about ecosystems, and that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, about the oceans.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is absolutely right: I did interview the Secretary of State last week, who talked extensively about how the Government saw soil as a key part of future strategy and as being at the heart of both the Agriculture Act and the Environment Bill.
The thing about soil is that it is very small in our eyes, but in the soil’s eyes it is of course a factory and it has been described as a factory. In a tea-spoon of soil, you will probably get some thousands of species, some millions of individuals and about 100 metres of fungal thread. This is a world of major complexity and, every second that we are alive, this factory is performing a function that none of us could do. No scientist could take sunlight, air and all the nutrients in the soil and produce leaves, which produce trees. Look around this Chamber: everything in here, apart from the quarried stone, has come from a plant, has come from the soil. This leather has come from an animal that has fed on a plant; the carpet, probably from Axminster, and some sheep; my clothes; everything. Yet we call it “the dirt beneath our feet” and we stomp on it.
Once I got the image of a factory into my head, and the notion that there are all these people pulling levers and rushing up and down hills, it struck me that it was like being in a city, but a city on a completely different scale to how we live, so of course we ignore it. What has gone so tragically wrong with the soil in recent years is not so much the tinkering around but the deep ploughing and then the addition of heavy chemicals. It strikes me that you could think about it as like living in Homs or somewhere like that. Your buildings get bombed every other day or, in the case of the soil, two or three times a year. We have decided, since the green revolution of the 1950s, that deep ploughing was a really good idea because it let in the air. It was extremely fallacious science that is now completely accepted not to be right.
Look at agroecology. Where I was with the Secretary of State last week, we saw new devices that slice through the soil like pizza cutters, dropping in individual seeds, making minimal disruption and, as a consequence, needing minimal fertilisers and producing strong, healthy plants that also support biodiversity. We have done so many things wrong it is quite impossible to start to count them: the monocrops that kill the culture; the deep ploughing; the addition of chemicals—it is really astonishing—but the soil is truly phenomenal. It is the most amazing stuff. Give it a break, and it will come charging back with great health. I have to say to whichever noble Lord it was who said how long it takes to regrow, it really does not; it is really amazing. It will knit itself together, start co-operating and start not only giving us back the goods and services we want, but at the same time taking down the carbon.
As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, said, it seems quite astonishing that soil is not in the Bill, along with air and water; it should be. History is littered with examples. I do not know whether any noble Lord has been to Leptis Magna. It is a desert, but it is not that long ago, in the big history of things, that the Romans used to get three harvests a year from Leptis Magna. That is why they wanted north Africa. They had the most sophisticated systems for bringing water from the mountains; they had an amazing market with marble and they kept the water in tanks underneath to keep the vegetables cool and then they overfarmed it. But it was fine then, because they just packed their trunks—I do not know whether they had trunks then—and got on their oxen and went somewhere else, because there was always somewhere else. There is not anywhere else now. It is the same as when the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, says, “There is no such place as away.” You throw it away: where is that away? As Greenpeace says, we throw away our plastic and it ends up in Turkey. We throw away something and it ends up in that awful albatross. That makes my heart break too. We have to respect and adore these particular things.
The thing about the soil is that there are a lot of “don’ts”. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, says, “Don’t deep plough”, “Don’t put fertiliser on it”, “Keep cover crops on it.” Soil wants that; soil wants to work. We have to find intelligent ways to pay for this; we cannot just expect people to do it and not get anything back. They will get it back in advanced crops without having to pay for chemicals, but that will take a bit of time. Yes, indeed, people are using earthworms as a measure, but it is still a bit clumsy and a bit inexact. It is kind of fun, but there are some more sophisticated things that we can do.
I want to quickly address the necessity of understanding things as ecosystems. I do not know how many noble Lords know of Dr Suzanne Simard, but she is a Canadian forestry professor at British Columbia University. She grew up in the forest, became a logger and a forestry expert and at the age of 20 she was put to work by a forestry company in the north-west and her job was to clear-fell and then plant pine. After a bit, she looked at it and thought, “Why are these things dying over huge acres?” That was when we thought, “Survival of the fittest: get rid of everything else and everything will grow”, but in fact they died. They did not do well, they sort of struggled and some of them just fell apart. What she realised, and what she has now written about and become the world expert on, is that there is an extraordinary interconnection that goes on underground. We are only just beginning to learn about it. A tree will help out another tree if it is in trouble. It will send extra nutrients. It is quite magical. In the same way that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, was moved about the albatross, I am extremely moved about the power of the soil. I feel very strongly that it has to be at the heart of the Bill.
Finally, on the question of the oceans, not only did I see the Secretary of State last week, but the week before I saw the Minister for Food and Farming. We were in the West Country at an event and she was on her way to Brixham. She said to me, “This is going to be tricky, but 80% of the fish that comes in comes from bottom trawling.” Bottom trawling is just like ploughing: it is smashing through someone else’s home with absolutely no regard for those who live there. We would not smash through a field of cattle, just wipe them out and throw them all over the place; that is what we do every day. Some in this Chamber will have seen “Seaspiracy”. It is not a pleasant watch. You get the sense of how many fish get sacrificed in the by-catch. Please, Minister, find a way to put the sense of ecosystems and soil absolutely at the heart of how we assess our environment and take care of it, because we will fail otherwise.
Lord Cormack (Con)
It is a very real privilege, and I mean it, to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Hers was a splendid speech—one of many we have heard this afternoon—and she was so right in her references to bottom trawling. I may be the only Member of your Lordships’ House who sailed, in the old days, in a deep-sea trawler. I was the candidate for Grimsby at the time, in 1965, and I went up to the north coast of Norway in a trawler. That was proper fishing. It was fascinating, and the men who were there were among the bravest I have ever known. I represented a mining constituency later. That is another tough and appalling job, but at least the miner went home to his bed each night. The trawler-man was out for 18, 21 or 24 days, and it was extraordinary. That was what convinced me, and I have always been convinced, that we must look after our marine environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, who has put his name to my noble friend’s amendment and who will be winding up on it for his party, is bound to be sympathetic and enthusiastic. Of course, he chaired that session of the EU Environment Sub-Committee to which my noble friend Lady McIntosh referred in her speech. We heard some fairly disturbing things that day. Anybody who has watched “Blue Planet” knows that the isolated, moving incident of the albatross, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred, is just one of a million examples. It was a very graphic and good example, but there are so many—all of them caused by the careless distribution of our detritus across the world.
I am sure many noble Lords will know about Operation Neptune, where the National Trust sought to buy many miles of our coastline. It has been an operation that has lasted for some half a century now and has been extraordinarily successful. It has succeeded in preserving some of the most beautiful of our coastal areas—many of which, incidentally, were rather badly despoiled during the pandemic by careless visitors and worse than careless visitors. If we want to preserve our coastline, we must also preserve our marine environment, so I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Goldsmith will accept this amendment with enthusiastic alacrity or, if not, call a meeting to devise an amendment that he can accept with enthusiastic alacrity, because this, again, will come back on Report and we need to get it right.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare two interests—one as a member of the Commission on Food, Farming and the Countryside, and the other in the mental well-being of the Minister. We are picking on him and I feel deeply sorry for him, because he is between a rock and a hard place. This is another example of an amendment that, in a normal world, he would simply accept and we could all go home happy.
I support Amendments 110 and 112, which rightly specifically include “soil” in the definition of the natural environment. As other noble Lords have said, we have already touched on the importance of soils during our debate on a previous amendment. Indeed, many of our older Members of the House will remember Kenneth Williams who, in character, used to say in response to any question at all, “Arr, the answer lies in the soil.” He was right. However, for a period, with the exception of the organic movement, soil came to be regarded as nothing more than a handy medium for holding plants up, especially crops. It was nothing more complex. Of course, the pendulum has now swung and it is generally acknowledged that soils are complex ecosystems with huge importance for a whole range of things such as carbon storage, flood alleviation, crop health, biodiversity and water quality. Other noble Lords have gone through these.
It is true to say—the Commission on Food, Farming and the Countryside very much supports this—that agroecology and restorative agriculture, which focus on the importance of soils, are going to be vital components of the future of farming and food production. Of course, the mycorrhizal elements of soils are the telegraph systems for trees and plants and are capable of warning colleague trees and plants many metres away of attack by something nasty, so that they can prepare to repel boarders. Basically, soil is pretty cunning stuff. However, it has been the poor relation in terms of environmental action and safeguarding in the past, and more than one-third of the world’s soils are degraded. That is no less the case in this country, with factors such as erosion, sealing, compaction and contamination causing this deterioration.
I very much welcome the 25-year environment plan highlighting the need to manage all the UK’s soils sustainably by 2030. Signalling the importance of soils in environmental protection ought to be the purpose of including soil in the definition of the natural environment in this Bill. It is not just a practical step; it is a signalling step of the fundamental importance of soil.
The noble Lord, Lord Curry, reminded us that one of the reasons given by the Minister for not including soil was that to include it would require a target and the science was not there yet to do that. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said that we need a soil metric now and it does not need to be perfect. I very much agree with that. Indeed, that has been endorsed today by the report from the Environmental Audit Committee in the Commons, which stressed the need for the rapid development of soil indicators and for a shadow target to be established urgently in the meantime.
We are going to need soil metrics for a whole variety of purposes, not least because soil is going to be fundamental to the environmental land management schemes. Let us get on with it and establish a metric. It will not be right but it will be something, and it will be a huge signal of the importance of soils in this section of the Bill.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is not taking part in the debate so I call the noble Duke, Lord Wellington.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to Amendment 112, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. As other noble Lords have said, Amendment 110 has very much the same purpose.
In Clause 43, in defining what is meant by “natural environment”, mention is made of “land”, “air” and “water”, but I really do think that the Bill would be much improved by including “soil”. All scientists tell us how much the quality of soil has been degraded in this country in recent years. There is an increasing risk of erosion from flooding. There is an increasing occurrence of compaction caused by the regular passing of heavy agricultural machinery. There is a decline in organic matter in the soil, brought about by modern farming methods and the use of chemical fertilisers, insecticides and herbicides. I am sure that the new environmental land management schemes will indeed encourage farming methods that will avoid this steady and continuous degradation. Let us hope they will go further and encourage and support farming systems that restore soil quality. However, in the meantime, I encourage the Minister to accept either Amendment 112 or Amendment 110, which would demonstrate that the Government intend to take very seriously the question of soil quality and to include it in the various proposals to improve the natural environment.
I turn briefly to Amendment 194AC in this same group, which deals with biodiversity gain in planning. Of course, I would be minded to support any improvement in biodiversity in rivers and lakes as a result of any new planning application. I must say that I am doubtful whether it can really be practical to place on all developers an obligation to demonstrate on each occasion a biodiversity gain in water. Surely, connection to a wastewater system that will not create any increased risk of sewage discharges in the adjacent river system should be a condition for all developers. The most important point for improving aquatic biodiversity is to reduce in the short term and eventually eliminate discharges that pollute our rivers. Therefore, although I know it is well intentioned, I personally could not support Amendment 194AC.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, we have had some really good literary contributions. My favourite was probably about Kenneth Williams from the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone; we also had a number of others. When the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talked about the dust-bowl, I thought of when I was quite young—an A-level student, I think—and I read John Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath. Even today, that brings back an image. I could see that novel as a movie in my mind about that dust-bowl during the depression of the 1930s in middle America where, because of soil erosion and degradation caused by wind, there was a huge exodus in the United States to urban areas and a failure of the farming system and those ecosystems. That is a lesson for us.
One of the things that struck me when the 25-year environment plan came out—that was what, five years ago?—was that, at that moment, it seemed the Government had suddenly discovered soil for the first time. The great advocate at that time, who particularly seemed to have discovered soil, was Michael Gove, the then Environment Secretary. I ask my Liberal Democrat colleagues to put their ear muffs on for a moment: I thought that Michael Gove was an absolutely excellent Secretary of State for the Environment because he brought all these issues to the fore. He had guts, he was bold and I am sure that, if he were still in the position, we would have rather a bolder Bill than we have before us at the moment. Needless to say, I was less keen on the rest of his career, so I will stop there.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall, was absolutely right about the breadth of what we mean by soil. Piedmont soils are something we have to be incredibly careful about in this country. I was privileged, two or three weeks ago, to see peat restoration on Bodmin Moor, which was brought about by a consortium of organisations—public and private sector and water companies—as part of bringing back a huge area of peatland to hydrate that whole area. I always thought we had enough rain in Cornwall to keep the whole of the ecosystem going, but you could see the degradation there. That team had worked in Dartmoor and further north and west as well. This is really important. Whether the Minister says soil is somehow included in these definitions, it is absolutely clear that it is right to give it the emphasis by including it within these definitions. I was thinking of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and Gulliver’s Travels, which I had not noticed, I must admit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, used the word “urgent”. The 25-year environment plan is brilliant in terms of laying out the issues and what we need to do but the implementation of so many of these things has not been good, as the Audit Commission pointed out strongly. Urgency is something that we can maybe put back into this Bill now. Many Members—including the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who is well known for his agricultural knowledge and experience—have come out strongly on the need to do that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. It has clearly demonstrated the strength of feeling about the need to improve Clause 43 to resolve the omissions in the definition of the natural environment, which we have all been looking at. In many ways, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, summed it up when she said that we need to decide what we are trying to save, what we are trying to protect and what we are trying to improve. She gave a very moving example of why this really matters.
When the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, introduced his amendment he talked about the glaring hole in the Bill. I think everyone would agree with him, and with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. Both amendments talk about the need to include soil in the definition of “natural environment”. Headlines have warned us that the state of our soil is now a serious threat to the environment and to our ability to grow crops, but we also know that good-quality soil can help to save the planet. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, just mentioned Michael Gove, who, when he was Defra Secretary of State back in 2017, said that
“no country can withstand the loss of its soil and fertility.”
He was correct.
The noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, talked about the huge importance of the health of our soil, and how it is critical for our biodiversity and the future of our agriculture, because we fundamentally rely on it. Soil produces 95% of our food, be it the crops we eat or the grasses and other plants that feed our animals. It also stores an extraordinary amount of carbon —three times the amount in the atmosphere and twice the amount in trees and forests. Although soil can store—or sequester—carbon, we also know that it can lose it when it is degraded. The loss of carbon in poor soils contributes to the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which we know is one of the main causes of climate change.
It has been estimated that there could be 50,000 species of microorganism in just 1 gram of soil. Crucially, this rich “soil web” of underground life creates an open structure. It allows rainwater to seep into the ground, storing moisture for plants and crops to grow well, even in times of drought. It also prevents flooding, which is an important function of global warming. Further extreme and uncertain rainfall is becoming more prevalent in the UK. As someone who lives in Cumbria, I am all too well aware of this.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talked about the amount of topsoil we lose every year—3 million tonnes. He rightly said that we simply cannot afford to continue in the way we are. He also made the important point, as did other noble Lords, that the Environment Bill and the Agriculture Act need to work together to get the outcomes we need.
As we have heard, the Environment Bill currently lists land, air and water, and the natural systems, cycles and processes through which they interact, but there is no specific mention of soil. We on this side of the Committee believe that this is an important omission, so we support the amendments in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, to specifically include soil in the Bill.
We have also been debating the extent to which the marine environment is provided for in the Bill and how it is not clear enough. The marine environment must be seen as an integral part of the process of environmental conservation. Our legislation includes substantial activity to enable environmental protection and conservation to take place in these zones, but, as other noble Lords have said, this is not always effective enough. So, in addition to the need for the marine environment to be included in the Bill’s scope, Clause 43 needs to be amended to make it explicit that the “natural environment” includes the marine environment.
Amendment 113 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, would expand this definition. I thank the noble Baroness for her clear explanation of why the amendment is needed. The contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, was also very powerful as to why we need to look after our marine environment. The Explanatory Notes indicate that the definition extends to the marine environment, as well as to terrestrial and water environments, but although Explanatory Notes are often helpful for providing information as to intention, they add nothing whatever to, or take nothing away from, the actual legislation in front of us. For legal clarity, we believe that this should be stated in the Bill. For this reason, we support Amendment 113.
My noble friend Lord Berkeley talked about why biodiversity gains should also include water. The links between the water sector and biodiversity involve the impacts of the sector on biodiversity and the benefits the sector can receive from the ecosystem services—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that I have now said “ecosystem services”—provided by biodiversity. The water sector really should have a direct interest in safeguarding biodiversity both for its own use and for that of others. Well-functioning ecosystems—forests, grasslands, soils, rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands, aquifers; I could go on—all influence the availability of water and its quality. They are also vital to meet water management goals such as water storage and flow regulation, filtering, and flood and drought protection, among others.
I am sure that the Minister has heard the strong support for the amendments, particularly for the inclusion of soil, although the marine environment is just as important. I look forward to hearing from him.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate. This first definition of the natural environment is deliberately broad, and includes both the living, such as plants and wild animals, and non-living, such as land, air and water, elements of the environment. To be comprehensive, it also includes the natural systems, cycles and processes through which the elements of the natural environment interact. The difficulty is that if we were to add to the Bill matters already covered by the definition it would cast into doubt anything not specifically included. However, I hope that I can provide reassurance on all the points raised by noble Lords.
I agree with the intent behind Amendments 113A, 113C to 113E, 194AB and 194AC from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Clearly, our environmental governance framework must protect the ecosystems that make up our natural environment. Clause 43 makes it clear that the systems, cycles and processes through which the elements listed in paragraphs (a) to (c) interact are a fundamental part of the natural environment. This definition therefore already includes ecosystems, as referenced in the Explanatory Notes at paragraph 371, page 59. Regarding Amendments 113C to 113E, as the Bill’s definition of environmental protection refers back to the definition of the natural environment, it is also not necessary to specifically mention ecosystems in Clause 44.
Regarding Amendments 110 and 112 from my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Randall respectively, the Government of course recognise the fundamental importance of healthy soils to a thriving natural environment. Both my noble friends made powerful cases. It may not be the most glamorous of environmental subjects, but it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of soil. I was struck by the teaspoon factory analogy from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which I have no doubt will stick with me.
I will make a couple of points. Outside of the Bill, a number of big levers are being introduced that will have a direct bearing on the health of our soil. A number of noble Lords mentioned the environmental land management system—a shift away from, in effect, subsidising the conversion of land to farmable land, no matter the value of that land beforehand, to a system where all payments are conditional on the delivery of public goods, such as restoration of the soil and good management generally of ecosystems.
In addition, our tree action plan is backed up by the £640 million Nature for Climate fund, a major part of which will be encouraging landowners, through very generous incentives, to either plant up or naturally regenerate land either side of England’s waterways, with a view to boosting the biodiversity value of these already biodiverse and valuable places, but also to slowing water and cleaning the water that eventually makes it into our waterways in numerous different magical ways. In addition, we have our peatland plan, which we will debate at another point.
My noble friend Lord Caithness asked me to answer his question about the research being conducted by Defra into soil reconstruction. Although I cannot give him a detailed answer now—I will ask my colleague, Rebecca Pow, to write to him with a proper answer—I can say that today we are publishing details of the first options under the sustainable farming incentive, which will be open to farmers eligible for the basic payment scheme. We have decided to start with soil health since, as so many noble Lords said, that is where everything connected with successful farming begins.
Regarding the Environmental Audit Committee report—I apologise, I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned it—we are developing a healthy soils indicator, a soil structure monitoring method and a soil health monitoring scheme to help land managers and farmers track the health of our soils over time and the impact of some of the policies I just mentioned.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting debate of just over an hour and a half. I have to say that I was saddened by my noble friend Lord Framlingham: when he started talking about how much soil had been lost to development, he did not mention HS2. We know my noble friend’s thoughts on HS2, and I thought that might well be top of his list—but it is in there too, I am sure. I have received a lot of support for my amendment. I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge; I do not really mind whose amendment wins at the end of the day. The important thing is that we get it in the Bill.
I am very grateful for my noble friend the Minister’s reply to me. There were some very good things in what he said, and we seem to have hit a good day to discuss soil, with the announcements that are going to be made by his fellow Minister. As for his final remark to me, that soil is already covered in the Bill as it stands, that is the same reply we had during the passage of the Agriculture Bill. We put soil on the face of that Bill and this Bill must tie up with it.
The brief from the department has a strangely familiar ring, even though it was 25 years ago. I seem to recognise quite a lot of the wording my noble friend used.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, mentioned the good work done on soil by my right honourable friend Michael Gove, who was Secretary of State. I think it would be wrong not to mention the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in this debate. I remember that when my noble friend Lord Gardiner of Kimble was taking the Agriculture Bill through, he referred to the “Krebs amendment” when it came to soil. It is a pity that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is not with us.
This leads me to a general point. My noble friend the Minister said that the “business end” of a Bill is done on Report. That never used to be the case in this House. We used to divide a lot in Committee, and we got rid of a lot of amendments that way. I am really very worried about this Bill now. There has been no ground given by my noble friend, and we are not even halfway through the Bill. I have no doubt that we are going to be under very severe time constraints on Report and at Third Reading because of the urgency to get this Bill on to the statute book before 1 November and the COP in Glasgow. We are, in effect, going to have a guillotine put over our heads, and there is an awful lot of stuff coming back. I tell my noble friend that this amendment is coming back too. I say to him and my noble friend the Whip: there must be some way we can progress this slightly better than by leaving everything to Report. I want a good Bill and I want the House to work well. I am not trying to be obstructive, but the way it is going will cause a lot of problems in September and October. I think there is a better way for us to get the Bill going at the moment.
With that, I thank everybody who took part. I thank my noble friend but, again, warn him that I will be back with this amendment. In the meantime, I will discuss it with my noble friend Lord Randall to see in which of the two places in the Bill it ought to go. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 113F. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Clause 45: Meaning of “environmental law”
Amendment 113F
“(c) has regard to the provisions of the Aarhus Convention (UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters which entered into force on 30 0ctober 2001).”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful, my Lords, and I will not test the patience of the House to any great extent.
I have taken the precaution of sharing the briefing I have received from the Bar Council, which has helped me in preparing this amendment, so I hope my noble friend may be able to consider many of the technical details at more leisure than we have this evening. This debate, although not dissimilar, is different from our earlier debate on the group of amendments starting with Amendment 108A. It is really to ask a very simple question of my noble friend as to why previous incarnations of the papers preceding the draft of the Bill indicated that we might be incorporating the Aarhus convention into the Bill. There is disappointment, particularly among legal practitioners, that it is not now included.
I should declare an interest that I studied at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, although not environmental law. I embarked on a thesis looking at anti-trust and competition law in the European Union, particularly joint ventures. That is my unfinished masterpiece, to which I shall no doubt return.
Clause 45(1) limits the definition to “any legislative provision” which
“is mainly concerned with environmental protection, and … is not concerned with an excluded matter.”
The Aarhus convention, despite being concerned with environmental issues, justice and information, obviously does not fall within the term
“mainly concerned with environmental protection”.
So the amendment I have put before the Committee this evening might make better sense if it read as I have set out on the Order Paper, but with allowance at the end for
“any subsequent legislation that supersedes it or incorporates its provisions.”
I will not rehearse all the benefits of the Aarhus Convention, but highlight just one or two. As I mentioned, the Government seemed to indicate that it would be incorporated. There are many reasons to do so. The convention adopts a rights-based approach in its Article 1. It sets out minimum standards to be achieved and prohibits discrimination against persons seeking to exercise their rights under the convention. The main thrust of the obligations contained in the convention is towards public authorities, which strikes a chord, as the Environment Bill is for the first time extending responsibilities to public bodies.
The convention includes institutions of the European Union including, inter alia, the European Commission, the Council and the European Environment Agency, and it sets out access to environmental information, which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, set out in some detail, so I shall not rehearse that. Finally, in addition to access to justice in environmental matters, I am very taken by the fact that, under the Aarhus convention, the UK is required to complete a national implementation report every three years.
I thank the Bar Council for setting out what is important to sign up to the Aarhus convention. Can I tacitly assume that we are applying the Aarhus convention, otherwise known as the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, which entered into force on 30 October 2001, or can I draw the conclusion that the Government have turned their back and do not intend to apply that convention for the purposes of the Bill? This is intended as a probing amendment to find out the legal status of the Aarhus convention—I am using the Danish pronunciation, obviously—for the purposes of the Bill. When those few words, I look forward to hearing my noble friend’s response.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, briefly, I offer my support to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and thank her for tabling it and for sharing the very useful Bar Council briefing. I shall just draw a couple of points from that and make an additional point of my own.
One point to draw from that briefing is that there is a broad definition of environmental information within the Aarhus convention. The briefing rather weighs on some of our earlier debates, noting that it includes a non-exhaustive list of elements of the environment: air, water and soil. It also includes cultural sites and built structures, which very much weighed on a debate on day three perhaps—it all blurs—but one that we had earlier on the inclusion of culture within the frame of the Bill, for which noble Lords on all sides of the Committee strongly argued.
I also wanted to draw attention to the other point of the Aarhus convention, which says that
“public authorities may not withhold information, except for”—
and then follows what one would think of as a fairly standard list of exemptions. There is a very important restriction on those exemptions, which is that
“commercial confidentiality may not be invoked to withhold information that is relevant to the protection of the environment”.
Given the level of privatisation of so many aspects of our management of our environment—water companies come to mind most clearly, but there are many others—that may be a very important protection to ensure that this is fully included and complied with. It is worth noting that we are talking about an international convention to which we signed up, but we have recently had a lot of encounters in which the Government do not seem to regard themselves as being bound by international law and matters to which they have signed up.
My final point is the real, life-and-death seriousness of this. I shall refer to a case to which many people, including my noble friend, have referred to previously, which is the tragic death of nine-year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. I want to quote just one sentence from the coroner’s conclusion, which said:
“There was a lack of information given to Ella’s mother that possibly contributed to her death.”
Very often, when people are thinking about information about the environment being available, they are thinking in broad public health terms—they are thinking of campaigners, whom the Green Party is often supporting, fighting big issues. We are also talking about matters of life and death, and people being able to protect themselves and their children if information is available to them.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for allowing us to have this brief debate. She has rightly raised the fact that the OEP should have some continuing role in monitoring and factoring in our obligations under international environmental law. These obligations, including Aarhus, still exist despite us leaving the EU—and these are not technical questions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, as just illustrated so vividly. If the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, it would be helpful if they could spell out how the role of the OEP and its enforcement functions with regard to our international obligations will appear in the Bill. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s response.
However, since I have the floor, I briefly echo the concerns of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about all the business on the Bill ending up at Report. I just say very kindly to the Minister that, in the past, it has been a much more iterative process. It is really not very helpful that the Minister seems to be giving us a blanket no to all the amendments we are debating. Normally, there is a little more give and take. Everyone has their own way of doing things, and he must develop his own style, but I fear that he is storing up more problems than is necessary at Report if he does not take the Chamber with him. This might just be a matter of tone, but I give him just a little helpful advice about how we might proceed.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for Amendment 113F and reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully committed to the important aims of the Aarhus convention and fulfilling our obligations under this agreement.
The definition of environmental law in the Environment Bill has been designed with the primary purpose of defining the scope of the OEP. The OEP’s remit is to oversee the implementation of domestic legislation, rather than international law. Separate mechanisms exist to regulate compliance with international agreements.
Where the OEP determines a complaint to be outside its scope and considers that the complaint is regarding a failure to comply with the convention, the OEP would be expected to advise the complainant to approach the Aarhus convention compliance committee. This committee considers complaints related to obligations under the Aarhus convention, which is international law, and submits recommendations to the full meeting of the parties.
I assure my noble friend that where the provisions of the Aarhus convention have been given effect in UK law and meet the definition of environmental law, they will fall within the remit of the OEP. The OEP will consider which legislation falls within the definition on a case-by-case basis.
There are, of course, areas in which, appropriately, provisions implementing the convention may not be included in the OEP’s remit. For example, under Clause 45(2)(a) provisions on the
“disclosure of or access to information”
are specifically excluded from the definition of environmental law and therefore from the OEP’s remit. This is to avoid overlap with the role of the Information Commissioner’s Office, as we discussed in one of our earlier debates. Amending the definition as proposed would therefore result in confusion, including over the functions of the OEP and the Information Commissioner’s Office.
In response to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on air pollution, Defra makes air pollution information available through a range of channels. It also informs a network of charities, including the Asthma UK and British Lung Foundation partnership, the British Heart Foundation, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust and the British Thoracic Society, when elevated air pollution levels are forecast to ensure that information reaches the most vulnerable. It will not be bullet-proof or foolproof, but the attempt is there and the mechanism is there to provide that information to those who need it. More broadly, there are several ways in which the public can access air quality information, including through mainstream media, air quality alert systems and dedicated websites, such as those of the UK air and health charities and numerous campaigns. There are a number of alert systems, including in Manchester and London, that people can sign up to, often funded by local authorities. As I say, this is not a bullet-proof or foolproof process. Like everyone in the Committee’s, my heart goes out to Ella’s family. What happened to her absolutely needs to be the basis for all kinds of lessons learned and adds another layer of urgency to the work we are doing through this Bill in relation to air quality.
This group concludes the governance part of the Bill. I have appreciated the interest of all parties in the Committee in this important part of the Bill. I conclude by reaffirming that my door is open to continued discussions on these and other essential issues.
Before I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment, I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. There are plenty of areas in which I expect the Bill will improve, but it is not within the gift of a Minister unilaterally to decide which amendments should be accepted. I do not think there is any doubt in the department I work for that there are areas in which the Bill can and should be improved. Plenty of very helpful amendments and suggestions have been put forward by the Committee. With that, I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
I have received no requests to speak after the Minister, so I move to the mover, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all those who have spoken in the debate, so movingly in the case of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I welcome the opportunity to have pressed my noble friend in this regard.
I will revert back to practitioners at the Bar Council to ask whether they are completely satisfied with this. From their briefing, my understanding is that there are already similar exclusions in the Aarhus convention. I congratulate my noble friend on his pronunciation. I am extremely impressed and I think we will be speaking Danish together before we even know it. There are similar exclusions to our own freedom of information as exist under the Aarhus convention.
The subsection (2)(a) to which my noble friend referred is a blanket exclusion about which I have some fear. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, highlighted that we need to be very clear about what is being excluded. If it is information that could make a life or death change to someone like the parent of Ella, it is very important that we are cognisant of that and try to work within the law as much as possible.
I support both my noble friend Lord Caithness and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I am grateful for her support for the sentiments behind this amendment. When my noble friend Lady Bloomfield and I joined, which was the same year, it was around the time that the procedures here changed. I welcome the fact that in Committee we can have much more probing and lengthier debates, but there was possibly some merit, on a case-by-case basis, to disposing of some of those amendments that could possibly be accepted by the Government or easily disposed of either way, rather than storing up problems when the Government have given us such a tight deadline, as they have. If we can work together and find a middle way on this, that would be very helpful indeed.
With those remarks and the fact that I will go back and take further advice from the Bar Council, I am delighted to have had the debate but beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for new Clause (Environmental targets: species abundance).
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 119. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 119
“(1A) When making regulations imposing producer responsibility obligations, the relevant national authority must have regard to the public interest in such obligations being operational by 1 January 2024.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that the new packaging producer responsibility system is in place for the beginning of 2024, given that the final compliance year of the current package will end on 31 December 2023.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we now move on to the next part of the Bill, dealing with resource efficiency. I very much look forward not only to the coming debate on my amendments but to the debates on a number of groups in the days to come. For now, in moving Amendment 119 in my name, I add my support to the other amendments in this group.
Amendment 119 is simple but important. It adds to Schedule 4 the requirement that a new extended producer responsibility scheme should be introduced by 1 January 2024. It sounds technical, but it is a fundamental part of delivering a circular economy.
This new charging system will place a powerful onus on manufacturers to ensure that they design their products so that they can be re-used, dismantled or recycled at the end of life. It will move waste up the hierarchy and cut down on the unnecessary use of resources. It will ensure that they pay the full cost of disposal of their packaging, which will encourage them to cut down on unnecessary packaging, and it will provide additional charges for materials which cannot be recycled. It will include requirements on labelling to ensure consumers are clearly directed as to how to dispose of the item. It would also, potentially, provide additional charges on producers of materials which are routinely littered. It would indeed ensure that the polluter pays. I know these issues are very dear to the hearts of your Lordships. Incidentally, I tabled a number of Written Questions last week about the absolute scandal of Amazon destroying millions of items of unused stock simply because they did not want to pay to store them. I hope a scheme such as this would catch Amazon in its net as well.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
My Lords, there can be few more unpleasant jobs than clearing fatballs and wet wipes out of congested sewers. It is done underground, often in sweltering conditions. It is a terribly hard job, and in many ways it should be quite unnecessary.
In my amendment—which the Minister and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, might agree could be a point at which the Minister will actually say, “I agree and I will do something”—I have simply written that people who sell wet wipes and other non-flushable items should, as was done with tobacco advertising in the early stages, be obliged to print on their packaging the words “Do not flush”. This is not a revolutionary amendment. It is one that I know the water companies would greatly welcome. I am a great critic of the water companies in many respects, but it would help them in their task.
It does not seem to me that the amendment would move any great laws. It would just mean that the Government has to tell people who sell non-flushable items such as baby wipes that on each package there should be the words “Do not flush”. I myself have looked at several packages. On some you can find the words printed very small while on others you cannot find them at all. I think the Minister might welcome this opportunity to get up and say, “Yes, that’s a good idea. I will take it away and look at it.”
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lord Bradshaw. We have a history of working together that goes back many years. I think the last time was to do with Railtrack, which is a million miles away from Amendment 120A, which I shall speak to today, concerning septic tanks and their management.
I have some experience of this, going back a while to when I was a much younger married man with a small family who had moved into a rather old but pleasant Edwardian house on the edge of the country. When there is a sewer in the main road outside, naturally one assumes that one’s house is connected to it, but I discovered one morning, when an unexpected hole appeared in the back lawn, that there was no mains drainage at all, but a septic tank. As I say, I was a young man with a family and not a lot of money, and I had to get a second mortgage in order to pay for the drainage works to connect up to the sewer in the road and explain to my friends and neighbours that it was I who had caused traffic lights to be put up to cope with the construction works.
That is not to say that I have a particular bias against septic tanks—an issue that we will return to later in the Bill—but this amendment is to do with something very similar to my noble friend Lord Bradshaw’s point, which is that caustic household cleansers, when used too liberally, or even at all, you might argue, to cope with the cleansing of waste into septic tanks in domestic homes, can cause damage. What can happen so easily is that chlorine-based or similar bleach-based domestic cleaners prevent the tanks from functioning at all, and the result can be that you end up with little better than open defecation. So the purpose of the amendment is to try to reduce, and in due course eliminate, the discharge of untreated or poorly treated sewage into our rivers, watercourses and aquifers.
This occurs mainly in rural communities that remain—as I found out to my cost—unconnected to mains sewers, and are reliant on septic tanks and cesspits. Those are often inefficient and poorly maintained. Not only can septic tanks poison our rivers, streams and other watercourses as a result, but in areas with chalk aquifers they can poison the groundwater as well, often causing irreversible long-term harm.
Elsewhere in our European continent, several countries have not only banned this form of drainage but replaced it with more sensible and rational mains drainage systems. I would like to think that we would be trying to catch up with them. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is an important group of amendments, ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I completely share her frustration, and agree with pretty much every word that she said. All the amendments in the group are concerned with the application of extended producer responsibility for single-use plastics, particularly those that are highly polluting in our sewers, such as wet wipes and—as we will hear later from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—nappy liners. I support all the amendments in the group.
There cannot be a better example of “out of sight, out of mind” than sewers. People simply flush all sorts of things away and give no thought as to the consequences. The water industry tells us that wet wipes make up 90% of the material in fatbergs, and because they do not break down, they cause 300,000 blockages every year, at a cost of around £100 million. That is money that the water industry could spend in far more productive ways—dealing with leaks, for example, or investing in water-saving schemes. Fatbergs also cause flooding in people’s homes, and pollute our rivers. As well as wet wipes, other products are routinely flushed, despite not being suitable, including nappy liners, sanitary products and condoms, which also lead to clean-up costs and add to both micro and macro-pollution.
There is an urgent need to develop a strategy and a legislative framework for dealing with this, and we must start immediately, with more public education and awareness campaigns. This can start the business of behavioural change and, crucially, it will start to help people understand why the more drastic measures that are needed will have to be taken. It is amazing that volunteers give up their time to clean beaches and rivers—and when they do that, it helps to raise awareness, as well as removing the pollution. But volunteers are no substitute for the serious measures that are needed.
There are many consumers who want to do the right thing, but the problem is that they do not always know what the right thing is. I agree with my noble friend Lord Bradshaw that we need clear labelling on product packaging to help improve the level of appropriate disposal of those products. At the point of sale, including online, packaging and advertising should identify products that contain plastic and do not comply with the water industry’s standard for flushability, Fine to Flush. Clear instructions are needed—“Do not flush”—with appropriate advice on waste disposal options.
Finally, clean-ups of blockages should be funded through graded financial penalties commensurate with the damage caused by the product. Products containing plastic should incur the highest penalty, followed by products that do not, but which also fail to meet the Fine to Flush standard.
The Government urgently need to provide clarification and detail about the schemes they will introduce under extended producer responsibility and the powers in the Bill. Their coverage, their delivery, the methods of consultation and the anticipated financial flows all need to be developed quickly. Action should be targeted on those areas where the most environmental damage is caused. The objective of my Amendment 124 is to provide some urgency, and to ensure that the Government have to bring such a scheme forward. That would give the industry, and to some extent consumers, a very clear direction of travel, and it sits very well with Amendment 119, which would introduce the statutory start date.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is not only producers who have to have regard to resource efficiency; it is also the Government. It is really important in devising regulations in this sort of area that we look at the overall effect of what we are asking people to do and, in particular, what we are asking companies to do to make sure that the end effect of what we are regulating is an improvement and not a disimprovement.
We have seen, for instance, in the case of washing machines and dishwashers, regulations regarding their use of energy, but we have done nothing to regulate how long these machines last. If you are replacing a machine every five years because it has fallen to bits, that surely is part of the resources being consumed by the process. It ought to have been part of the regulations and something that we should look at. We will come to this question when we look at deposit return schemes.
If we are instituting a deposit return scheme on something where we already collect 85% efficiently, and it is only the remaining 15% that are causing problems, then by creating a system that puts a lot of extra costs on society in recycling the existing 85% in a different, less efficient manner, we are not achieving an overall benefit. What is sauce for the goose is very much sauce for the gander.
Looking at the other amendments in this group, I think that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, would result in regulation that was extremely resource efficient. The small one-off costs for producers after that would lead to a very substantial reduction in costs for the sewerage undertakings. That is what we ought to be aiming for: a good, big overall benefit. We should not be looking at little bits of the process; we have to look at the benefits and the costs that will be imposed by the regulation as a whole.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to my own Amendment 128, which goes back even further into the depths of this Bill to Schedule 6. It is a probing amendment in many ways, and very mild, just to tease out where the Government stand on this. Although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said so well, this seems to be a very technical area, these issues are absolutely essential in making the future circular economy, and everything we want in terms of resource efficiency, actually to work and become public friendly—and the way that it faces the public becoming friendly as well.
It comes down to labels. We have had some mention of labels already, particularly from my noble friends Lady Scott and Lord Bradshaw. What I am trying to get at here is that there are provisions, rightly, for the Secretary of State to be able to make regulations about such things as labels on products, but what it does not do is suggest that there should be some consistency about that labelling so that we all find that interface useful, friendly and usable.
I am thinking of two other areas in particular. When I put the laundry into the washing machine at home, there is the occasional garment that I do not have a clue how it should be washed. So what do I do? I look at the label on the garment that has all those little symbols that tell me how I should wash this—at what temperature and all that sort of information. It might tell me not to wash it at all, but to dry-clean it instead. Over the years, I have got to know those symbols. Everybody else has: they are actually fairly international rather than national; I am not even asking for them to be international. Through that, we get to know what we should do.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who mentioned electrical appliances. Whether it be a dishwasher or a dryer, they also have labels that give an energy efficiency rating. That has been so successful that we have had to reinvent or restate what the most efficient levels are, because people have got to know them and simply go for green rather than red.
This amendment is merely offering a suggestion to the Government. It would give the Secretary of State the power to ensure that labelling on goods in the system that will become part of the circular economy is consistent, so that everybody gets to understand the symbols and they are therefore effective. We should not have a wide range of different labels from different manufacturers, or different systems, which would confuse consumers. In labelling, we need consistency, good design and systems that have been tried and tested, and last. As, I think, my noble friend Lady Scott said, this will make sure that people who want to do right can achieve that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I rise chiefly to speak to Amendment 292, which appears in my name and has the backing of the noble Baronesses, Lady Boycott and Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. I thank them all for their support and note that a number of other noble Lords would have signed this amendment had there been space.
I was simply going to speak to my amendment, but I must briefly and strongly commend Amendment 119, which was so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, highlighted in a previous group that I had focused on the word “urgent” a lot. With this amendment the noble Baroness has really driven home the need for urgent action. We have a plastic and waste-choked planet and nation that cannot take any more: it cannot take the volumes we are imposing on it every day.
Amendment 292 is about nappies. That might sound like a minor issue but I hope that by the time I have finished, noble Lords will understand that it is not. Before I begin, I declare my position as vice-president of the Local Government Association, since that will become relevant. For full transparency, I declare that I have worked on this amendment with, and many noble Lords will have received briefings from, the Nappy Alliance, which represents makers of reusable nappies. Supporting a green industry and working with it is not something I am going to make any apologies for, but I think it is important we acknowledge such ties and where the resources come from.
On average, each single-use or disposable nappy generates 550 kilos of carbon dioxide throughout its whole lifecycle, from production to disposal. From birth to stopping using nappies, an average child will use the equivalent of 15,000 plastic bags and half a tree in fluff. This is why the Local Government Association is relevant: at a local level, single-use nappies account for some 4% of residual waste in England. That is 3 billion nappies each year, and it costs local authorities £600 million a year to dispose of them. When such nappies are sent to landfill it takes 300 years—roughly 12 generations—for them to break down. Incinerating them gives rise to significant carbon emissions and local air pollution levels, an issue we keep coming back to. This is where my amendment links to that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw: single-use nappies often end up contaminating waste for recycling because of misleading labels and consumer confusion. Many people do not realise they contain plastic, and think they are a kind of paper.
By way of contrast, reusable nappies use 98% fewer raw materials and generate 99% less waste. They save the equivalent of 17 plastic bags per day. Here, I think I need to dispel some misunderstandings. As we have seen in many other areas of health and environment where there are powerful industry interests, there has been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about environmental impacts and comparative environmental impacts. In March 2021, in a report I would be happy to share with any noble Lord who is interested, the United Nations Environment Programme published a comparison between single-use nappies and reusables. It concluded that reusable nappies had a lower environmental impact across all trial scenarios when compared to single-use nappies.
Michael Gove seems to be coming up a lot this evening. Back in 2018, he did actually suggest that disposable nappies might be banned. In a very rare occurrence, I am not going to go as far as Michael Gove did in 2018. When people are travelling or when there is a new babysitter, for example, there may be an argument for the occasional use of single-use nappies, but it should not be the norm.
This brings me to some other aspects of the amendment that really start to address how we change the situation. There are some really good local authority small-scale practical schemes that are helping people change to using reusable nappies and get away from single-use nappies. Often, they are based on nappy libraries—frequently run by volunteers, most usually women—which have a range of nappies that families can try out. People can see which ones are suitable before they spend money. Many local authorities—by no means all and by no means extensively—offer schemes that can help families to purchase reusable nappies. The problem is, of course, that when you have a new and growing baby, you need a set of nappies, which is a big initial outlay beyond the reach of many people. Subsection (8) of my amendment would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations for a levy to be paid by nappy manufacturers to fund a scheme to help people use reusable nappies. We are talking about ensuring that people can afford to buy them and that they have access to understanding and knowledge—nappy libraries also share information about how to use nappies and what the best ones are.
There is a comparison here. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about energy labels on packaging, and that is partly what this amendment calls for. But in fact, it is a bit like cigarette packets, for which we have labelling and pricing that acknowledges the cost of the product that applies to all of us.
So, I strongly commend this amendment to the Minister. I point out that I have probably been approached by more noble Lords on this amendment than on any other I have tabled—and I have tabled some with very wide-reaching effects. This issue is of great interest to people for many reasons. One, of course, is something I am sure we will be referring to a lot in the next few hours: litter. There is a big problem with litter from single-use nappies. It is a deeply unpleasant thing. I am sure most noble Lords have been volunteer litter pickers in some form or another, and it is not a pleasant thing to encounter when doing that.
What we are talking about here is changing things to make life better. It is about the kind of systems thinking that I very often refer to. This is the Environment Bill, and when we talk about the environment people ask if we can we afford the cost of this or that measure. If we can help most families to use single-use nappies, that would save them, on average, £11 a week. That is a lot of money to many families—money that could be spent on healthier food or on taking off some of the stress and pressure. This amendment has environmental and social benefits: it is a win-win. If the Minister is being pressured to offer some yeses, here is an easy win.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to speak briefly on this group and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, who spoke eloquently and forcefully on single-use nappies. Of course, it is not just at the beginning of life that people use nappies; there is the similar and even greater problem of incontinence pads, if we dare call them that, for the third age, so I can see where the noble Baroness is coming from.
If he will permit me, I will congratulate my noble friend Lord Goldsmith and the Government on drafting and including Clause 49 and Schedule 4 in the Bill. I press him on the sentiments behind a number of the amendments, particularly Amendment 119, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and which presses for the introduction of a timetable. The explanatory statement says:
“This amendment aims to ensure that the new packaging producer responsibility system is in place for the beginning of 2024, given that the final compliance year of the current package will end on 31 December 2023.”
All who have spoken and will speak in this debate are very concerned about our inability to address producer responsibility. I worked very hard for this during my 10 years as a Member of the European Parliament.
We all seem to pick up on the end of use, and we have all these recycling issues. If you buy perfume or aftershave for a present, you think you are gifting someone what looks like a really nice present, but, when you watch them open it, the contents are of course absolutely tiny, and you think it must be something to do with the marketing of it. Is there some way that we can use the provisions that are set out in the Bill?
What is the government position on labelling? The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, gave a very good example about garments, and I know that there are others that we could use. Has the department done any work on this? I accept the concerns addressed by many, including my noble friend Lord Lucas, who spoke about resource efficiency. Has the department done any costings on this?
In speaking to his Amendment 120 this evening, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned a concern, which I share and support him on, about wet wipes being put down the toilet, which causes so much cost further down the chain, as we know. We do not need regulations to ask manufacturers to do this; it is a case of education and asking them why they are not doing this in letters that we can all read. So I press my noble friend to say what work has been done on labelling and the education of consumers. We should not let producers slip away from their responsibilities in this regard. I wonder what the cost of such labelling would be—or would we micromanaging and micro-legislating if we were to ask my noble friend to address this?
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 120, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. No one who saw last April’s “Panorama” programme on the state of our rivers could possibly not support this amendment. That picture of what initially looked like a sandbank in the River Thames but was in fact a huge pile of wet wipes and other plastic-fibre sanitary items was simply disgusting to me. I do not think that that is an overreaction on my part.
In evidence given to the Commons’ Environmental Audit Committee, one witness—one assumes that he was an expert and knew what he was talking about—addressed plastic-fibre wet wipes, stating:
“every day 7 million wet wipes ... are flushed ... down the toilet”.
There were also
“2.5 million tampons, 1.5 million sanitary pads and 700,000 panty liners”,
all currently with a varying degree of plastic content. They do not dissolve or break down but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, have to be raked out of the sewage treatment works and sent to landfill.
The flushing of these products is already illegal. I believe that they can now all be produced without plastic content; in other words, to a “fine to flush” standard. They can now be produced in materials which are equally effective, but which can and do break down within the sewage system, like paper. So I make a plea: the Government should look into this issue and then, I hope, announce a legal end date for the production of all sanitary goods that are not produced to a flushable standard. In the meantime, as Amendment 120 proposes, we should ensure that all the current products are clearly marked as non-flushable.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the next three speakers on the list—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott—have withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I apologise for the fact that I was not able to speak at Second Reading on the Bill. I wish to speak to Amendment 124 in the name of my noble friend Lady Scott of Needham Market. I hope the House will allow me to use this amendment to probe with the Minister not the disposal of single-use plastics but the banning of them, and the aspirations of the Welsh Government to do just that.
To understand the drive towards such a ban in Wales one has to understand that the pursuit of sustainable development is central to the Senedd’s devolved powers. It is expressly mandated as a core aspiration of the Welsh Ministers under Section 79 of the Government of Wales Act.
Like most countries throughout the world, Wales has its concerns about the prevalence of single-use plastics and the pollution they cause in our cities and towns, on our beaches and in our seas. In 2019, the Great British Beach Clean weekend organised by the Marine Conservation Society found an average of 322 plastic items per 100 metres of beach it surveyed, while in its 2018-19 street cleanliness survey, Keep Wales Tidy found fast-food litter on 20% of the streets that it surveyed across Wales.
The Welsh Government want to use their powers to ban 19 types of plastic items. As well as hoping to ban plastic-stemmed cotton buds, the Senedd wants to ban plastic cutlery, plastic plates, plastic beverage stirrers and plastic straws, as well as food containers and beverage cups made from expanded polystyrene. This is all very sensible—so sensible that our wonderful catering facilities in the House of Lords had already achieved all this before the pandemic struck. Obviously, where the House of Lords leads, Wales is keen to follow.
The problem is, of course, the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, which would mean that any single-use plastics permitted or imported into the rest of the UK could still be sold in Wales, in effect negating the Senedd’s aim. In January of this year, the Counsel General for Wales sought permission for a judicial review of the position but the application was denied on the basis of prematurity. I believe, however, that the Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal the Divisional Court’s decision and that a hearing will be listed in due course. I do not expect the Minister to pre-empt any decision that the Court of Appeal may come to. Can he say, however, whether he or his civil servants have had any discussions with their opposite numbers in Wales on single-use plastics, especially following the election of the new Welsh Government in May, and whether we are any closer to clarity on the situation?
Finally, I want to refer to an excellent article by Dr Richard Caddell, a member of the Wales Governance Centre in Cardiff and a senior lecturer in law. Writing in FTB’s Environmental Law Blog and highlighting the problem Wales faces, he concludes:
“The widespread concern over marine plastics … may potentially persuade some UK regulators to upscale their environmental ambitions to meet those of other devolved actors, in order to stave off this particular constitutional conundrum.”
These are wise words. I find the phrase “the upscaling of environmental ambitions” particularly elegant, providing, as it does, a rather elegant way forward. Rather than insisting on asserting the letter of the law or resorting to the courts, employing a strategy of wholesale upscaling of environmental ambitions could, perhaps be more effective.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have campaigned long and hard on the horrors of plastic waste, the need for biodegradable alternatives and the deficiencies of the UK local authority recycling system and its inconsistencies. It was a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys. Of course, the Welsh Government did some pioneering work on plastic bags, although I think we need to maintain a single market across the UK.
I am delighted that my noble friend the Minister is making progress in these areas, as we can see from several provisions in the Bill. I also agree with concerns expressed today about wet wipes, nappy liners and discarded masks. However, I am disturbed by the wide-ranging powers we are now discussing. Since there is so little specification in the Bill of what they will be used for, and barely a glimpse of the cost-benefit of individual measures, we are essentially being asked to put our faith in Ministers, subject to the odd debate on affirmative instruments. Against that background, I make three points, the first two of which apply to several of the schedules.
First, has the Minister considered a much simpler and economically more robust alternative approach, which is a simple resource tax? Why cannot plastic and waste be taxed in a simple, linear way, like petrol and landfill, discouraging use rather than creating a common agricultural policy-like array of schemes and exemptions? Even someone relatively well informed, such as myself, cannot find their way around all the different proposals. What study of such levies has there been, including the effect on business and consumers, to pick up what my noble friend Lord Lucas was saying?
Secondly, what is the plan to publicise these various schemes as they are adopted? Is there already a consumer website where they can be studied and one’s obligations and risk of penalties understood? If they were taxes, one could just go to HMRC. There is nothing practical and up to date on the Defra website that I could find: everything is very legalistic and bureaucratic. Is such a user-friendly website planned for such measures? Perhaps I can offer help.
Thirdly, on Amendment 292 on reusable nappies, I have to say that I was one of the last mothers in this country to use terry nappies for my four children, as I dislike the waste represented by disposable ones, and my views go back a long way. But I know that, like one-stop shopping, disposable nappies have been a godsend to working mothers and fathers. I am not against some simple standards so that people know what they are buying, and allowing the promotion of washable nappies processed at home or through house-to-house services of the kind I encountered in Vermont. However, I fear I cannot support this highly regulatory and restrictive amendment. I encourage the proposers to think again and come back with something much simpler and easier to justify on Report.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to add my voice in general support of these amendments. It is always a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, with her rapier-like perception of how we might do things better and differently. I commend the usual channels on what is probably a very appropriate grouping, but it does cover a huge area of concern.
On Amendment 119, moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, I certainly agree that setting a deadline for producer responsibility is necessary and that we need to force the pace. We have been waiting too long and, without the pace being forced, I fear that, quite literally, the can will get kicked further down the road.
On Amendment 120, from the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, I have a sense of déjà vu here. I share with the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, a revulsion at things such as the Whitechapel fatberg. I also declare a proprietorial interest as an owner of private drainage systems. I have long prevailed upon tenants, holiday visitors, ordinary visitors and my own offspring not to put unsuitable things in drains, not least that product that noble Lords will recall claims to kill all known germs, including, I should say, the useful flora of any septic tank. These are among the things that we have to tell people not to use in private drainage systems.
In fact, many of these items, whether solids or fluids, should not go into foul drains of any sort, whether municipal or private. I agree that clear instructions on things such as nappy liners and wet wipes merely confirm to me that the information needs to be simpler, waste disposal more intuitive and the general public better informed. However, in moving to make this more rigorous, we can help by forcing the process of substitution with flushable alternatives, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron.
I noted the laudable campaign of the Nappy Alliance in Amendment 292, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Of course, as we have heard, nappies are only part of the problem and many other sanitary products are involved, but I would say that I tread carefully here. However, as an experienced user of drain rods and high-pressure drain flushing systems, I support the general thrust of these things with considerable fervour.
Earlier in Committee we had a discussion on single-use plastics. Again, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and her Amendment 124, that we need to force the pace on publishing a scheme for dealing with this. It is very much down to the Government to produce that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, reminded us in a very timely manner that resource efficiency must be one of our overarching touchstones in considering this. There has to be a degree of proportionality. We have to know what strategically we are getting at so that we can look at the thing in microcosm. I very much support that.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on labelling, brings in a vital part of providing better information on products of all sorts and—this is perhaps where one of the low-cost things might come in—generating cultural change. I think there are many willing members of the public up and down the country who, with better information and knowledge about the adverse effects of these things, would willingly and voluntarily move in the right direction. We need to try to tap into that. Personally, I am tired of searching for information on contents and potential hazards and for container recycling codes which are often badly printed or covered up by something else and so on. It would be very easy to do a great deal better.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, referred to out of sight, out of mind. There is one thing that has always worried me. Certainly, in my youth it used to be the standard advice that if you found a bottle in your late Uncle Fred’s garden shed, but the contents were not clear because the label had fallen off, you put it down the loo. That should not happen because there are some quite dangerous chemicals floating around. There needs to be better information about what to do with that.
When we talk about householders taking things to recycling places where they can be disposed of, please let us make sure that there is enough capacity and that they do not have to do what happens in one household recycling depot near me, which is that you have to go on the web and make an appointment to go there, otherwise you will not get in.
There are many things that we can do. On plastics, I am a great believer that the throwaway society is wrong. I am a great user of previously used plastic containers for all sorts of things. I obviously recycle the ones that I do not use, but some of them have been perfectly good substitutes for things that I would otherwise have gone out and purchased, and they last for many years—as containers for garden purposes, for property maintenance and so on. If some plastic items had a second or even a third life available to them, we would go some way to not requiring so many to be purchased in the first place. However, in general, I very much support the thrust of these amendments.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I too support Amendment 124, so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, and agree on how urgent it is for the Secretary of State to publish a scheme for disposal of single-use plastics, and to have that done within a time limit that reflects the sense of urgency that we have heard from so many noble Lords today. I also support many of the aims of the other amendments in this group.
These amendments touch on everyday family life. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, explained, anyone who saw the “Panorama” programme a few weeks ago would surely wish to support policies that can help to stop the build-up of fatbergs and pollutants which are already so damaging to our sewers and rivers. The figure of 7 million wet wipes being flushed down our toilets each day, without people generally even realising the damage they are causing to the environment and our sewers—they do not even give it a second thought—is something that this Bill may have the opportunity to address. Making sure that there are clear warnings on such products and that these parts of a household’s normal weekly shopping are both identified as being as damaging as they are and, ultimately, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe said, replaced by biodegradable alternatives which do not cause that same damage are issues which I believe have not yet filtered through into the public consciousness. Given the work that we have done, we understand them—I declare an interest in that my son works in a company involved in replacements for plastics—but extending responsibility for this issue so that everybody becomes aware of it rather than just those in the know could help significantly to produce a step change in consumer behaviour and stop plastics clogging up so many riverbanks, sewers, landfill sites and other areas.
Taxation is clearly an option. Through the price mechanism, it would make sense—I believe that we are coming to this in a later group—to ensure that the most damaging plastics, which have caused significant damage already, are more punitively taxed so that consumers are less keen to use them. In that regard, I add my support to Amendment 128 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on consistency in any framework of public warning messages that potentially will be introduced to help public awareness. However, ideally, as I said, in the not-too-distant future the best option would be for those products that contain plastics that last for potentially thousands of years and do so much damage to be replaced with options that do not hang around and pollute our environment in the way people are currently doing without quite realising the extent of the damage.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, this group concerns packaging and single-use items. I shall speak in support of Amendment 292 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. All the amendments in this group have a degree of urgency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, spoke passionately to Amendment 119, which would ensure that producer responsibility for new packaging is in place for January 2024. I have spoken before about the need for producer responsibility on plastics and I fully support the amendment. The noble Baroness is quite right to emphasise the need for producer responsibility to be implemented without delay. After all, there has been extensive consultation. I am obviously more impatient than the noble Baroness, since I would have chosen an earlier date. However, I accept that manufacturers should be allowed time to change their practices and that this cannot be achieved overnight.
My noble friend Lord Chidgey quite rightly raised the issue of those households with septic tanks, a large percentage of which will be in rural areas. For the septic tanks to function as designed, chemical cleaning products and wipes should not be used and should be phased out nationally. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on this point.
My noble friends Lord Bradshaw and Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, would require the Secretary of State to publish a scheme by December 2021 on the disposal of single-use plastics. This urgent timeframe meets with my approval. Wet wipes are causing tremendous problems and should not be left to volunteers to clear up.
My noble friend Lord Teverson’s Amendment 129 provides part of the answer for the Government. If all products were adequately and clearly labelled using a consistent format that the public could easily recognise, they would be more likely to read the information and take notice. This commonly approved and consistent design cannot be in 6 point font on the very bottom of the package. It will need to be of sufficient size for the purchaser to easily read on the front of the package, rather than having to hold it up over their heads to read what is on the bottom, which often happens when the package contains wet food.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raised built-in obsolescence in household goods such as washing machines. Redundant white goods are extremely difficult to get rid of.
My noble friend Lady Humphreys spoke about the use of single-use plastics and the role of the Welsh Senedd, which wants to ban 19 types of single-use items, including plastic cutlery. The Senedd is concerned about the impact of single-use plastics coming over from the rest of the UK into Wales.
Amendment 292 is definitely not on a glamorous subject. There is no doubt that disposable nappies are extremely convenient. I wonder whether there is a Peer in the Chamber, including the Minister, who has not changed the nappy of a baby at some stage. My mother bought me two dozen terry nappies when I was expecting my first baby. They lasted until my second child no longer needed them and they still had a life in the garage as cleaning cloths. There were disposable nappies around, but they were costly and so were used only when we went on holiday. My granddaughter was kitted out with reusable nappies—a very different kettle of fish from the terrys of my day. They had a set of poppers, which meant they could fit a range of sizes, and were extremely colourful.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. It is a rare area of almost complete consensus—the shared horror at the horrific legacy our throwaway culture has left us and every society on earth. I think the World Economic Forum said that by 2030, if trends continue, there will be more plastic in the world’s oceans, as measured by weight, than fish, which really is almost unimaginably horrible to think about.
The resources and waste provisions in the Bill introduce much-needed reforms to tackle waste of all kinds and increase our resource efficiency. The measures look across the product life cycle, from design to use to end of life, ensuring that we are maximising our resources and adhering to the waste hierarchy.
I thank noble Lords for their amendments. I will begin with Amendment 119, for which I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Our recent consultation on extended producer responsibility for packaging committed to the implementation as soon as possible and proposed a phased approach commencing in 2023. These are, rightly, major reforms—almost revolutionary, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested—and we need to listen to those who are going to be impacted by them and ensure that they are able to adapt.
I am pleased that stakeholders have welcomed the measure, such as the Food and Drink Federation, which said:
“Food and drink manufacturers want to be accountable for the packaging they place on the market and an effective and cost-efficient system has the potential to be an enabler for increased investment in recycling infrastructure.”
We are currently analysing responses to the consultation and will publish our response as soon as we possibly can. We also remain committed to introducing these reforms as quickly as we can. But, unfortunately for those, like me, who are impatient for this change, the system is such that, because we are introducing individual schemes, and because those schemes have a significant impact on products and the producers of those products, each one of those schemes needs consultation and will require an SI. There will be process, and that process is largely unavoidable.
All I can tell the noble Baroness and others who support the amendment is that I and my colleagues in Defra are committed to doing this as quickly as possible. We want to go as quickly as we can, but we also want extended producer responsibility to be extended as far as it possibly can. We want an extensive programme, because we recognise that extended producer responsibility, taken to its logical conclusion, is a really significant part of the solution if we want to get to a zero-waste or circular economy.
On Amendments 120 and 120A, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Chidgey, respectively, the Government echo the concern around the Committee surrounding the damage caused to sewerage systems and the wider environment by the incorrect disposal and abundance of wet wipes and the use of inappropriate cleaning products, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market. Small sewage discharges from septic tanks and small sewage treatment plants in England are already regulated under the general binding rules, which specifically state that the discharge from septic tanks must not cause pollution of surface water or groundwater.
Nevertheless, I assure the Committee that we have a number of additional possible routes to tackling this issue through the Bill. Powers in Schedule 5 to the Bill could require wet-wipe producers to pay for the disposal costs of discarded and used wet wipes. Schedule 6 allows us to mandate for wet-wipe producers to put information on packaging regarding their correct disposal, including “do not flush” directions or clearer alternative text on products not suitable for those with a septic system, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey. I would like to advance progress in this area as well, as quickly as possible. That ambition is shared by all my colleagues in the department.
Closely related is Amendment 292 on nappies, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The powers that we seek in this Bill will enable us to act, if necessary. We explicitly outlined this on page 161 of the Bill’s Explanatory Notes to make it clearer in response to discussion on this important issue in the other place. We have also commissioned an environmental assessment looking at the waste and energy impacts of washable and disposable products. This will bring our evidence base up to date, putting us in the best possible position to decide what action to take. That report will be published within a matter of months and certainly this year.
The noble Baroness is right to highlight this. She almost apologised at the beginning on the basis of it sounding marginal, but, as she pointed out, it is not. The amount of residual waste that is made up of used nappies is staggering. Clearly, we must move to a situation where the incentives are such that people by default use genuinely biodegradable alternatives, if they have to use disposables, or even better, washables, although they come with inconvenience that not everyone can accommodate. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I believe that I was dressed in throwaway nappies as a child. It was a long time ago—it feels even longer after a few weeks trying to get this Bill through the House—but we were all guilty, without a doubt, and we need to see a shift in the right direction. We have in this Bill the tools that we need to foster that shift.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, for Amendment 124, which calls for a scheme in relation to disposal costs of single-use plastics. Clause 50 enables regulations to require those who place specified products on the UK market to pay disposal costs. While the clause could technically be used for a scheme on single-use plastics, the Government are already undertaking a lot of work to reduce the prevalence of single-use plastics and, therefore, do not think that a specific scheme under Clause 50 is necessarily the right course of action. Instead, Clause 54 provides powers for charges to be applied to any single-use item containing plastic. We also have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to prohibit or restrict the use of certain substances. Noble Lords will know that last year, we used these powers to restrict the supply of single-use plastic straws, stirrers, cotton buds, et cetera. In May, the single-use carrier bag charge was doubled to 10p.
In answer to questions put to me by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Humphreys and Lady Scott, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, we have the tools to extend that ban, and very much hope that we will extend it, because clearly straws, stirrers and cotton buds need to be a start, not an end, if we are to phase out the use of unnecessary single-use items. The consultation that I mentioned earlier covers proposals to ensure that businesses pay the full net disposal costs of all packaging, including single-use plastics.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe raised a number of issues and appealed for a cleaner and simpler system. I sympathise with her. We are bringing in a tax system so that products which are made without a threshold of recycled plastic will be taxed a virgin plastic tax, which, I hope, will stimulate the market for recycled plastic.
However, in addition to that, I do not think it is possible through taxation to get to where we need to get to. That is why extended producer responsibility is such an important part of this, as it requires producers to shoulder the full lifetime cost of a product. Equally, no matter how sophisticated extended producer responsibility, or the virgin plastic tax that I mentioned, and some of the other measures that we have talked about today, may be, there is no escaping the need for bans in certain circumstances. That is why we have introduced some bans, and we will certainly be introducing more.
On Amendment 127, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, before making regulations under the powers in Clauses 51 and 52 and Schedules 6 and 7, the Government will consult stakeholders as appropriate. As part of this, the Government will carry out and publish impact assessments in accordance with standard practice and the requirements of the specific provision. I hope that the noble Lord is somewhat reassured by that. I note his return to the theme of transparency, and bringing the public with us, and he is right. That is a challenge that we need to bear in mind every step of the way. The impact assessments that I just mentioned will cover the resource efficiency benefits of the proposed regulations, having regard to the underlying environmental goals of these provisions.
Finally, on Amendment 128, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, the existing provisions in Schedule 6 already allow us to include requirements about the design of labels, and in exercising these powers the Government will encourage the use of clear and consistent labels that consumers will be able to recognise and act on. That, of course, will include information on whether a product is recyclable. The precise design of future labels or other means of communicating product information will be subject to further policy development, including evidence gathering, analysis and consultation with all the obvious stakeholders. So I hope I have been able to provide clarity and some reassurance to noble Lords, and I ask them to withdraw or not move their amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have had one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, so I call the noble Baroness.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I must be the most unpopular person in this House today, and I must apologise. I failed to tell the Whips which amendments I wished to speak to, so I was left off the list. However, I did add my name to Amendments 119 and 292, and I am speaking only because the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, in particular, asked me to, as she is unable to be in the Chamber. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, whose name is also on Amendment 119, also cannot speak . I want to make the point that it is not only the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who very much wants these amendments to be taken seriously. So forgive me, and I shall speak as briefly as I can; I have crossed out all sorts of bits.
Amendment 119 refers to paragraph 1 of Schedule 4. I have a significant concern about the wording of sub-paragraph (1), which is not dealt with directly in the amendment. It says:
“The relevant national authority may”—
not “shall”—
“make provision for imposing producer … obligations”.
As the Minister made very clear in his response, this leaves Ministers with lots of tools, but there is absolutely no assurance that they will use them.
We know that our Minister—indeed, our Ministers—need important issues to be on the face of the Bill. Otherwise, they will be steamrollered by other Ministers elsewhere, and prevented from doing really important work. This is not trivial; it is important.
Having raised that issue, I want to speak in support of Amendment 119. I think that it was the Minister, on day 1, who made the point that responsibility for superfluous plastic packaging or other waste generally lies squarely on the shoulders of producers—and I think we all know that. I realise that packaging is only one form of environmentally damaging plastic product, but many producers bury their products in a sea of plastic. The great benefit of Amendment 119 is that it focuses on the regulations, which would affect a lot of producers—but, even more importantly, it gives us a target date by which the regulations should be in place: 2024.
As others have explained, Amendment 292 is all about dealing with the appalling consequences of single-use nappies on the environment. Having had four children, and used terry nappies for all four of them, I was a bit shocked—believe me—at the idea of moving away from single-use nappies. But the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has set out very clearly the damaging effect of those nappies on the environment.
While understanding the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe—from my perspective as a user of these other things—I have been introduced by the Nappy Alliance to the features of modern-style reusable nappies. I am assured that they really do not commit mothers, or indeed fathers, to the sort of work that those of us back in the day had to put up with. It really was quite appalling: you had buckets and buckets of them. They are apparently perfectly usable with washing machines and with very little parental input. That is very important to me, so I wanted to make that point.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her helpful comments. I hope that in the course of my speech I addressed many of them, on issues such as labelling and so on. I say only that the word “may” is standard drafting practice. I would love to see every “may” become “shall”, but that tends to be the way that things are written. As she noted, we have all the tools we need to deliver very radical change. Combined with the targets we are setting elsewhere in the Bill on biodiversity, waste and a whole range of issues, I do not believe that even a reluctant Government would be able to escape the need to use those tools to their maximum. So I am much more optimistic than she is that Governments, whether they like it or not, are going to have to take advantage and make use of those tools. I hope that that addresses the main thrust of her argument.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
I have received another request to speak from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Sadly, I think the plastic tax that is coming is too complex, but maybe we will learn from that. I rise again because I wondered whether the Minister could now—or indeed by letter, if it is easier—answer my question about communicating these new schemes to consumers. To my mind, discussions of this Bill are too focused on producers and not enough on consumers. You see that in labelling; some labels are great for consumers, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said—for example, washing labels. The labels from my old company, Tesco, show whether or not you can recycle specific packages. These things are actually quite helpful to consumers. I am afraid that a lot of statutory labelling, in my experience—both in the UK and right round the world—is decided by politicians and producers, without thinking about the consumers, who often just ignore the message but have to pay the cost of the extra labels. So this is a really important area.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I apologise for not addressing that point earlier. I think my noble friend has almost answered her own question: the key for most of these products will be in the labelling. As she said, we need clear labelling. That is where most consumers will get the information they need about a specific product. She disagrees—but if labelling is clear, I think consumers will be much more likely to treat products in the way that they are supposed to be treated. However, that is clearly not the extent of the consultation or outreach that we will do. If she wants details about the plans coming up, I will write to her; I hope that is okay.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. We have heard some excellent proposals about how we can, for example, improve the labelling of items to make sure that we recycle and reuse efficiently. The noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Chidgey, and others are rightly concerned about what is being flushed down our drains—the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, gave us some vivid examples of the consequences of non-flushable items clogging up our sewers. We clearly need action on wet wipes. The statistic that we are flushing 7 million wet wipes a day down the drains is truly shocking. How can so many consumers not know the damage that is being done by these actions? It is a matter of communication as much as anything. I did not see the “Panorama” programme, but I saw the chunk of fatberg that was on show at the Museum of London a couple of years ago and I can verify that it was truly horrific.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, raised an important point about the proper labelling of products with an agreed improved design—he is quite right about that. He points to the success of energy-efficiency labelling and we can all identify with the urgent need for consistency and clarity of labelling. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, echoes this need for clarity and for the detail of the resource efficiency of products so that people can make informed choices. He is right that we should ensure that products such as domestic equipment should be designed for long life. We should know what we are buying and what the ultimate lifespan of these materials is.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, it should be easy to do a great deal better on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked what the Government are doing on labelling. I understand that there is already considerable work going on to agree a consistent labelling regime, but maybe the Government should make it more of a priority to choose a system and sign off the design so that we can all see it in practice.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, is pursuing the same approach as I have taken in my amendment, which is to try to pin down the Minister and the Government on dates—in this case, on the use of single-use plastics. I agree absolutely that it should be possible for the Government to publish such a scheme by the end of the year. The issue of single use is going to be a running theme through a number of groups as we debate them in the coming hours and days.
I was quite taken by what the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, said about the perverse application of the internal market, which was surely never intended for the use that it is now being put to, which is stopping the Welsh Senedd taking more immediate action on single use. I am not sure whether the Minister addressed that issue, but it was never intended, I am sure, that the internal market should have that effect.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised the huge issue of disposable nappies and the environmental damage that they create by being dumped in huge quantities in landfill or misplaced in other recyclable waste streams. She gave us some shocking examples about their impact on the environment. I pay tribute to the work of the Nappy Alliance and all others who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue. We urgently need a cultural shift to using reusable nappies, as well as better information about the materials and packaging used in disposable nappies. As the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, said, many people think they are made from paper and do not realise that they have a plastic content. I thank the Minister for updating us on the work that the department is doing on this problem, but clearly there is far more to be done.
Finally, I welcome the many comments from around the Chamber in support of my amendment, but the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am a little disappointed in his response. I do not doubt his personal commitment, but the truth is that the introduction of extended producer responsibility has already been delayed. It has been three years since it was first proposed, and our deadline will take another three years, so it is absolutely reasonable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, she would have introduced a much more immediate deadline. I understand that we have to allow time for producers to adjust, but if we do not set a deadline there is a real danger that they will simply drag their feet in the consultations and we will find that we are consulting more and more without an immediate deadline to focus individual minds. I have to say that we feel that there should be more ambition and that our date and deadline is a reasonable deadline for producers to deliver.
As a final point on that, noble Lords just said that the use of “may” was standard phraseology, but there are some “musts” in the Bill, so we could have had a “must” on this occasion. Perhaps that is something we can look at when we return, as we inevitably will, to this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 121. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.
Amendment 121
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, in moving technical government Amendment 121, I will also speak to similar government Amendments 122, 125, 126, 129, 132, 146, 147 and 151 in my name, which would allow for public consultations undertaken during this Bill’s passage to count towards the corresponding statutory duty to consult. These minor and technical amendments reflect the work that has continued while the Bill has been paused, including the launch of consultations that were recently undertaken—for example, on deposit return schemes, extended producer responsibility and consistent recycling collections.
Also in this group is government Amendment 278. The Bill establishes a number of functions that are to be exercised concurrently by Ministers of the Crown and the devolved Administrations. These enable us to provide for common UK-wide approaches in future, with agreement from the devolved Administrations. However, restrictions in Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006 prevent the Senedd removing such a function of a Minister of the Crown without the consent of the UK Government.
The Welsh Government have raised concerns over the Senedd’s ability to end the concurrent arrangements in future in the light of those restrictions. The UK Government agree that the restrictions are not appropriate in these circumstances. Amendment 278 would therefore carve out the concurrent powers in the Bill from the consent requirements. This is in line with the approach taken to carve out concurrent functions in other enactments through the Government of Wales Act 2006 (Amendment) Order 2021.
I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare my environmental interests as in the register. However, today, I speak in my capacity as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee. I will speak to Amendments 148, 150, 160, 190, 191, 231, 243 and 250, which flow from the recommendations in our report on the delegated powers in the Bill. The changes that I am proposing are incredibly modest; the reason for that is that the Bill has satisfied my committee on the vast majority of delegated powers in it.
To set my proposed amendments in context, we said in our report that Defra’s delegated powers memorandum was “thorough and exceedingly helpful” and
“a model of its kind”.
This is a massive landmark Bill of 141 clauses, 20 schedules and eight different parts. It has 110 regulation-making powers but 44% of them are affirmative, which must be a record. We recommend that only one of those powers be upgraded from negative to affirmative. It has 17 Henry VIII powers but 15 are affirmative. One of my amendments seeks not even to delete one of the Henry VIII powers but merely to limit it.
I contrast what Defra is doing with the delegated powers in this Bill with one from BEIS that we reported on last Friday: the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill. It has a mere 15 clauses and deals with a single issue yet, as we have seen many departments do ever since they learned this ploy from the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, BEIS has tacked on a completely unnecessary Henry VIII power to amend any Act of Parliament since 1066.
So the Environment Bill is very good in delegated powers terms but my amendments seek to make it an absolute exemplar across the whole of government. Let us take the easy ones, which I am sure my noble friend can assent to just like that. Amendments 148, 150, 195, 231, 243 and 250 simply ask him to adopt exactly the same procedure that is already in Clause 24(4), which is to lay the published guidance before Parliament. Where guidance is statutory and has to be followed, we in the Delegated Powers Committee say that it should be approved by Parliament, but guidance that is merely intended just to guide does not need parliamentary scrutiny. The Bill therefore has a provision in Clause 24 that the Secretary of State can issue guidance to the OEP while subsection (4) says that the guidance must be laid before Parliament and published.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has withdrawn so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys.
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 278 in the name of the Minister. My contribution here will be a short one. I begin by thanking the Minister for the co-operation between his department and the Welsh Government in drawing up this Environment Bill. The Welsh Government recognised, long before the Senedd elections in May this year, that there would be no time in the Senedd’s timetable for them to introduce their own Environment Bill and they have been content for aspects of future Welsh policy to be delivered through this Bill. They believe that this allows for quicker delivery of Welsh policy and enables continued accessibility for users by continuing an English-Welsh legislative approach.
The more contentious aspects of the Bill have been those relating to air quality and environmental governance. These are both areas where the Senedd will legislate for Wales in their own Bills this term. The Bill contains powers for Welsh Ministers in relation to regulation of waste and recycling, and I believe there has already been some joint consultation on the use of those powers but, again, Welsh Ministers will be drawing their own conclusions.
The issue that had raised the concern of Senedd Members was that of the use of concurrent plus powers, where the Senedd would consent to the Secretary of State legislating for Wales in certain areas of devolved competence, but without being subject to the scrutiny of the Senedd. There were also concerns, I believe, that the transference of these powers would be irreversible. Amendment 278 addresses these concerns by the inclusion of a new clause which enables the Senedd to alter or remove the Secretary of State’s function relating to Welsh devolved matters, and to do so without the Secretary of State’s consent. I welcome this amendment and, again, I thank the Minister for the willingness to work together that has been evident in the relationship between the two departments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, again and to note a satisfied customer. I am afraid I rise to oppose Amendment 121 in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I have already explained that these provisions are wide-ranging, giving the Government powers to do goodness knows what, without making their intentions clear in this Bill. I worry about the precedent set in this sector and indeed for other sectors and for other Bills.
Even before the government amendments, the consultation provisions are rather weak. For example, paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 says:
“Before making regulations under this Part of this Schedule the relevant national authority must consult persons appearing to it to represent the interests of those likely to be affected.”
So, that is a lot of discretion. Will any proposals made under the powers in this Schedule also be published for public perusal and to ensure that any bugs are noticed before regulations are made? Consultation on regulations is vital and there always has to be a public as well as parliamentary stage to this. The department may well be unaware of wider impacts that public consultations and cost benefit can expose. I think of the damage done to the tourist industry when Defra closed down the countryside during the foot and mouth crisis. Sadly, it does not stop there. The Minister is now, in a string of amendments in this group, proposing that the consultation requirement may be met by precommencement consultation. I would like to understand this better. Which forthcoming regulations will be affected by this waiver and how can each be justified? My noble friend mentioned the deposit return scheme and some devolved matters. Is that the limit? Could this list be published and could the power be limited in time?
The Minister will have got used to the idea that I am concerned that his legacy regulations should be fit for purpose. I look forward to hearing from him on the justification for this change of approach on consultation. I am afraid that my initial view is that it cannot be justified and that it creates a deplorable precedent.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am very pleased that we are discussing consultation today, even if it is in a very small way. It was good to hear the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and her request for more information on exactly what the proposals for precommencement consultation mean and what areas they will affect—because this is clearly an important issue.
Noble Lords may not be aware that I was an associate of the Consultation Institute, and it was my job to go out and consult local communities when major infrastructure projects were coming their way—so I have for many years taken a close interest in the Government’s consultation exercises. Some of them have been very good, and some of them have not. Consultation is now a fact of modern public life, yet it has all too often been mistakenly characterised as the art of listening. So, if noble Lords will indulge me, I shall share the definition used by the Consultation Institute, which may be something the Minister can pass on to his colleagues. It says:
“The dynamic process of dialogue between individuals or groups, based upon a genuine exchange of views, with the objective of influencing decisions, policies or programmes of action”.
I hope that the consultation and precommencement consultation proposed in the Bill mean not only that the Government will listen but that those who take the trouble to take part will genuinely be heard and will influence the outcome of this legislation in a positive way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, talked about her and others’ concerns regarding how the legislation would affect Wales and the Senedd’s powers of scrutiny. As the Minister said in his introduction, Amendment 278 addresses these concerns, so I hope that the Government will continue to work with the Senedd in a positive way on these important environmental issues.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, for his introduction to his many amendments. It is important to look at his proposal to publish guidance, because it is important that we have transparency around that. It should be published or laid before Parliament when the issues are of importance. So I support him in that, because I believe that it is good practice, and his committee has clearly recognised that. I was also interested to hear that the noble Lord’s committee had suggested moving certain procedures from negative to affirmative. Having read his amendments, I note that these are clearly in very important areas concerning this part of the Bill, so we believe that the Minister should take a close look and listen to the committee. I thank the noble Lord for drawing my attention and that of this side of the House to those matters, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Blencathra for his contribution to this debate and particularly for his committee’s hard work on the Bill. The Government very gratefully received the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report, and I assure the noble Lord that we are very actively considering them and will bring forward a response imminently. I thank him very much for his thoughtful comments and work on this. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, for her kind words.
I turn to the questions put to me by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. We are bringing forward these amendments principally so that we can deliver some of the measures that we were talking about in the last debates—extended producer responsibility, the deposit return system, and so on—as quickly as possible. There is a demand for us to do so, and that is the purpose of the amendments.
The areas within scope are all parts of Clause 54. In particular, we are considering whether guidance should cover the circumstances where it may not be technically or economically practical or where there may be no significant environmental benefit to separately collect recyclable waste streams. In addition, we are considering whether it should cover the frequency with which household waste other than food waste should be collected and the kinds of waste that are relevant for the purposes of commercial or industrial premises. The guidance may make different provisions in relation to household waste, non-domestic premises and commercial and industrial premises. That is broadly the scope, but I am happy to follow up with more detail. I think that the reason—which is to accelerate some of these important initiatives—will be broadly supported by the House, so I would be grateful if my noble friend Lord Blencathra would not press his amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Framlingham.
Lord Framlingham (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to say a few words after the Minister. I am also pleased not to disappoint my noble friend Lord Caithness, because I plan to say a word or two about that major infrastructure project HS2. It is fascinating that HS2 gets only passing references in a Bill on the environment. Perhaps this is because no one really wants to study the matter in detail and be forced to admit what a dreadful effect it is having, and will continue to have, on our environment and what a huge mistake it will turn out to be.
It is a tragedy that when the Government are doing so well on environmental issues—with this Bill, for example—and there is a huge increase in tree planting, a matter close to my heart, they should give their blessing to this unnecessary and destructive scheme. It is what is called a vanity project, serving little useful purpose, and will turn out to be the greatest manmade environmental catastrophe of our time. It will, without a shadow of a doubt, do far more damage to our countryside and people, and people’s lives, than it can possibly compensate for.
The scale of the damage is unbelievable and will include irreparable damage to many of our ancient woodlands. The very suggestion, which has been made, that they could be moved or replicated is, to anybody with the slightest understanding of these matters, quite ludicrous. It is hard to grasp the enormity of the operation. Its biggest site to date, at the southern end, covers 136 acres. It has just started boring a 170-metre long tunnel under the Chilterns that will take its massive boring machines, working 24 hours a day and seven days a week, three and a half years to complete. Already, there are problems with the local water supply, caused by the extent of the drilling through the chalk. I suspect that there will be many more unforeseen difficulties ahead.
I could go on to list all the environmental damage and despair that this project has caused, and will continue to cause, along its route. But I will not, partly because it is too depressing and partly because it will soon be obvious to everybody. I do not expect the Minister to accept, as I do, that HS2 should be stopped even at this late stage. But will he, at least, promise to watch the operation like a hawk and do all he possibly can to compel HS2 to minimise the damage it does?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that final comment. I am very happy to give him my absolute assurance that I will do whatever is in the power of Defra to ensure that, whatever the outcome of HS2’s construction, nature is left in at least as good a position as it currently is. I believe that is the commitment it has made: no net loss, even though they are not in scope of biodiversity net gain.
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 20 of Schedule 4 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We come now to the group beginning with Amendment 123. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Amendment 123
Member’s explanatory statement
Farmers and landowners currently have to pay for the removal of all fly-tipping. This amendment is intended to extend the 'polluter pays' principle to fly-tipping.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak to this group of amendments in my name and thank the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for adding his name to Amendments 123 and 136.
Fly-tipping is a blight on the countryside. Sometimes it is individuals not bothering to dispose of their larger redundant items of furniture properly. Sometimes it is criminal activity on the part of opportunists who offer to dispose of awkward items for households for a fee, then take them away and dump them in the countryside—mostly in some quiet rural lane, in a field gate or on a farmer’s lane.
Evidence suggests that fly-tipping affects 67% of farmers and that it costs them upwards of £47 million a year to clear up fly-tipped waste. In 2019-20, there were just under 1 million incidents of fly-tipping in England—the equivalent of nearly 114 every hour—at a cost to local authorities of millions. It is having a significant impact on our rural areas and wildlife. These miscreants do not have to pay for their actions; it is the landowner who has to pay to clear up the resultant mess, and there is little redress through the courts.
How often do we see the countryside littered with cartons from takeaway food? It really is time that the manufacturers and producers of this type of waste picked up the cost of clearing it up—McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken spring to mind, and I am sure your Lordships can think of others. It is often very difficult to trace the person who has done the fly-tipping but much easier to see who has manufactured the waste. The “polluter pays” principle is key in helping to solve the problem. This issue cannot be sidestepped.
The Bill makes provision to reduce the occurrence of fly-tipping and littering by the introduction of deposit schemes and powers for secondary legislation to tackle waste crime and the scourge of littering, but this will not help with the larger items that are often left in quantity on farmland. The Bill will introduce new measures for regulators, including local authorities, to tackle waste crime and illegal activity. It would be helpful to know what these measures are likely to be but, as they are expected to be determined in secondary legislation, perhaps the detail has yet to be written. The Bill also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to amend the primitive range of penalties for existing fixed penalty notices. This is critical in attempting to dissuade people from fly-tipping. Can the Minister say why this power is not being extended to local authorities and the police? They are much closer to the problem on the ground and may well know who the likely culprits are.
Private landowners are liable for any waste dumped on their land and responsible for clearing it away and paying the cost. If they do not act or inform the local authorities about the fly-tipped waste, they risk prosecution for illegal storage of waste. This is a nonsense. Now is the time to think about how landowners and farmers can be recompensed for the amount of money spent on clearing up other people’s waste. There needs to be greater support for the protection of landowners coupled with tougher penalties on perpetrators, such as seizing the vehicles used to fly-tip.
Having been a councillor for many years, I understand the role of local authorities and that some are more diligent than others in tackling the problem. Local authorities should make it easier for people to dispose of their waste legally at recycling centres. Sometimes their rules are inconsistent and unclear. Now is the time for these rules to be replaced with common sense and practical measures that enable people to recycle or dispose of their waste legally. This is a very serious issue and needs to be addressed urgently before the countryside becomes an unsightly dumping ground. I beg to move.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, on this amendment and thank her very much for her contribution. I also declare my interest as a landowner in Northumberland. I am not here to carp about the cost to me of doing this, more to carp about the inconvenience of finding your gateways blocked again and again, as well as the unpleasantness of this problem. It is often a really unpleasant thing to have to deal with.
Fly-tipping is a huge problem. It has got worse during the pandemic because a lot of local authorities closed their tips when there was social distancing of various kinds. The fly-tipping industry—if we can call it that—seems to have a sort of momentum behind it now, so even though those tips are open, it continues. On my farm, we experience this problem about once a week, to give you an idea of how bad it is. There is usually a chunk of leylandii hedge, a fridge, a cooker, some flooring, bits of clothing, toys, random chunks of concrete, lots of plastic, plenty of polystyrene packaging and some really unmentionable things as well.
If you are lucky, there is also a bank statement or a utility bill and this can be very helpful. However, when you go round and knock on the door of the person whose bank statement it is, they apologise profusely and, as the noble Baroness said, say, “I’m terribly sorry, we thought they were a legitimate waste disposal outfit”. That is, again and again, the problem that one encounters. There are plenty of rogues masquerading as legitimate waste disposal people. Surely it is possible to tackle that problem.
In our case, many of the tips are—because we keep our gates firmly locked—on the public highway side of the gate and they end up being the local authority’s problem to get rid of, not ours. All it takes is a couple of calls and a lot of inconvenience and it happens. As I said, I am not here to complain about the cost to me. It is £250 a time to hire a skip and it is a lot of work.
What would work extremely well, because this happens again and again in certain locations, is CCTV. But if you put up CCTV you have to put up a sign saying that you have put up CCTV, otherwise you cannot bring a prosecution based on it. Now, if you put up a sign saying that there is CCTV in a gateway, you are simply shifting the problem to somebody else’s gateway.
I worry that the cost of legitimately disposing of waste is too high and the inconvenience too great. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, touched on this as well. More effort needs to go into making it easier for households to find somewhere to dispose of their waste cheaply and easily. That would help a lot.
I think this amendment would help and it is right that landowners should not have to bear the cost of removing this stuff from their land, but further changes are necessary to alter the incentives and stop the dreadful nuisance created. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, in asking for further detail on what the Bill is likely to be able to enable, in terms of secondary legislation, to try to tackle this problem.
While I am on my feet, may I touch on one other issue? If you go for a walk on remote moorland in the Pennines, you encounter zero litter except one thing that you encounter on every walk and that is birthday balloons. They just appear all the time, but not in very large numbers. They are not terribly inconvenient and not so difficult to get rid of—you stuff them in your pocket—but it is upsetting in a beautiful landscape suddenly to find something shiny and bright purple. Well, purple is all right on a moorland—bright yellow, shall we say? It would be quite easy to ask the birthday balloon industry always to put an address on birthday balloons, so that I could send them back in a package.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to listen to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and my noble friend Lord Ridley, who set out the case for this amendment so convincingly and cogently. I can be very brief by comparison. I strongly support these amendments. It is simply a matter of natural justice and fairness. If someone dumps their old sofa or mattress in the street or a council car park, the council will initially bear the cost of removing them and then, of course, the council tax payers will share that cost. Of course, in an ideal world, people would not do that, like the people who left a bathtub, a commode and a pile of polystyrene beside some official recycling bins I was using recently. I would love it if we could catch in every case the despicable people who dump their garbage like that, but catching them, as my noble friend said, is very difficult.
The police and councils need to put more effort into tracking down the organised criminals who dump commercial and building rubbish in the countryside on a vast scale. What is worse, when these same vile individuals dump their rubbish in a farmer’s field or lane, there is no council or council tax payer to share the cost. The farmer has to bear the complete cost of removal. Of course, some of that waste may have poisoned his land and his animals. That is simply wrong and unfair. The cost burden has to be shared among society, as these amendments would provide for, and be passed on to producers.
I perfectly well accept that Mercers, Sealy beds and Argos did not dump the mattress or the sofa and that their hands are clean in that regard, but they profited from the original sale of the items. The farmer got no financial benefit from the sale, but has to pay the cost of their disposal. That is not right, and it is why I support the amendments.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow not just my noble friend Lord Blencathra but my noble friend Lord Ridley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville.
Like my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I do not have much to add. I think we know about the blight of fly-tipping. I would just say that it is not restricted to the countryside. There are also private areas even within the suburbs. I take the point that, very often, it is the local authority that picks up the bill, but there are areas where that does not happen—for example, on sports grounds and so on.
We have to tackle this issue. I put my name to Amendments 123 and 136, alongside that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. I know that the fines, which were increased a year or two ago, can be substantial, but they are not always put in place by magistrates. What my noble friend Lord Ridley said about CCTV is another very good point—it just moves it on—but people always ask, “Why can’t we have more CCTV out?” Perhaps some of the fines could go towards putting CCTV out, or even to a fund that could help those landowners and farmers who have substantial costs to meet.
As has been said, a lot of rogue builders or cowboys will often go around and say to somebody, “We’ll dispose of it; we’ve got the proper licence” and then just dump it. It is then traced back. Albeit that the people who have had the work done should have looked for the licence, it is not something that some of the more elderly think of doing. It is a real problem.
Finally, I thoroughly endorse what my noble friend Lord Ridley said about balloons. I wanted to try to ban some of those, because they are a danger not just to the countryside and what it looks like but to wildlife and so forth, including domestic livestock. If I was in that mood to ban things, I would also look at Chinese lanterns, which are even more of a danger.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I thoroughly support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, together with everything said by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, and the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. They correctly identify the largely ignored victims of fly-tipping, in the shape of farmer and landowner. A recent survey by the Environment Agency shows that farmers as a group are the most affected by large-scale, illegally dumped rubbish. The NFU rural crime survey revealed fly-tipping as the most prolific crime reported by members, with 48% of those surveyed experiencing it in 2020.
Farmers will often break the law by moving fly-tipped rubbish from private land to the public highway and thereby avoid the need to pay for the disposal. This is very unsatisfactory but understandable in the circumstances.
Many suffer appalling mental anguish as they see the countryside they love spoiled and degraded. One can argue that they should have fenced the land or secured the gate, but this is often not a practical solution, depending on the nature and topography of their land. In any event, fly-tipping should not happen and the only person to shoulder the blame should be the perpetrator. You only have to pick up a copy of the farming press to understand the grief and cost involved.
I have had asbestos dumped in woodland; others have had quantities of car tyres chucked over steep banks. Fridges, mattresses, deep freezers, gas bottles, sanitaryware—one could go on. This can be an expensive cleaning and disposal exercise. The asbestos cost me a four-figure sum, with the need to bring in specialists and a licensed skip. Education and financial sanctions are the answer, and the latter is covered perfectly by these amendments. Education is separate, but might eventually change behaviour for the better and more lastingly.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I have spoken on fly-tipping many times before in your Lordships’ House, so I will not repeat that. Given what other noble Lords have said, there is little left to say. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for introducing these amendments. She has my total support.
My noble friend Lord Ridley is absolutely right: the problem has got worse in the last 15 months. It was bad when I talked about it on the Agriculture Bill, but it is considerably worse now. I can only add to what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, just said, and that, if a farmer finds somebody dumping stuff in their field, they are often threatened. I know of a farmer who accosted somebody who was dumping rubbish in their field. The person turned on him and said, “Don’t do anything. We know your children. We know your children’s names and where they go to school”. These amendments are very necessary.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I join every speaker in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for tabling these amendments and offer my support. Rather than repeating what has been said, I will make a few extra points.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to fridges. There is a term I am not sure I have heard mentioned in this debate and an issue that needs to come up the agenda, which is planned obsolescence. We have seen many products last less and less time. I had a fridge that died after seven years, and I went on social media to have a big grumble about it. Lots of people told me I was lucky it had lasted that long. We are seeing lots of fridges being dumped, but for how long were they made to last? If we go back to the manufacturer or maker of the product, we are heading in the right direction.
How much farmers are suffering from this problem has been stressed already. According to a 2020 NFU survey, nearly 50% of farmer respondents had suffered from fly-tipping. So it is a huge issue for farmers, but also for many other people responsible for land. Since the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, is not speaking on this group, I will refer to the Woodland Trust which, in the seven years to June 2020, had spent more than £1 million cleaning up fly-tipping. We are looking at organisations like that.
We also have not mentioned manufacturers and commercial companies—not just fake disposal companies but companies not disposing of industrial waste appropriately. I refer to a case that just came up in the last few days. For the third time, in a similar location, Colchester council found a leaking drum containing what was clearly a noxious substance. It cost £2,000 each time to dispose of that drum properly—I should declare my vice-presidency of the LGA here—costs that the council has to bear. We have a widespread problem. We tend to say that it is individual householders but, as this debate has brought out, it is important to say that this problem is much broader.
The Earl of Lytton (CB) [V]
My Lords, as a rural resident and minor landowner, I very much welcome the opportunity to debate this issue. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, for raising it. Fly-tipping is by any standards a national scourge, and in places it occurs on what might be called an industrial scale. It really is a problem that we have to address.
My noble kinsman, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made all the points I would have made, except that I will reiterate something I mentioned at Second Reading. This business of landowner responsibility comes about by virtue of the environment Act of I think 1990. It was not just a question of polluter pays; if the polluter could not be found then the owner of the land was responsible. This always seemed manifestly unjust. It really does need to be dealt with.
I very much appreciate the notion that there should be some sort of co-responsibility, perhaps by putting sums into a fund that would enable this to be funded and operated by an NGO or by local government—I am not sure which; I do not wish to impose burdens on anybody. That seems to be one of the principles.
Some fly-tipping does not involve grab lorries that disgorge 20-tonne loads at a time, which is clearly an industrial-type process. People must have HGV licences and there are operators in places where these vehicles are legally stationed and parked up. There is quite a lot at stake for them if they are caught out. CCTV footage having to be disclosed should be unnecessary for this sort of thing. After all, one is dealing with the apprehension of a criminal act. It should be exposed as that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, referred to obsolescence. I quite agree with that point. Having nursed a domestic appliance to its 27th year before it finally had to be taken away when its replacement arrived, I know exactly what she means. One of the ways that we need to deal with waste in particular, and plastic especially, is to lengthen the life of the product or make it multiuse or dual purpose. I am not saying that is the case for a washing machine or a household white good, but it can be for many other things.
I admit that I am a beneficiary of some of this perhaps less criminal but less well-informed fly-tipping. One of my gateways greatly benefited from a pile of clean rubble dumped in my woodland. I scooped it up and stuck it where it was actually useful. On another occasion not so very many months ago, I gained a clean and unruptured bag of cement, which, in this time of cement shortages and shortages of many other building materials, I was quite glad of.
However, this rather suggests that there is a huge amount of ignorance. If we had better sorting and recycling of some of this material, we would all be better off, but many household and other recycling facilities do not allow commercial vehicles in. As I said, if you are a householder you might have to book a slot to deposit your waste. This seems a significant indicator of a lack of capacity, but there is also a lack of imagination in how we deal with these things.
Ultimately, it has to become socially unacceptable to do this, so that the only socially acceptable thing is to ring up or look through Yellow Pages, for example, to get somebody to remove your household waste. There has be a certification process, rather like Checkatrade, that tells you that these people are certified, have the proper credentials and will dispose of your stuff safely and not just dump it somewhere between here and the municipal disposal facility, because they can save themselves £100 or £200 in so doing. We need to be a bit more alert when setting about dealing with this issue.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to all the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, which we support. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There were some very interesting reflections and some very disturbing realities that people have been reflecting on. Those who produce pollution should bear the cost of managing it to prevent damage to human health or the environment. The polluter pays principle is part of a set of broad principles to guide sustainable development worldwide. This principle should extend to farmers and landowners.
I want to talk about some statistics now. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, said it costs farmers £47 million a year to clear fly-tipping. I have some more data. As the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, mentioned, more than half of the 800-plus respondents to that Environment Agency survey, the national waste crime survey, suggested that large-scale fly-tipping had increased over the last 12 months, with 15% of landowners making an insurance claim to clear dumped waste. Nearly 50,000 people have signed an open letter demanding immediate action to tackle fly-tipping in the countryside, following the surge in waste crime during the Covid-19 lockdown—a point that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made in relation to the increase in fly-tipping.
Following the theme of easy wins for the Government, this, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, is an easy win. I hope the Government will hear what everyone has said today, support the amendment, go back, and improve their track record on this issue. It is a really important point: landowners and farmers need that support and tougher penalties for fly-tipping. That is the request being heard from the Committee today, and also across the country from the wider public. We have had a theme of dentists, teeth and dentures today: the Government need to show some teeth and bite back at fly-tipping. In wishing the Minister a happy birthday, I just hope I can politely request that she does not let off any balloons tonight.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
It is quite rare that we have virtual unanimity around the Committee on something being a major problem, so I thank noble Lords for taking part in the debate.
On Amendments 123, 136, 137 and 138, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Harlington Mandeville, fly-tipping is a crime that affects all of society, including rural communities—perhaps mostly rural communities—and private landowners. We are committed to tackling this unacceptable behaviour. We appreciate the difficulties and costs that fly-tipping poses to landowners, as outlined by the noble Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Ridley. We are working with a wide range of interested parties, through the national fly-tipping prevention group, including with the NFU, to promote and disseminate good practice, including how to prevent fly-tipping on private land. I do appreciate the noble Lord’s suggestion on birthday balloons. I can assure him that I have not received any today—but my noble friend Lord Randall is absolutely right to mention the serious harm that Chinese lanterns can do to livestock.
In essence, we expect all local authorities to exercise their power to investigate fly-tipping incidents on private land, prosecuting the fly-tippers and recovering clearance costs where possible. As a number of noble Lords mentioned, with more people enjoying the outdoors than ever before with Covid, we have recently published an updated version of the Countryside Code in order to educate and help people enjoy the countryside in a safe and respectful way. I know how difficult it was, during Covid, when a number of local authority tips were closed, and I am sure that this increased the incidence of fly-tipping, particularly of large items.
In the Budget of 2020, we allocated up to £2 million to support innovative solutions to tackle fly-tipping. In April 2021, we commissioned a research project considering the drivers, the deterrents and the impacts of fly-tipping. This research project is due to be completed before the end of this year and will support informed policy-making. We are exploring additional funding opportunities and priorities, including considering the role of digital solutions, obviously including CCTV.
The measures in the Bill will grant greater enforcement powers and the ability to increase penalties in the future, which should help to reduce the incidence of both urban and rural fly-tipping. I should say here that Defra chairs the national fly-tipping prevention group, working with the NFU and others to share advice, and this group met in the spring.
My noble friend Lord Randall asked about fines. Local authorities have legal powers to take enforcement action against offenders. Anyone caught fly-tipping may be prosecuted, which can lead to a fine, up to 12 months’ imprisonment, or both, if convicted in a magistrates’ court. The offence can attract a fine, up to five years’ imprisonment, or both, if convicted in a Crown Court. I appreciate the difficulties of identifying some of the perpetrators of this crime. Instead of prosecuting, councils may choose to issue a fixed-penalty notice, an on-the-spot fine. Local authorities can issue fixed penalties of up to £400 to both fly-tippers and householders who pass their waste to an unlicensed waste carrier. Vehicles of those who are suspected of committing a waste crime, including fly-tipping, can be searched and seized.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, suggested, waste transportation is in urgent need of an update. Waste tracking is still largely carried out using paper-based record-keeping. This makes it really difficult to track waste effectively, as it provides organised criminals with the opportunity to hide evidence of the systematic mishandling of waste, leading to fly-tipping. The Bill will tackle this by introducing a new electronic system for tracking waste movements through Clauses 57 and 58 and will provide enforcing authorities, including the regulator, with enhanced powers to enter premises. We will be consulting on the detail this summer.
In addition, powers in the Bill also allow for the “polluter pays” principle to cover costs associated with the unlawful disposal of products or materials, as set out in Schedule 5, Part 2. This includes the cost of removing littered or fly-tipped items, including from private land.
Measures in the Bill on deposit return schemes will also allow the deposit management organisation to use moneys received under a scheme for the protection of the environment, including to cover costs associated with the removal of littered or fly-tipped items currently borne by farmers or private landowners. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, mentioned the dreaded term “planned obsolescence” and made a very good point. Notable initiatives have recently got into the public vernacular, such as “The Repair Shop” and other ways of recycling, reusing and restoring materials. The “polluter pays” principle in Schedule 5 includes powers to make producers pay for managing products at the very end of their life, and the disposal vernacular should become “recycle and reuse”.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, also asked about costs of disposal. Waste disposal authorities may make only reasonable charges for waste disposal. We will review HWRC services and the Controlled Waste Regulations and, subject to consultation, we will amend them to ensure that they remain fit for purpose and that charges are fairly applied.
In conclusion, I thank the noble Baroness for bringing forward these amendments. I am afraid that I am unable to answer her point on illegal storage, but I will write to her on that specific issue. In the meantime, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that these amendments are not needed, and I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and I thank the Minister for her response. I am encouraged that the Government are working with the NFU and other bodies to find solutions. Fly-tipping, as we have heard, is on the increase, and we have heard some very graphic descriptions of how this has affected landowners and farmers. It is, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said, a great inconvenience as well as very costly.
During the pandemic, the household waste recycling centres were indeed closed. When they reopened, there were huge queues around the corner. Unlike the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, householders in our area do not have to book a slot, and you can see what the queue is like on the website so that you can choose your time: usually a good time is about half an hour before it closes at 5 pm. So it is possible to access the HWRCs, but it is not easy.
The situation with CCTV signage is exceedingly unhelpful, and I ask the Government to look into this. It is a bit like having a sign for a speed limit: we get the sign saying that there is a speed camera, and by the time traffic reaches the camera, everybody has slowed down. If we are to have CCTV to prevent fly-tipping, I do not think we need signage to alert the perpetrators that it is on the way. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said, there is an issue of natural justice here, and the need to crack down on criminals, especially organised criminals.
I was very concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that he had had asbestos dumped on his land. That is an extremely toxic substance, and if householders find that they have some asbestos, perhaps on their roof, or in an extension, it costs them quite a lot to get rid of it at the household waste recycling centre. I wonder whether local authorities could think about reducing some of those costs, so that asbestos is not dumped but disposed of safely. It is outrageous that it should be dumped in the countryside, where it is a threat to animals and humans.
We have all made the point that there must be a shift from the landowner paying to the polluter paying. That has to happen as a matter of urgency. I welcome the Minister’s reassurance that there will be publicity around the Countryside Code. It could do with a bit of a relaunch, because I am sure people are not aware of how to behave in the countryside. More needs to be done to encourage local authorities to go for the maximum fixed penalty notice, instead of some derisory sum. I am grateful for all the contributions, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 10 of Schedule 5 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 18 of Schedule 5 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
Lord Goldsmith
“(3) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1)(a) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 5 of Schedule 6 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 14 of Schedule 6 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 130A. Anyone wishing to press this, or anything else in this group, to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Schedule 7: Resource efficiency requirements
Amendment 130A
Member’s explanatory statement
These amendment seeks greater transparency on the part of supermarkets in terms of plastic packaging.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
In moving Amendment 130A, I shall speak also to Amendments 130B and 141A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Amendment 139, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. As with the various other amendments in this group, they seek concrete, practical steps to reduce plastic pollution, primarily by reducing plastic production. What is not produced in the first place cannot later pollute.
Amendments 130A and 130B seek to strengthen the Bill to enforce full transparency from businesses with more than 250 employees about the plastic they use at every point in the supply chain. We are not wedded to that threshold, but it is the same one used by the Government; for example, as a threshold for making declarations on the gender pay gap. A threshold of that order means that we are not imposing huge burdens on tiny companies but just asking a small thing of the large companies which are the primary plastic polluters.
UK supermarkets use some 114 billion pieces of throwaway plastic packaging each year. Anti-plastic campaigners A Plastic Planet have worked out that this equates to 653,000 tonnes of plastic waste—the equivalent of almost 3,000 747 jumbo jets.
This avalanche of plastic is not just in the packaging we take home with us from the supermarket. It wraps pallets of food in transit, and it sits on shelves, wrapping pretty much everything we buy, pushing sales while creating a toxic legacy for our planet. That is why Amendment 130B refers to
“primary, secondary and tertiary plastic packaging”,
which is the jargon, respectively, for packaging we take home, packaging used to promote sales and packaging used to transport goods before products make it to the shelves.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I applaud the Government’s determination to drive down the single use of plastics. Clause 54 and its associated Schedule 9 will do a useful job in reducing plastic pollution by introducing a charge on the use of single-use plastics, but Amendment 139 aims to push the Government to be braver and go further with the Bill. I also support the wish to make the use of plastics more transparent in Amendments 130A and 130B.
The lockdown and its subsequent easing have shown us all the dangers of allowing the single-use culture to flourish. I, like many other noble Lords, was appalled when we ordered online delivery shopping during lockdown to find so many of our purchases wrapped in sheaths and sheaths of paper inside a huge cardboard box—all of which had to be thrown away. Many noble Lords have expressed their horror at the litter left behind in our parks and streets as lockdown eased. That litter is not just plastic. It is also wooden cutlery, aluminium cans and paper bags, all of which are used just once and then discarded and all of which despoils our countryside and urban spaces.
On day two of Committee, the Minister said:
“For the long-term legally binding target on waste reduction and resource efficiency, we want to take a more holistic approach to reduce consumption, not just of plastic, but of all materials. This would increase resource productivity and reduce the volume of waste we generate overall”.—[Official Report, 23/6/21; col. 255.]
Does the Minister stand by that statement? If so, will he support the holistic approach demanded by this amendment? That holistic approach means that, although the campaign to reduce plastics must be supported, it cannot be carried out at the expense of driving manufacturers and consumers into substituting them with other single-use materials, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just warned us.
As it stands, Schedule 9 risks creating a situation where single-use plastic will be replaced by other environmentally damaging materials. I have already mentioned that paper is being used extensively for packaging, bags and cups, and wood is being used for cutlery. It is not always possible to determine the provenance of all paper and wood. Not all our pulp for imported paper comes from the EU and the USA. Annually, more than 750,000 hectares of timber—equivalent to nearly half the size of Wales—is imported into the UK from China, Russia and Brazil, where there is a high risk of deforestation and a threat to biodiversity. The paper manufacturing process increases the use of chemical waste, creating water pollution and pouring carbon into the atmosphere. A recent study by the Danish environment agency found that a paper bag must be reused 43 times if it is to have a lower environmental impact than the average plastic bag.
Increasingly, coffee shops and cafés are stocking disposable paper cups that do not contain plastic. As the Bill stands, they will not be included in the new charges. There were 5 billion disposable coffee cups used in the UK last year. Noble Lords only have to look at the aftermath of any big event to see the plethora of paper cups left littering the venue and its surrounding areas. A charge on all single-use items would go a long way to decreasing the number of disposable cups being used. Studies show that a charge of just 25p could reduce that use by more than 30%.
There were similar fears of plastic being substituted by aluminium cans, which can have a similar devastating effect on the environment. Aluminium production is energy intensive and accounts for 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Studies show that UK aluminium has one of the highest greenhouse gas impacts per kilogram of any packaging in the UK.
PwC examined the greenhouse gas impacts of packaging types currently used in the UK of the behalf of the Circular Economy Task Force. It found that all materials used for packaging consumed annually in the UK account for 13.4 megatonnes of carbon, or 2% of this country’s carbon emissions. The scale of emissions created by packaging, revealed by this study, makes it clear that the Government’s resources strategy should prioritise the reduction of all virgin materials. In a recent survey of stakeholders, one supermarket said about the drive to reduce plastics:
“The whole agenda needs to be more aligned and more encompassing with carbon. We’re so focused on the plastics that we seem to have lost sight of the impacts around climate.”
This amendment will go far to remedy these threats by bearing down on single-use materials consumption and shifting this country’s focus to a culture of reuse and refill, which must be a priority in developing the circular economy promoted by this Bill. Driving down material consumption and shifting to the reuse of materials must remain the Government’s highest priority.
When a similar amendment to this one was tabled in the other place, the Minister, Rebecca Pow, said that, when looking at this Bill, it bears down on this country’s disposable culture. She said that it needs to be taken into account
“how much of the Bill is aimed at tackling”—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/20; col. 439.]
single-use plastic. Is this answer sufficient to win the war on single-use culture? Can the Minister explain to the Committee why the Government should not introduce these wider charges? Surely they should be encouraging manufacturers and consumers to reuse as many products as possible; it is a vital part of the circular economy.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has made a very powerful speech on cracking down not just on single-use plastics but on every single-use product. It merits deep consideration.
I was also fascinated by what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said on Amendment 141 about those horrible little plastic sachets. I agree entirely with her that they should be banned, not just because they are dangerous for the environment but because they are fiendish little things. On the few occasions I have had them, I could not get them open, but once you stick them in your wash-bag, they burst spontaneously. There is not much point in them.
Before speaking to Amendment 140, I want to comment on something that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said in the last debate: that her fridge lasted only 27 years. She should have bought the same model that I believe our late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother bought for Mey Castle, which was still going after 60 years. That is a good use of material.
Amendment 140 seeks to introduce a new clause to ban the use of polystyrene as used for food containers or packaging material by 1 January 2023, and ban its use in construction by 31 December 2026, in five years’ time. Why do I want to do that? Polystyrene is lightweight and has superb insulation properties for keeping items cold or hot. It is widely used for a whole range of functions but where safer alternatives could be used instead; because it is widely used, it is one of the most dangerous and polluting plastics damaging our environment today.
Of course, the manufacturers say than it can be recycled. No doubt it can—that is, if you can get enough of it to a sophisticated facility, it could be done, but does any noble Lord know of any council that actually collects polystyrene, either in food containers or the big chunks of it you get protecting televisions and other electronic items? I have not seen a big bin for polystyrene at any recycling centre, and all the council advice I have seen says to put it in the waste garbage bin.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I speak to Amendments 141 and 142 to 145, which are in my name. Amendment 141 relates to the plastic packaging tax, which was placed in law by this year’s Finance Bill and will come into effect next year. The tax is welcome in principle, but my amendment seeks to probe the Government on the detail. Manufacturers of innovative compostable packaging solutions are aghast that the tax makes no distinction between their products and old-fashioned polluting plastic. Members of the Bio-based and Biodegradable Industries Association have attempted to engage Ministers in Defra and the Treasury on this point but are hitting a brick wall, since the Government are interested only in a single threshold —namely, the amount of a given product that is recycled.
It is of course a fine public policy objective to encourage the use of recycled rather than virgin plastics, as the tax attempts to do, but that single criterion fails to recognise a few facts of life. First, packaging that is to come into contact with food cannot be recycled, for food hygiene reasons. Secondly, plastic films are extremely hard to recycle and, even if they are recycled, are seldom if ever recycled into new films. The idea of a circular economy on such packaging is just an illusion.
By contrast, compostable films can be an appropriate substitute and are more sustainable than conventional films from recycled sources. Compostable packaging can never contain 30% recycled content because its destined end of life is to disappear completely in the soil, leaving no microplastics behind. The unintended consequence of the tax as it stands is that these innovative solutions are perversely penalised.
The amendment asks the Government to recognise that treating independently certified compostable films as separate and distinct from conventional plastics would not create a free-for-all or a loophole. The compost quality protocol sets out clear safeguards for waste-derived compost, including by specifying that any compostable packaging and plastic wastes accepted must be independently certified to meet composting standards. Among these is BS EN 13432, referenced in the amendment, which is a strong, internationally accepted British and European standard for determining which bioplastics are industrially compostable or biodegradable when processed through anaerobic digestion or in-vessel composting. As I said in the debate on the first day in Committee, these materials are not a silver bullet but they are rightly recognised by the recent report Breaking the Plastic Wave as part of the picture when it comes to tackling plastic pollution.
Amendments 142 to 145 are related to Amendment 141. If we believe that compostable alternatives to conventional plastic have a place, particularly in food-contact packaging, it follows that we should make provision for those compostable materials to be collected so that the end-user knows that they are indeed composted. Alternatively, householders can mix them with their garden and kitchen compostable waste. As a consumer, it is baffling to pick up something that is labelled “compostable” if you have no obvious means of composting it.
The Bill rightly places in law the necessity for separate food waste collections, and my Amendments 142 to 145 simply seek to establish that independently certified compostable materials should be collected alongside this waste stream. The films that we are talking about here are of low density and can easily fit in a food-waste caddy. Indeed, in certain applications, such as the compostable bags containing bananas in Waitrose, the packaging can be used as a liner for a food caddy.
The present custom and practice of local authorities and their waste management firms is rather variable when it comes to these compostable items. Some faithfully ensure that compostable films are properly processed. Others actually strip out compostable items, treating them as contaminants. It cannot be right for consumers to be sold products that are compostable but for the waste management system to let them down at the end of the process by incinerating or landfilling these items. I shall refer to this issue in later amendments.
Approximately 45 composting plants in the UK are approved for composting inputs that include food waste at present, but the current network processes only 20% of what will be necessary from 2023 onwards. In consequence, much of the 80% extra capacity that must be built will be entirely new or revamped plants. Waste managers need a clear steer now that anaerobic digestion plants must have a composting phase in which compostable materials, such as BS EN 13432-certified packaging, are properly processed. Handling this issue properly has the potential to reduce the contamination of soil from normally polluting plastics, which is why it has the support of the National Farmers’ Union. With these amendments added to the Bill, it would be clear that as composting infrastructure is expanded across the UK, all composting plants must make provision for ensuring the proper processing of compostable packaging materials.
Finally, I turn to Amendments 130A, 130B and 141A, also in this group and capably moved and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I fully support her in these amendments. As the adage goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Transparency about the sheer amount of plastic used by supermarkets would catalyse consumer pressure on the big players to kick their plastic habit. I commend the work that Iceland has done, which the Minister mentioned on our first day. The transparency clause in Amendments 130A and 130B would push other firms in a similar direction. The Minister will by now have received the message that I am not going away on this issue, and I look forward to his response.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, yet again, the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, makes a soft threat to the Minister about not going away, and I support her completely. This is a really interesting group of amendments, all incredibly sensible. I have signed, with delight and surprise, Amendment 140 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but my noble friend Lady Bennett will speak to that and I will speak to the others.
We all know that banning the use of single-use plastic has been far too slow. Many Members of your Lordships’ House have mentioned this many times and urged the Government to do something about it. The Chief Whip is waving at me; he is probably telling me, “Go on! Go on!” We have to reduce the absurd amount of plastic we are still churning out every single day when we know the danger that promises. The Government keep on publishing plans and strategies and promises and consultations and all sorts of things, but nothing actually happens. We just have to do it.
I spoke previously about how plastics, and microplastics in particular, will in future be seen in a similar light to asbestos—a substance with miraculous properties but such a huge danger to health that it is phased out almost totally from general use. That is how I would like to see the future of plastic.
The Government and Parliament have vital roles in the transition away from mass plastic. Industry, PR and lobbyists will bleat on about industry-led transition, but this is just greenwashing most of the time. For as long as you can buy bananas wrapped in plastic, you can know that the industry claims are nonsense. I realise that Iceland has taken some huge steps and is an example to other similar supermarkets. I do not eat much from Iceland, but I do support its initiatives. Parliament has to legislate, and the Government have to lead.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, also raised compostable plastics. It is an important issue, not least because of the confusion they cause. Some are home compostable in a regular back garden compost heap and will completely break down into safe, organic matter. Others will not break down except in special conditions in an industrial compost facility. There is a whole public education issue there, and not even the waste authorities seem to have worked it out yet. There is no common ruling or understanding. It seems a real shame that compostable plastics are not being collected by council waste services and are, instead, wrongly going to landfill or contaminating the plastic recycling stream.
I hope the Government have a plan for this; it is one of many issues where central government absolutely must get a grip on local authority recycling services and set basic minimum standards across the country. This is something many of us have been asking for for a long time, and it is time the Government listened.
Lastly, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said at one point that the cheapest is not the best. Of course, the cheapest immediate option is often one of the most expensive if you look over its lifetime. He is absolutely right: the cheapest is not the best. We have to look at and understand the future repercussions of everything we do.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, have withdrawn, which brings us to our next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I will be brief. I just want to point out that we have apparently thrown away—I have checked this in lots of sources—3 million face masks every minute across the world. It means, in a way, that we cannot trust ourselves in what we think about plastic. We have to get firm and do something very serious about this, which is why I have put my name to Amendment 139.
I also support Amendment 141A about getting rid of sachets. If we do not legislate, we do not innovate. Unilever, for instance, has come up with a new seaweed-based thing to make sachets out of, which genuinely completely composts or fades away in water without any damage. Right now, the supermarkets have a free rein. Iceland has done its best but voluntary contributions never work. I have spoken about this before, but the relationship of single-use plastic to food waste is massive, because vegetables are wrapped up and you get too many—for example, you get five courgettes in a packet when you wanted one. This is a great way to get you to spend more money and creates waste all the way down the line.
I shall not go on with the statistics; everyone has come up with so many of them. All I want to say is that I once sat next to Liam Donaldson and he said that he did not sleep the night before he announced the smoking ban in Great Britain. He thought he would be the most unpopular man in Britain, but by lunchtime the next day he was the most popular man in Britain because it was what everyone wanted. The truth is, people hate plastic. Everybody moans about it; it does not matter whether you are talking to a reader of the Sun or the Daily Mail. This is a universal dislike and we want the Government to do something serious.
It needs a combination of taxes and a complete ban on single-use plastic. Around the world, 69 countries have done just that: they have banned it. If you ban it, you get innovation. Just before the pandemic, I was in India. The amount of plastic plus waste in India, which is introducing a ban from next year, is quite astonishing. One of the disastrous reasons is that there are no vultures left; they have all died because they have eaten plastic as well as the various antibiotics that were fed into cattle. One of the bizarre consequences is that at the Tower of Silence in Mumbai, a Parsi temple, there are no longer any vultures to eat the dead, so they have to be fried by solar panels. This is a really weird consequence and we are doing this with masks at the moment. Three million a minute are going into our system.
This is why you cannot trust voluntary regulations of any nature and why the Government have to seize this year of COP and the biodiversity conference and do something. We know what plastic does to our nature. We will all be proud—noble Lords will be proud and will all wake up as the most popular men in Britain.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. Since she started on international issues, in speaking to Amendment 140 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, also signed by my noble friend, I will point out that in April Washington state became the seventh US state to ban takeaway polystyrene containers. Australia is planning to be rid of them by mid-2022 and Costa Rica has a ban coming in this year, so I will have to come back to that much loved government phrase “world-leading” as there is some catching up to do here on polystyrene takeaway containers in particular. I will also point out that the National Research Council in the US has found these containers can
“reasonably be anticipated to be a human carcinogen”.
This is a real no-brainer.
In 2016 a group of chefs, including some of the usual celebrity names you might expect, were calling on the London mayor to ban polystyrene as the scourge of Soho. This problem is urban, rural, marine and general—it is truly a problem everywhere. All of plastic is a problem but polystyrene is a particularly pernicious problem and this would be an easy win, as we now all keep offering the Minister.
Finally, to pick up the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, he perhaps underestimates the degree to which plastic really is a much-hated material. None the less, I entirely agree with him that when it comes to the waste pyramid, “reduce” is by far the best option. I hope that when we get to Report, he might think about backing my amendment, which I will be revisiting in some form. Rather than talking about resource efficiency, we should be talking about a reduction of resources.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has withdrawn, so the next speaker will be the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Government on the work they have already done in attempting to ensure that we reduce the amount of plastic, particularly single-use plastics, and on the measures already in the Bill, such as Clause 54 and some of the schedules. The Government and my noble friend are absolutely determined to make sure that the Bill significantly addresses the dangers and the damage done to the environment by the use of plastics, which so many of us have grown up without thinking about the consequences of using. I hope that my noble friend can engage with some of the intentions and specifics of some of the amendments in this group.
I particularly support Amendment 140, which was so clearly explained by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Banning polystyrene use in food packaging, for example, could make a significant difference in the short term. I also agree with his aim of eventually banning it in construction.
I also add my support for the aims of the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, which concern plastics which are not polluting but have been developed to be fully biodegradable. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that some plastics are not planet-friendly, while others completely biodegrade naturally. If we are to impose a plastic tax, which I would support fully, there may be a need, through independent standards, to differentiate those that biodegrade properly from those which clearly will continue to damage the environment.
I look forward to hearing the thoughts of my noble friend about some of the amendments in this group, which are well worth considering adding to this excellent Bill.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords, this is a powerful suite of amendments to tackle waste and our throw-away culture. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, the Government have had some success in tackling the low-hanging fruit—issues such as cotton buds containing plastics—but, somehow, sachets did not quite get included in the early initiatives. Clearly, with Covid, some uses of single-use sachets are helpful, but, in other instances, such as beauty products, it is really time for them to be banned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, made a very compelling case for more duties on companies to ensure that there is mandatory reporting of plastic packaging. In the past, this Government have trusted too much in companies and gone down the route of voluntary schemes. Now is the time to encourage more mandatory reporting of companies in this critical area.
Of course, we are not just talking about plastics here. I was pleased to co-sign Amendment 139, in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which will encourage charges for all single-use items. He very powerfully made the case that a number of these alternatives are equally environmentally reckless and certainly will not cut our global greenhouse gas emissions, so we have to not only tackle single-use plastics but look at the alternatives that might be proposed.
My noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville has done an absolutely sterling job tonight of raising a number of key issues and, in this group, lucidly reflecting on the issues around the importance of compostables, which can make a real contribution to moving towards more sustainable packaging alternatives. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, rightly said, the public need more education about compostables, and we need more local authorities to be collecting compostable films, because not all of them can be composted in back gardens—and indeed many households do not have back gardens, so they could not use compost bins even if they wanted to.
On behalf of the Lib Dems, I say that we absolutely support the Government’s plastic tax initiative, which is very welcome, although it clearly needs to avoid perverse penalties that would curtail the options for compostable films and incentivise their development for the future.
It was interesting to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said about polystyrenes, which is clearly an area that needs a lot of attention. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I think that this is a complex issue, and, in the long term, we need to look at how they can be used less in construction. However, now we absolutely need to support alternatives, because these exist for food packaging. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, clearly made the case that this has been happening in a number of places around the world already. We need to get on to this and address the issue of stopping polystyrene being used in food packaging.
Like other Members, I attest to the fact that there is support on all Benches for more support and action by the Government to tackle waste. As we move towards the end of the evening, I hope that the Minister might be able to respond positively at last to some of these amendments.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Before I address the individual amendments in the group, I reiterate that the Government absolutely share the concerns associated with the proliferation of plastics. I assure Members across the House that measures in the Bill will vastly improve the tools that we have at our disposal to tackle plastics pollution and the damage that they cause.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for Amendment 139. Noble Lords have spoken extensively and unanimously about the need to combat plastics and the damage that they do to the environment. I know that litter picks on the beaches near Culross find a significant amount of single-use plastic, as they do on all beaches, sadly, even those around the Pitcairn Islands, which are the most remote on the planet.
The Bill provides a robust approach to help to move towards a more circular economy in all sectors. Items that are not captured by Clause 54 could be captured by other measures, such as EPR or resource efficiency. In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, I say that I stand by my earlier comments about resource use more broadly and the need to reduce waste and our impact on the planet generally. I do not think that we disagree—we know that, in the open environment, plastics endanger wildlife in a particular way. As has been said, unlike other materials, they will persist for hundreds of years—we do not actually know how long, because none has fully decomposed— which is why we believe that they require particular, special forensic attention through these measures. Through the Bill, powers to place charges on single-use plastic items will be a powerful tool in helping us to reduce unnecessary single-use plastics.
The noble Viscount also mentioned cups. To reassure him: I recently learned that disposable cups filled with liquid drinks are classified as packaging and therefore obligated under the packaging producer responsibility regulations.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, wishes to speak after the Minister, so I call her now.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I have a very simple question. The Minister referred to the Government already having power to ban materials such as certain sorts of polystyrene containers. Do they have any plans to take such action?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
Do we have plans? We are committed to extending our bans on unnecessary single-use packaging and have a 25-year environment plan to phase out all unnecessary use of plastic, not just single-use plastic, so in that sense, yes, we do have a plan. The noble Baroness is right that there will need to be continuous pressure. I think that pressure will continue to grow from consumers, voters and from parliamentarians of all parties to accelerate those bans and expand their remit. From my point of view, I have ambition and hope that we will expand that approach as far and wide as we possibly can and as quickly as we can.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for the support for my noble friend Lady Ritchie’s amendments, particularly on action for transparency and for tackling the use of sachets.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, made a very important point: we need a holistic approach to the banning of all single-use products. That point was very well made. He also quite rightly made the point that it is often hard to know the composition of the materials you are dealing with, particularly single-use materials. Some of them conspire to look like wood but they are not always wood, for example.
The noble Viscount also decried the huge amount of packaging that comes with online purchases. I could see loads of heads nodding when he mentioned that. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, rightly pointed out that polystyrene is also massively overused in packaging when other materials that can be more easily recycled are available. We very much support his plea for a ban in that regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, quite rightly reminded us that history will judge us badly if we do not tackle plastic and that we may well find out that, historically, it is seen as damaging as asbestos. She is quite right about that. As the Minister said, we do not quite know the full effects of plastic in the environment yet. We are yet to find out some of those horrors.
The noble Baroness also quite rightly pointed out some of the difficulties with biodegradable and compostable plastics, which break down differently in the waste stream. There is a lack of guidance for waste managers and a lack of information for consumers at the present time. It is important to tackle that issue if we are to encourage the use of compostable plastic in the future; I was interested to hear what the Minister had to say on that.
I am so glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, raised the issue of plastic face masks. It was shocking to hear that we are throwing away 3 million face masks a minute. I know that the Minister is passionate about this, as he demonstrated earlier in the debate. I do not know whether we could get away with announcing a complete ban on plastic face masks but perhaps we could have a quick win—maybe a world first—if we required all workplaces to provide all of their staff with reusable masks. That would be a fairly easy way to intervene in the current obsession with people using disposable masks.
The Minister said that there were already some requirements on supermarket reporting and he detailed some of them, but our amendment would go further, to all large employers. I hope he would agree that there is a real need to tackle the greenwash claims that abound among some employers and supermarkets. We need to have the facts out in the open to shine some light. What was the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell: sunshine is the best disinfectant? That is what we need: some more light shone on these claims.
Did the Minister mention our sachets campaign? That is the thing that got the most support from around the Chamber. Maybe that could be another quick win, if the Minister was so inclined to have a sachet ban. Quite honestly, I do not think that most people would miss them if they were not there.
I will report back to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, on the nature of the comments made today, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(1A) The requirements in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out, and assessments and draft regulations published, before this paragraph comes into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
“(2) The requirement in sub-paragraph (1) may be met by consultation carried out before this paragraph comes into force.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the consultation requirement in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 may be met by pre-commencement consultation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 133. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.
Schedule 8: Deposit schemes
Amendment 133
“(1A) When making regulations establishing a deposit scheme, the relevant national authority must have regard to the public interest in such a scheme being operational by 1 January 2023.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to accelerate the establishment of deposit return schemes, which a recent government consultation suggests will not be operational until late 2024 at the earliest.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 133 I will also speak to Amendment 133A in my name. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for adding their names.
These amendments would accelerate to 1 January 2023 the introduction of deposit return schemes and set minimum criteria for the composition and size of the containers to be included in such schemes. These criteria are the equivalent of those already being introduced in Scotland and supported by the Welsh Government. This would make it easier for businesses, retailers and consumers to access consistent and compatible schemes, which would result in improved take-up. It would incentivise consumers to take their empty drinks containers to return points hosted by retailers. The technology already exists for reverse vending machines that can collect empty bottles and return deposits, as well as sell the original filled bottles. Trials are already running of refill schemes to ensure the same bottles can be reused.
Schedule 8 already includes outline proposals for a deposit return scheme. As ever, the weasel word “may” is in the provision, as in:
“The relevant national authority may by regulations establish deposit schemes”.
We know that the Government’s resource and waste strategy supports the idea of deposit return schemes. As the Minister said in his letter of 10 June, such a scheme will
“help reduce the amount of littering in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, boost recycling levels, and allow high quality materials to be collected in greater quantities.”
We agree with this analysis, but once again we are concerned that the Government’s timetable for action will slip. Already, by their own admission, the scheme has been delayed. They are now saying that the scheme will not be introduced until late 2024 at the earliest—in other words, in the next Parliament. This means that they will break their pledge in the 2019 Conservative manifesto to introduce a deposit return scheme. It also means that six and a half years will have passed since it first became policy.
Meanwhile, Scotland is pushing ahead and, once again, England is being left behind. This is why Amendment 133 proposes an introduction date of January 2023, to avoid further delay, and why Amendment 133A would introduce consistency across the four nations. There has never been a greater need for such a scheme. The Government’s own figures show that every year across the UK, consumers use an estimated 14 billion plastic drinks bottles, 9 billion drinks cans and 5 billion glass bottles. Meanwhile, fewer than half of plastic bottles in the UK are recycled, and we know that much of the remainder end up as litter or landfill. In contrast, as the Government concede in their fact sheet, Germany, Norway and the Netherlands have achieved collection rates, including recycling rates, of 98%, 92% and 95% respectively for plastic bottles through the introduction of deposit return schemes.
We also know that the most effective bottle return schemes include all the major sizes and material types, not just plastic. This was confirmed by the Government’s own impact assessment in 2019, which found that the most comprehensive schemes offered the biggest financial benefits. But we also have to ensure that the introduction of such schemes does not have perverse consequences. For example, deposit schemes should complement existing collection schemes and build on the success of the glass and aluminium recycling schemes already in existence. This is why we welcome the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, which would vary the deposit fee depending on the size of the container. We also want to ensure that there is not a switch from glass to plastic bottles, given the efficient closed-loop systems already in place for recycled glass, which is collected separately from kerbsides and bottle banks. Our aim in all this should be to cut down on single-use plastic and develop closed-loop recycling for all materials captured through a deposit scheme. I hope noble Lords will see the sense in these proposals and I beg to move.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the debate on this amendment be adjourned.