Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking.
National Health Service: Liability Costs
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the liability costs to the National Health Service in England that relate to negligence can be reduced; and, if so, how.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I intend to read what I have said. It is very unusual for me to do so and I hope that I will read it reasonably well. I do it because I sent a copy of what I am going to say to the Minister, as I am going to make some suggestions and I thought it only sensible that she should know what they were because trying to answer them immediately might be slightly more difficult, so it is in the hope that it will be practical that I do this.
My first appearance here as a junior advocate was in a clinical negligence case. Your Lordships will understand that that was not yesterday or the day before, and I have done a number of these cases in a more senior role since. I should say, in order to deal with the idea of any sort of specialty, that I am an honorary fellow of three royal colleges—particularly, in this area, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
In the last year the cost to the NHS of clinical negligence was £2,209.3 million, of which claimant legal costs were £448.1 million. The cost to the NHS of its own service is shown as less, but the two are not properly comparable because the NHS costs do not include the staff costs and that kind of thing. That was confirmed in a Written Answer some time ago. It is sometimes suggested that this is due to the existence of conditional fees—some doctors seem to think that conditional fees have caused this—but I point out that not a penny goes out on that basis unless fault is agreed or established on the part of the NHS.
I ask the Minister to say whether, when a fault is established or agreed against the NHS, the whole service is warned to avoid repeating it. It seems to me that that would be one of the best ways of cutting down examples of negligence. Once something has happened, it is important that everyone is warned against it happening again. These things are apt to be quite common.
One of the first cases that I did involved the death of a person in anaesthesia. The reason was that the machine that was used had two levers, one for shutting out the oxygen and the other being set to allow the oxygen in. The anaesthesiologist in charge of dealing with this child did not notice that the lever was down and the oxygen was shut off. They could not understand what was wrong and sadly the child died before they discovered it. If that happens, it should be broadcast right across the area of the NHS that is using that kind of facility so that it can be stopped immediately. That is such an obvious thing to happen. What arrangements are there in the NHS for spreading the news of a fault in order that it be not repeated?
On damages, I strongly advocate the repeal of Section 2(4) of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948. In my experience, two principal factors increase damages. One is that the fault occurred at or near birth, so the damages take account of the whole of life, which is why those damages are especially high. The second is that the loss of earnings resulting from the fault is large. Generally, the NHS treats all patients equally and I suggest that it would be appropriate to cap the rate at which loss of earnings can be recovered by perhaps a multiple of the current average wage. That could be made public and any patient undergoing treatment whose income was higher than the cap could, I suggest, make an insurance arrangement accordingly.
In the case where the liability of the NHS is established, there is scope for excessive claimants’ costs. I suggest that a table of allowable costs linked to the amount of damages could be used to mitigate this with a provision—I can see that there are cases requiring this—that the court should have a power in a particular case involving special difficulty not provided for in the table to award a larger figure.
I should add that over my career I have been involved in many discussions of alternatives to the judicial system: administrative systems, systems that make it automatic and so on. I have never found, or been involved in, a decision to accept anything of that sort as satisfactory. I honestly believe that the judicial system is the most efficient and fair-minded system that you can have.
One of the great difficulties is that inevitably there is a distinction between what is caused by fault and what is natural. What is caused by fault will be subject to compensation and what is natural will obviously not. Often the investigation into the cause is the centre of the investigation that normally takes place. These are humble suggestions made with a view to trying to help the NHS to devote the money that it gets to front-line services rather than paying out to people who have been harmed, more or less, in their course of treatment by the NHS.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, speaking in the presence of senior lawyers as a humble simple solicitor is always, to me at least, rather a trial. When I first came to the House of Lords, I made the serious error of speaking with what I had self-styled authority on a particular Supreme Court case. My failure to read the speakers’ list properly led me to be somewhat humiliated when the next speaker had been a member of the Supreme Court and had deliberated on the case that I was citing. I learned my lesson, so I shall be very careful in the presence of eminent lawyers in what I have to say.
In preparation for this short debate, I thought that I would supplement the usual excellent Hansard extracts and our Library briefings with some extra material gleaned from the world wide web. As a lawyer, I have become used to the new permitted advertising, hopefully tasteful, that my profession has undertaken in recent years, but I was astonished to find that under the heading of “medical negligence” it was almost impossible to find anything of an objective, instructive or helpful nature among the plethora of law firms and quasi-legal entities offering very strong encouragement to citizens to pursue medical negligence claims.
We are all of course aware of initiatives taken by some legal firms to pursue group actions, where they try to encourage us to find fault with motor cars that do not quite come up to specifications—I think that all of us have seen that. My legal training always suggested to me that a simple principle was no compensation without a proof of loss. However, that does not seem to be the case anymore, so without trespassing on the current cases, I wonder how that principle is being maintained. There have been times when I have been sitting at home and relaxing at the weekend when I have suddenly had a phone call telling me that I have had a car accident and asking whether I would like to claim large sums of money as a result.
I am not for a moment suggesting that medical negligence cases are anything but proper and necessary where the negligence is clear and should be punished or accounted for. My problem lies with the way in which claimants are sometimes encouraged to come forward: “no win, no fee”, “our 30-second claim calculator”, “getting results for you” or “no need to go to court because financial settlements are quite common” et cetera. I wonder how many times the NHS finds it cheaper and more convenient to pay out money without accepting liability after receiving threats of this kind—and threats of court action as well. No test of the issues ever takes place in such cases.
My trade union, the Law Society, has commented on government plans to introduce fixed costs for smaller claims against the NHS in changes to Civil Procedure Rules. This is against a background where, often, the legal costs in such cases far exceed the actual compensation obtained. I agree that even in smaller claims we should not restrict a solicitor’s ability to work on them to the highest standards, but, if possible, we need to avoid the need for expensive and drawn-out exercises. More generally, the way in which claims are handled by the NHS bodies, including NHS Resolution, is a cause for concern. My noble and learned friend has already highlighted the enormous sums paid out for claims and legal costs—more than £2 billion a year, 1.5% of the entire NHS budget.
A Cambridge University paper on clinical negligence and evidence, published in July this year, highlights the problems in assessing cases. It reminds us that in order to succeed in a claim against the NHS four elements must be proven in the law of tort: first, that the health provider had a duty of care to the claimant; secondly, that such a duty of care was breached; thirdly, that the breach caused the claimant some form of loss or harm; and, fourthly, that at least one of the losses caused by the provider’s breach is actionable. This is the common law and it is based on the interpretation of a greater than 50% probability that a breach of care led to private losses. I think that some medico-legal advertisers should be reminded of those elements as well.
The other problem, even when these basic hurdles are passed and liability is proven or accepted, is the question of quantum: how much? What is the level of economic and social redress or individual loss and what level of punitive damages should be awarded? In the latter case, is there evidence that punitive damages have a direct effect on improving standards and, more specifically, ensuring that those who were responsible for the negligence suffer consequences or, at the very least, change their processes or work systems to avoid further episodes? They should of course be aware of any claims or judgments that have involved them in the first place, but that is not always the case.
So far, I have been speaking as a lawyer and looking at these issues from an outside perspective. Some years ago, I was a member of a regional health authority and then a founder member of the Mental Health Act Commission.
I want to conclude by examining the ever-increasing number of claims for medical negligence and the actions that might or should be taken by the NHS to minimise them. The first must be to generally improve standards and patient safety, as my noble and learned friend referred to. This is easy to suggest, but it must be seen against a background of intense pressure on staff and the service generally, as well as resource limitations. Secondly, we need to analyse where the claims are mostly concentrated. The Public Accounts Committee has identified that a large number of high-value claims are related to maternity care. Recent figures suggest that up to 50% of the value of claims were in this field, though only 10% of the number of claims.
Thirdly, the NHS must pursue alternatives through mediation and dispute resolution. Not everybody wants to litigate, even if they are sometimes over-encouraged. Sometimes they just want to be acknowledged and have their concerns recognised, with actions taken to improve standards. Fourthly, the NHS should not prevaricate or delay settlements where the evidence is clear; dragging out proceedings for months or years increases costs on all sides. Finally, as regularly recommended, including by NHS Resolution, learning from mistakes and improvement should be priorities for health managers and professionals in the service. They should be able to lead and be more responsible for health outcomes. This is an important subject for debate and I am pleased to have been able to make a small contribution.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend, who has made an interesting and helpful contribution, not only from the legal point of view but from that of policy. We are all grateful to my noble and learned friend for initiating this debate, which gives us an opportunity to refer to some things that would help the NHS. In the process, we might also provide some additional emotional, physical and practical help to those who suffer harm as a consequence of failings in NHS treatment.
I do not come at this as a lawyer at all. I had responsibility for the health service for a while, but I probably devoted more time and energy to thinking about this issue during the passage of the NHS Redress Act 2006, when I was the shadow Secretary of State, than at any other time. Noble Lords will be aware that we in Parliament often devote our time to such Bills in the fond expectation that someone will do something with them afterwards. That did not happen with the redress Act; it was not commenced. There was a Labour Government at the time and we had a pretty full debate on it. I do not entirely agree with the Act, but I would say two things about it.
First, I think that at the end of the day we all subscribe to the proposition that we should not go down the route of a no-fault compensation system. My view has always been that it is incredibly difficult to distinguish between harm resulting from the fact of a disease and harm resulting from the treatment for that disease. In my case, I have had radiotherapy, surgery and so on; I have consequences, but I do not think that the NHS did anything other than look after me splendidly. Radiotherapy causes damage, but I do not expect that I should be compensated for that damage.
That leaves us with a third category, where I think that we have a taxpayer responsibility: harm that results from treatment that is not up to the standard that patients have a right to expect and, as my noble friend said, that the duty of care would require. If that duty of care is breached and harm results, a liability is established. I think that we were quite clear at the time and have continued to take the view that we should focus on trying to ensure that, where harm results from a poorer standard of treatment, compensation should arise.
The second thing that came out of all this was that it is absolutely clear that what patients and their families are looking for is openness and transparency— an understanding that something went wrong, an acknowledgment of fault and a desire and willingness to learn from it and to do better in future. Very often, what you hear from patients and families is that they do not want this to happen to somebody else again. In that respect my noble and learned friend is absolutely right.
How do we learn from this? The Health and Care Bill starts here next week and there are patient safety aspects to it, but a lot of this rests on the way in which the NHS manages itself. Of course, those who are responsible for NHS services are incentivised directly by the Care Quality Commission and the way in which it conducts its reports and looks at the services provided, and by NHS Resolution itself. The way in which the NHS funds this is through the payment of what are in effect premiums to NHS Resolution, which is effectively an insurance system for the NHS and indeed for private providers of NHS services and now for general practitioners as well. It does so on the basis that the premium charged is related to an extent not only to the risks that are run but to the standard of service that is being offered. There are direct incentives from NHS Resolution to trusts to get it right and we want to sustain that.
If I may, I will make passing reference to the report from our noble friend Lady Cumberlege. I think that she might wonder, as I do, whether we cannot use NHS Resolution more, to be an agency through which categories of patients who have sustained harm can be in a scheme for compensation, rather than simply operating on the basis of claims that are brought directly before the courts.
I turn to the courts and in a sense respond to the question asked by my noble and learned friend in this debate. Out of the NHS Redress Act and subsequent thought come three things. One is that we argued in 2006 for a fact-finding phase. A lot of the costs entailed in cases brought before NHS Resolution are down to expert witnesses and legal representation. We can significantly reduce those costs if there is a shared fact-finding phase that then has to be accepted as the basis on which a negotiated settlement might emerge. That was not built into the Act at the time, but I still think that we should go down that path.
Secondly, there is the question of the discount rate. It was probably about the time I was Secretary of State that suddenly the cost to the NHS of negligence claims increased dramatically—I think that it nearly doubled—and this was simply because the discount rate changed. Very low interest rates equate to very large sums required to deliver a given standard of care, and the costs associated with it, over a long period. We cannot just go around manipulating the discount rate, and my noble and learned friend will say that there is a lot of history to all this, but I think that what we could do—I will finish with this—is at least address the issue that half the cost of claims relates unfortunately to maternity services and the consequences for neonates and very small children. These are lifelong costs and the NHS very often meets many of them, whether through its own services or through NHS continuing healthcare.
As I understand it, the court does not really take account of that. What it sets out to do is provide a sufficient sum by way of damages that would allow the family to be compensated to the extent that they can provide all the services that are required for the child. The fact that these services will be provided by the NHS is not sufficiently taken into account. We should go down the path of saying that, where the NHS comes in and looks after somebody following an acceptance of fault, the level of damages that should be paid as a consequence should be reduced.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to say a few things on this. I think that it is very much unfinished business, not least because of the lack of action on the NHS Redress Act 2006. I hope that this will be a spur to action, following what my noble and learned friend has brought before us.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I begin with an apology. I did not timeously put my name down for this debate, but I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to say a few words on this topic. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for having raised this matter at debate.
I begin by simply posing one question for the Minister: when will the Government publish their consultation on this issue? I understood that it would be available by the end of the year, but that rapidly approaches.
I do not wish to indulge in repetition, but we should bear in mind that the second largest contingent liability of the United Kingdom Government is clinical negligence claims, at about £83 billion, which is slightly short of the disposal of nuclear waste. The cost on an annualised basis to the National Health Service has already been mentioned: almost 2% of its annual budget. In those circumstances, I suggest that a more radical approach to the whole issue is required rather than tinkering. I fully accept that improvements in maternity care could have a material impact on the cost of clinical negligence claims, as those long-life claims represent something like 60% of the cost to NHS Resolution. While, for example, an amendment to Section 2 of the 1948 Act would be welcome, it applies only in respect of hospital care costs, not social care costs. When you are looking at catastrophic injury in childbirth, the vast majority of the costs arise in the context of social care costs, not hospital costs. Again, it may help, but it has only a peripheral benefit.
I suggest that we begin by acknowledging the social contract that exists with those who are able to engage in a health service that is free at the point of use. That would allow us to take the whole issue of liability out of the law of tort and into some sort of administrative scheme. One of the advantages of that would be the following. One considers this from the point of view of the victim or their family, but there are two sides to this. There is also the professional reputation of those whose professional ability may be impugned by a claim based on negligence. That is why it is so often difficult to resolve these issues without recourse to the courts, although I note that NHS Resolution is able to resolve more than half these claims without litigation.
Again, at the end of the day, litigation costs are only peripheral. I therefore strongly urge that, instead of looking at one or two individual issues such as improvement in maternity care or the repeal of Section 2, we should pause and consider a far more radical approach to the way in which we deal with the demands that arise from these cases. That may take us beyond the question of tortious liability into an area of no-fault liability, as suggested by the NHS Redress Act 2006. I am obliged to noble Lords for allowing me those few words.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, for calling this important debate. I note that this is not a new issue to your Lordships’ House. My noble friends Lord Sharkey and Lord Storey have both raised questions on the failings of the current system of liability rules over the last three years. From these Benches, our starting point and what we believe should be the legislative priority must be that any patients injured by negligence are rightly entitled to compensation and their appropriate legal fees should be paid.
The fact that this debate takes us into the technical intricacies of clinical negligence cases must not distract us from the real problem at hand. As we have heard, the current system is heavily weighted against a patient or their family fighting for that justice and compensation. In our view, this needs to be changed.
I am not a lawyer and I am in awe of the legal debate that has just preceded my small contribution. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for his expert introduction on the legal problems in the current system of liability costs. I note most particularly the problems with the NHS Redress Act 2006, which proposed redress without recourse to civil proceedings but which, unfortunately, enabled the NHS to investigate itself. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that it has totally failed and has left patients and their families in a ghastly nightmare world of fighting for compensation following negligence against an enormous organisation that seems to have unlimited resources.
I listened with interest to the radical proposals of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, which sounded very interesting. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, outlined, unfortunately negligence does occur, and much more frequently than people understand. Comments have already been made about maternity services, where there is a particular issue. I have a particular interest in the lives of severely disabled children, some of whose conditions have resulted from clinical negligence at their birth.
So far, individual problems of trying to live with some of that negligence have not been mentioned, so I shall speak briefly about one family I know, who had to take on the NHS and were absolutely determined to use every legal technique in the book. Their child was starved of oxygen at birth and requires looking after 24 hours every day, which requires amendments to their house and support in lots of different medical areas—so it is costing the NHS money as well. As their child has started school, it has required schooling needs, transport to and from school and respite care for the family, who are doing most of this 24-hour care themselves—all running alongside a perpetual battle with NHS lawyers over the claim.
There are other horror stories, too, which have appeared in the press, about case files being lost in hospitals and staff being reluctant to come forward and speak, which tells me that there is a real cultural problem about the current system, whereby staff inside the NHS are worried about blame and the impact on their careers, and the lawyers are doing anything they can to avoid having to pay out large sums of money. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, made a very important point about improving standards inside the NHS, but that cannot happen until the cultural attitudes about blame mean that it becomes possible to learn across the NHS from mistakes. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, mentioned interestingly the debate about whether no-fault compensation should be applied, and the difficulties associated with that.
I come back to the patients, who do not want anyone else to have to go through the battle that they face. I absolutely echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about using NHS Resolution—except that there are now five different branches of that. I really think that we need to learn from the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, First Do No Harm, and the imminent appointment of the first patient safety commissioner for medical devices. We hope that that will be an independent system. As we heard in Oral Questions this morning, we have yet to see the exact timing of the appointment of the first commissioner, but we are also looking to see that the SIs brought forward to your Lordships’ House will make it clear that it has to be an independent role.
I see that in negligence claims there might be some mechanism for a person independent of the NHS. It is absolutely vital that this is reviewed, and I echo the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on when the government recommendations will be published, as we are certainly running out of time for end of the calendar year. As this is unfinished business, it is still affecting the lives of patients and their families every day, as well as vitally reducing funds for our hard- pressed NHS as money is spent on fighting these cases.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, for securing this important debate and for his expert and insightful introduction. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, stressed, your Lordships’ House has regularly over the years debated and supported measures to try to halt the steady and alarming increase in NHS litigation costs and to ensure that the lessons learned from the appalling cases of neglect that we all too often have to consider can be used to both prevent further harm and promote future patient safety.
The debate is timely, as the Commons Health and Social Care Select Committee inquiry into NHS litigation reform undertakes its crucial work, following the evidence sessions earlier this year. That is where I was able to get a lot of material for today’s debate. It is also timely because we now have the resurrected Health Service Safety Investigations Bill, scrutinised in depth by a Joint Committee of both Houses, which started its passage in this House two years ago. This time it is part of the Health and Care Bill, which we will commence work on next week.
We strongly supported the original Bill and were very disappointed when it suddenly fell off the Government’s radar. Despite efforts from across the House, Ministers were unable to explain where it had gone and why it was not being vigorously pursued in the light of the urgent imperative to embed the lessons-learned culture into the NHS.
The aim of the health service safety investigations body is to improve the quality of locally conducted investigations and, through its own high-quality investigations and better-conducted local investigations, to reduce the incidence of future harm in the NHS. This is to be achieved through an improved process of capturing and acting on learning, although the extent to which this happens will largely depend on the actions of other organisations in the system rather than the HSSIB itself.
While these benefits cannot be quantified, the expectation and hope are that they will outweigh the monetary costs incurred by the investigations, avoid costs associated with correcting or compensating for harmful incidents, and generate health gains, anticipated to be sufficient to offset the costs associated with making any necessary improvements in investigative practice and systems and/or safety. As we have heard today, those are all both urgent and pressing.
It is estimated that, if the lessons generated from HSSIB investigations could reduce patient safety incidents and in turn clinical negligence claims by just 0.3%, this would level out the £6.2 million per annum investment in its role and work, and lead to a significant reduction in current NHS litigation costs. The importance of protecting the HSSIB’s independence and its ability to provide the safe space to participants in investigations are key issues that we will pursue in the Health and Care Bill. These are obviously for the discussions that will begin next week, not for today.
On costs, the Health and Social Care Select Committee’s terms of reference point out that an additional £7.9 billion was spent on compensation from claims settled in previous years, meaning that more than £10 billion that could have been spent on patient care was spent on clinical negligence. Most worryingly, the Medical Defence Union’s evidence to the inquiry predicted that any money raised by the new health and social care levy would be entirely swallowed up by the amounts paid each year in NHS clinical negligence claims. What is the Government’s assessment of this claim? How does it impact their plans to reduce the huge NHS waiting lists for treatments? Most importantly, what money will be left for social care?
The Minister has reassured the House previously that the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice are working closely together to identify ways of reducing costs. I look forward to receiving an update on this and other cross-government work that is being undertaken, the progress being made and intended timescales for action.
We have heard expert contributions today, covering many of the key issues that the Health Committee is examining: the legal and systemic changes needed to how compensation is awarded; how processes can be simplified so that claims can be speeded up and patients receive redress more quickly; and how adversarial legal processes can be changed and collaboration requirements between the legal advisers representing both sides of claims can be strengthened to facilitate earlier constructive engagement between the parties and end the often drawn-out and protracted processes that cause such distress and frustration to patients and their families, as we have heard today. Underlying them all is the importance of the system being able to learn from common failures—medical, procedural, training or managerial, policy or technology. The priority of better, safer care must be paramount.
One of the advantages of today’s debate is, as noble Lords have said, the valuable and timely spotlight it places on the work of NHS Resolution, the body that defends claims. It is sobering to note that, in the context of establishing the two Covid 19-specific indemnity schemes, £0.5 billion has been added to the estimate of future claims. Also, although the number of claims is expected to be down because of fewer operations and less treatment, and therefore fewer errors from potential clinical negligence, claims against primary care since NHS Resolution added this area to its portfolio in 2019 have seen a 40% increase.
Overall, we have a mixed picture. The cost of medical negligence has fallen for the second year running, although the percentage attributed to maternity claims has not changed—as noble Lords have stressed—while the cost of damages awarded has increased without a rise in the total number of cases. On maternity care, it will be helpful if the Minister can provide a progress update, either now or in writing, on the review taking place on the nearly 2,000 cases that came under review following last year’s shocking Ockenden report on the appalling failures in maternity care services at Shrewsbury and Telford maternity hospital.
The NHS Resolution 2020-21 annual report specifically refers to its work on safety to support the ambition to halve the rates of stillbirth, neonatal and maternity deaths and neonatal brain injuries occurring during or soon after birth by 2025, with an interim ambition of a 20% reduction in these rates by the end of last year. In written evidence to the health committee, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Medicine warn that spending on NHS litigation continues to constitute a threat to the sustainability of the NHS.
Maternity cases account for 11% of the total number of all clinical negligence claims but for 59% of the total costs in litigation by value. Overall maternity claims are valued at approximately £4.2 billion, a figure that has almost doubled since 2016-17. NHS Resolution also reports a continuing increase in claims for gynaecology in recent years, of which a large percentage are associated with the vaginal mesh scandal highlighted in the report First Do No Harm from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred to by other noble Lords. This issue will also be debated under the Health and Care Bill, particularly the key issue of redress systems for the victims of harm.
From today’s debate, it is clear that government action and the conclusion of the health committee’s inquiry into NHS litigation costs are urgently awaited, and that we still have a long way to go to establish and embed the joined-up patient safety learning culture across the NHS that is so urgently needed. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I thank my noble and learned friend for bringing this debate to the House, and I thank other noble Lords for their contributions. If my noble friend Lord Kirkhope felt slightly daunted by the group around him, I do not know how he thinks I feel—but I will do my best. I am pleased that the Health and Social Care Committee in the other place is conducting an inquiry into this important issue.
There were so many good and interesting questions put forward during this debate that I am going to start by answering them. If that takes up my full 12 minutes then, frankly, I would rather have the questions than the speech.
My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asked what had been done to improve the response to harm by the NHS before patients reach the point of making a claim. We know that poor handling when an incident or complaint occurs, or in the aftermath, can be distressing for patients and families at a time when they are vulnerable. The Government have introduced a number of measures to support the NHS in order to improve the response to patients who are harmed, including establishing the statutory duty of candour, involving patients in investigations, following an incident implementation process to investigate and learn from incidents—for example, the HSIB—and establishing a new Patient Safety Commissioner.
My noble friend Lord Lansley talked about the drive to improvement. We need to focus on the culture within NHS organisations, which is a crucial factor in determining how welcoming we are and open to concerns, complaints and feedback. NHS organisations are there to help, and there must be an effective complaints system that can provide an appropriate remedy for a person making a complaint and enable an organisation subject to a complaint to learn from its mistakes in order to improve future services. There is an NHS-wide complaints system in place in which patients have a legal right to complain, to have that acknowledged within three days and properly investigated and to receive a timely response. If complainants remain unsatisfied, they can raise their complaint with the office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which will review the complaint and come to a final decision.
However, we need to learn from claims to make sure that harms are not repeated, as my noble friend Lord Lansley talked about. Learning is best undertaken at source and as close in time to the event as possible, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also mentioned. Our well-established safety and reporting system for all incidents facilitates rapid feedback. This means that claims are not the main source of learning for the NHS, because there are long time lags between incidents and claims, and the NHS wants to learn from all incidents, not only those where patients decide to bring a legal claim.
However, NHS Resolution is committed to helping the NHS learn from claims and is working directly with trusts to share learning and best practice across the NHS to drive safety improvement. This will help to minimise the potential for clinical errors that could lead to harm and possible future claims. An effective complaints system can provide an appropriate remedy for the person making the complaint and enable an organisation to learn from its mistakes and improve future services. There is an NHS-wide complaints system in place.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, talked about specific clinical negligence litigation reform options. This is a long-standing, complex and sensitive issue. There are a number of drivers of cost, and for this reason we believe there is no single or quick fix. The Government are committed to addressing this issue. To understand the drivers of costs and explore ways forward, in the 2020 spending review the Government committed to publishing a consultation. The department has no plans to implement the NHS Redress Act 2006, and several of the benefits it may have delivered are being implemented through other initiatives.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate talked about “delay, deny and defend” and the NHS culture which simply increases costs. NHSR aims to resolve claims promptly and fairly and for the right amount. It also has a responsibility to defend unjustified claims to secure NHS resources. Most claims are settled without court proceedings and very few go to trial. NHSR is focused on early resolution of claims where possible, including use of mediation to settle claims and resolving claims before they enter the formal litigation process. In 2020-21, 74.7% of settled claims were resolved without formal court proceedings.
My noble friend Lord Kirkhope also mentioned punitive damages. I understand punitive damages are not usually awarded in this country. Our safety systems provide for prompt learning where mistakes may have occurred. My noble friend also mentioned claimant legal costs, which frequently exceed damages for lower-value claims. That is the reason why government have proposed fixed recoverable costs, and to consider the Civil Justice Council proposals. We will consult on the next steps shortly.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Lansley that the Clinical Negligence Scheme for Trusts produces useful incentives for better safety. The NHS maternity incentive scheme has produced important improvements in safety across the country’s maternity services. My noble friend also talked about the NHS Redress Act. The maternity investigations undertaken by HSIB replace the local investigations that trusts are required to undertake for all serious incidents and identify the contributory factors that have led to harm, or the potential for harm, to patients. The Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch works closely with families to identify what went wrong and produces a final report, which it shares with the family and the trust, highlighting safety recommendations with the intention of preventing future similar events.
The department expects trusts to implement these recommendations in addition to the investigations. Trusts receive ongoing support, training and professional development in patient and family engagement through the programme. This includes how healthcare professionals can work sensitively and effectively with patients and families, and enhanced bereavement training. As of 30 September 2021, the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch has received 3,475 referrals, of which 2,303 have progressed to full investigations that will soon be completed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about an individual case. I empathise with the person involved. Obviously, I cannot comment on individual cases, but I want to reassure noble Lords that we are working to tackle these issues. We are doing so by improving safety, for example by publishing the first ever patient safety strategy to create a safety and learning culture in the NHS. We are improving maternity safety, for example by investing an additional £95 million in maternity services to support recruitment. We are improving response to harm, for example by working with the ombudsman on standards for complaints handling. We are improving learning from things that go wrong, for example through the legislative changes that we are making to the HSIB, so that investigations help organisations learn. We are improving learning from claims, for example through the safety insight work of NHS Resolution.
We are enabling healthcare staff to speak up without fear—this is so important, because I think it has been the culture throughout the NHS for many years, and certainly when I was a nurse it is what I found over and again in the various hospitals that I worked in. It is important that staff should be able to speak up. We will establish speak-up guardians in every trust, supported by the national guardian. Improving early resolution of legal claims through mediation is also extremely important.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also talked about the patient safety commissioner, which of course we talked about today in Oral Questions. I think I have nothing to add to that; anybody who was present for Oral Questions will know what I said. A campaign to fill the commissioner position is due to be launched later this year, in line with the public appointments process, and we expect to appoint the commissioner in the first half of 2022.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, talked about the importance of the Ockenden report. We are investing £95.6 million in maternity services to target the three overarching themes identified in the first Ockenden report: workforce numbers, training and development programmes to support culture and leadership, and strengthening board assurance and surveillance to identify issues earlier. Significant safety measures have been introduced in the past decade, including the NHS patient safety strategy.
The noble Baroness also talked about midwives’ evidence that improving patient safety and reducing avoidable harm is the best way to reduce litigation costs. Of course, that is true, and we must carry on doing that.
I have only two minutes left—there is never long enough, I am afraid. We recognise the importance of listening to patients. As I have said, we are appointing a new patient safety commissioner to promote the safety of patients and to champion their views, particularly in relation to medicines and medical devices, and we are looking to build on successes through the health and safety Bill. We want to establish an arm’s-length body to continue the much-lauded work of the Healthcare Safety Investigation Branch.
We announced £9.4 million of funding in the 2020 spending review to improve maternity services, including pilots to reduce the incidence of birth-related brain injuries. Some £95 million of funding will also boost workforce numbers and support culture and leadership in maternity.
The department is working intensively with the Ministry of Justice, other government departments and NHS Resolution on this complex and sensitive issue. In the 2020 spending review, the Government committed to publishing a consultation on it. While work is ongoing, I am not able to elaborate further, but we look forward to seeing the result.
I extend my thanks again to my noble and learned friend and to everybody else who contributed to this debate. If I have not answered all the questions, I will of course write to noble Lords, but I thank them for airing this debate today.
Financial Fraud: Vulnerable People
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharkey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to protect vulnerable people from financial fraud.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, there do not appear to be any definite figures for the amount and extent of fraud in the UK. There is, however, general agreement that it is very, very large, that it is growing rapidly in volume and sophistication and that it can ruin people’s lives. The CPS reckons that fraud is now the most commonly experienced crime in England and Wales, with 5 million offences in the first half of this year. That is a rise of 32% on the same period last year—and all these figures, alarmingly large as they are, may well understate the case. The National Crime Agency says that fewer than 20% of cases of fraud are reported, with many victims too embarrassed to make a report and perhaps, in the financial sector, too fearful of damaging their reputation.
The question we are dealing with this afternoon asks what the Government are doing to protect vulnerable consumers from financial fraud. The FCA defines “vulnerable” as
“some-one who, due to their personal circumstances is especially susceptible to detriment, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.”
The FCA also lists some of those circumstances. They include physical and mental health problems, financial problems, life events and the lack of capability and/or confidence when dealing with finances. In truth, the list probably covers most people at some point in their life. But it is clear that the young, the elderly and the digitally innocent will be at significant risk. Not surprisingly, these groups are the frequent targets of fraudsters.
Also not surprisingly, fraud has moved heavily online: some 85% of all fraud in the first half of last year was cyber-enabled and 50% of adults were exposed to fraudulent ads each month. Many of these ads are carried by social media and many promote investment scams. They often operate by mimicking a genuine website such as HMRC’s or a bank’s. They also operate by placing ads on online platforms. Last week the Times reported that TSB data showed that seven in 10 victims of investment scams were targeted through Instagram alone.
Of all the investment scams reported to TSB to the end of August this year, scams based on Instagram accounted for 62%, on Snapchat 11%, on Google 10% and on Facebook 8%. That is a 70% score for Mark Zuckerberg and Meta. Since then, Google has all but eliminated scam adverts on its search engine. It did this simply by introducing rules that required all financial advertisers to prove that they were authorised by the FCA. TSB has had no reports of people falling victim to fraud through Google since the end of August. Instagram and Facebook have not followed suit. Can the Minister say what pressure is being brought to bear on Meta by the Government? Why should Meta be allowed to profit from scam ads and expose its members to a direct risk of fraud?
It is clear that the Government understand the seriousness and scale of the problem of financial fraud, and they have made some very significant interventions. Last month they established the Joint Fraud Taskforce, a private and public sector partnership, to focus on issues considered too difficult for a single organisation to manage alone. It is to be hoped that the new organisation will be able to plot a clear course through the jungle of agencies and regulators with interests and responsibilities in the area. It might even be able to take a leading role, so perhaps the Minister could tell us a little more about the objectives and working methods of the new task force, what targets it has and to whom it is accountable?
The Home Office has also published three new fraud charters, for the retail banking, telecoms and accountancy sectors. The Payment Systems Regulator has published a voluntary code for the reimbursement of victims of authorised push-payment fraud. Not all banks have signed up to the code. As a consequence, the Government now plan to legislate to make reimbursement mandatory. All this is welcome, as is the new inclusion of online fraud measures in the Draft Online Safety Bill.
However, there is still considerable work to be done. One of the reasons for the establishment of the Joint Fraud Taskforce was the existence of many agencies and regulators with at least some responsibility in this area. I counted at least six, and there may be more. That excludes the gatekeeper, Action Fraud, which is a reporting system—the people you contact to report a fraud and who then pass on the report to other agencies so that they may take action.
Action Fraud is critical to the success of the whole system. However, in July 2019, the Times published the findings of its undercover investigation of the unit, which found that the failings of Action Fraud had been well known for years. Right from its hotline going live in 2013, Ministers had to admit that 2,500 online reports were not processed correctly due to a fault in the IT system. In 2015, the firm operating the Action Fraud call centre in Manchester went bust, leaving fraud victims waiting even longer to get through. In 2019, an undercover Times reporter exposed call handlers mocking victims as “morons” and misleading them into thinking their reports were being taken seriously when most were never looked at again.
As a result of the Times investigation, Sir Craig Mackey, a retired police chief, reviewed the organisation. He found that both Action Fraud and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau were
“significantly hampered by an operating system that is not fully functional and their resourcing levels have not kept pace with increased reporting”.
He also found that Action Fraud failed to answer a third of the calls made to it. A year later, it was announced that steps would be taken to revamp the failed Action Fraud hotline. Police chiefs were looking for a new company to run it. That was a year ago. Can the Minister say why it took so long to take remedial action? Has a new contract been awarded and, if so, to whom?
Action Fraud, or some properly working equivalent, is vital to the fight against fraud, but as recently as this June, Martin Lewis described Action Fraud as “pointless” and said the organisation lacked the necessary funding to tackle criminals. Is Martin Lewis wrong? What reassurance can the Minister give that we now have in place an organisation that is properly run, properly funded and fit for purpose?
Reporting fraud is critical, but so is prevention. In this area, much needs to be done to rein in the social media platforms. As Martin Lewis said recently in evidence to the Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill:
“Don’t let them off the hook. We need to make big tech responsible”.
We could make a start by making Meta follow Google. We should make it ban ads for financial services by advertisers that cannot prove that they are authorised by the FCA.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I really came to this debate as a spectator, because I wanted to hear the Government’s response to the excellent issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. However, there is one aspect of the way the issue was posed which gave me pause for thought. The way in which it has been framed makes me think that there is a wider issue involved.
The problems of financial fraud affect everyone, in the sense that the noble Lord reflected in his Question. I truly believe that we are all vulnerable. Characterising a subset of people as vulnerable implies that maybe the rest do not need to worry, but in one way or another, at some stage of our lives, we are all vulnerable. Those of us who have an arrogant view of our own capabilities are probably even more vulnerable than those who know their weaknesses.
Whatever is done in this area has to be part of a wider assessment of what the Government can do to provide protection. What leads on from that is that taking action on fraud is too late; action is required before the fraud takes place. The problem we have is that the system is a commercial one, in which a lot of money is involved. It is hardly surprising that fraud and crime will occur; crime goes to where the money is. We have a systemic problem of fraud; it is part of the natural operation of the system that it will arise, so action really needs to be taken much more down the line than after the event, when people suffer. It is at the early stage where the most effective action could or should be taken.
Of course, we have to talk in this context about online fraud, and we look forward to debates on the online safety Bill. The situation has been worsened by the pandemic, with our reliance on online means of communication and commerce increasing, so the opportunities for fraud have increased with it. My own interest is almost inevitably in pension fraud, which is the area that I am most familiar with. It is clear that an awful lot of fraud that occurs in this area is unreported, because people do not know or do not find out until it is too late—or they do know, but they are ashamed and feel foolish. I am not as familiar with other areas of financial fraud, but my assumption is that it is broadly the same there.
The issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on the plethora of regulators is one that I very much hope that the Government will address. I am really here to hear the response from the Minister, which I look forward to with some interest.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on securing this short debate on what is becoming an increasingly serious problem, as he so eloquently set out. I at last detect that the Government are starting to take it more seriously, and that is greatly to be welcomed, but we have a very long way to go.
This debate is about protecting vulnerable people from fraud, but I make a similar point to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. The reality is that we are all at risk from fraud. The impact of fraud is not only financial; it can leave people feeling stupid, ashamed and under attack, as they are continuously bombarded with emails, calls and texts, leading to serious anxiety and depression. That can be especially true of people who are more sophisticated; they can feel particularly stupid, which is unfair, and may not report it because of that feeling of shame. A large proportion of fraud is not reported. Nobody should feel shame about having been scammed; fraudsters are very clever at finding vulnerabilities.
Why is it so easy for fraudsters? I think the simple truth is that there is a whole range of parties who facilitate it, and who have no incentive to prevent it. Here are just a few examples. We have already heard about social media and other tech giants, which are paid by fraudsters to advertise fake investment or pension deals, as well as providing the platforms that allow fraudsters to contact and groom potential victims. The obvious question for the Minister is why the Government have agreed to include user-generated fraud in the online safety Bill but not frauds where the companies have actually been paid by the fraudsters. I read just this morning that the Prime Minister has said that the Bill will force the tech giants to remove adverts that promote people smuggling. If we can do that, why on earth can we not also force them to remove fraudulent investment adverts? This is just wrong, and I urge the Government to think again about this obvious gap. The tech giants should have a clear duty of care and liability to their users for any fraud that they facilitate.
Telecoms companies enable the scammers to bombard us with calls and texts. We probably all suffer this every day. They have no incentive to stop it—they are paid by the scammers for those calls and texts. Further, they continue to allow the spoofing of caller IDs. It is not only being scammed that is traumatic; the feeling of being constantly under attack causes a lot of anxiety. When will we see action to reduce this torrent of calls and texts? Can we not use the Telecommunications (Security) Bill to that effect? You could put out regulations under that to have a go at solving this problem.
The banks provide the means by which the scammers receive the stolen money. Some banks have made real efforts—in particular, the Confirmation of Payee process is a major step in the right direction—but fraudsters are still able to transfer the stolen money and only a relatively small proportion is reimbursed under the voluntary code. It is shocking that we are not told which banks are behaving worst in this respect. Why do we not publish those league tables?
It may be that the payments system itself aids fraudsters: instantaneous payments allow the money to be whisked away through multiple accounts and abroad, or into untraceable cryptocurrency, before the victim has even realised they are a victim, by which time it is too late to do anything about it. Have the Government considered slowing payments down, particularly when making a first payment to a new payee?
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned, I understand that the Government are at last proposing to make reimbursement mandatory for authorised push payment frauds. However, I have said before that it would make more sense to make the receiving bank—the bank that has handled the stolen money for the fraudster —liable for repaying the money. That would give a real incentive to banks to stop their accounts being misused by fraudsters or their mules. On that latter point, I would be interested to hear from the Minister what the Government are proposing to do about those mules, who are often young people who themselves have been conned into laundering the stolen money.
Whatever we do, it is critical that any victim reimbursement process is clear and simple and has a single point of contact so that it does not add to the trauma that victims experience. The Financial Ombudsman Service has been ruling against banks in over 70% of appeals, which shows that the current system is simply not working. Banks try to push the blame back on the victim, which just adds to the trauma. My own view is that the victim should apply to, and be reimbursed by, their bank, which should recover automatically from the receiving bank, and it would be for the receiving bank to attempt to recover from the fraudster or those who have facilitated the fraud—the social media or telecoms company, or whoever. Section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act works broadly in a similar way. Could that not be a precedent?
Why are so few frauds investigated or prosecuted? Again, this adds to the trauma; it is traumatic if you do not feel that you are being taken seriously by the authorities. I suspect that the poor investigation and prosecution record is down to a combination of insufficient police resources, inadequate specialist training and a lack of appropriate technology. According to the Victims’ Commissioner, only about 2% of police resources is directed against fraud, despite—according to the Government’s own numbers—fraud being 42% of all crime against individuals. That is a huge disparity: 2% to 42%. Action Fraud would be better named “Inaction Fraud”—it is farcical. What plans do the Government have to make improvements in all those areas?
Fraud is also covered by a whole range of government departments: DCMS, the Home Office, the Treasury, DWP and the Foreign Office, among others. I wonder whether that fragmentation contributes to the problem. Would it not be helpful to have one Minister who was given full oversight to ensure that fraud is covered holistically, not just piecemeal?
Finally, I am delighted that yesterday the House approved my proposal for a committee of special inquiry into digital fraud. I record my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Vaizey of Didcot, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for their support in that process. I hope that the committee will be able to provide valuable insight into the problem and to make practical and achievable recommendations to assist the Government in solving this scourge, and I hope the Government will be receptive.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, there is one great advantage of there being a limited number of speakers in a short debate, which is that it really does not make a whole lot of sense for someone in my winding position to go and repeat everything that has just been so well said. I particularly want to raise two issues that I think have not been covered here, and will then make a final comment.
The first is the regulatory perimeter, which determines which activities the FCA regulates and therefore when it will or will not tackle financial misbehaviour by financial firms. The perimeter sets a boundary on regulated activities and has been given as the reason why the FCA has failed to act in so many scandals: the asset-stripping scandal of the RBS Global Restructuring Group, which destroyed small businesses and their owners by undervaluing their assets in order to seize them; the mis-selling of interest rate caps to small businesses; the abuse of the Libor-setting system, which mispriced trillions of loans across the globe; and endless investment scandals, of which London Capital & Finance is just one of the more recent.
I join the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Vaux, in saying that ordinary people, even savvy people, usually have absolutely no idea that the financial product promoted or sold to them is unregulated, particularly since other activities carried out by the same firm may indeed be regulated. Pretty much everybody other than a highly sophisticated multinational with a phalanx of lawyers is exposed to financial fraud in one way or another today. Of course, we need some special protection for people defined as vulnerable, as described by my noble friend Lord Sharkey. But, as others have said, today everyone needs financial products just to participate in normal life, so rules based on caveat emptor—buyer beware—which is the backbone of the current system, are simply not good enough.
I have long argued that regulating activities is a charter for mis-selling. If the FCA authorises any activity carried out by a financial company, it should regulate all its activities so that the line is clear. In other words, regulate the firm and all the activities it is involved with. Other countries do it without serious problems.
Following the LC&F debacle, the FCA’s relatively new CEO Nikhil Rathi said that the FCA would change its approach to tackle more effectively the issues of fraud risks that sit outside the perimeter of regulation, but he gave no detail. Will the Minister tell us whether there has been progress? Mr Rathi also insisted that he needed more investment and resources to take on the task. Will he get them? At one time the senior managers regime was touted as a possible tool for tackling such fraud and abuse of clients, but the FCA has used that with such deference that it no longer receives any respect. Will the FCA get new duties and powers?
My second issue is that of whistleblowers and the dreadful way we treat them in the UK. The United States is probably the exemplar of how to value financial whistleblowers. Regulators and enforcement agencies in the US have told me that whistleblowers are the citizens’ army that enables them to clean up and deter bad behaviour in an industry where money creates so many temptations. They are the canaries in the mine, to pick up the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Vaux: early action is absolutely critical when fraud begins to arise.
Financial whistleblowers in the US are protected from both retaliation and financial ruin. California has just enacted another step, a new law called “Silenced No More”, to prohibit the use of non-disclosure agreements that are so often embedded in any employee settlement as a gagging clause. Now the EU is moving in the US direction. The UK, once a leader in protecting whistleblowers, is now one of the most risky developed countries in which to speak out. I have complained before that whistleblowers to the FCA are assumed to be troubled people, not vital informers. They are triaged by call handlers trained in dealing with complaints and with minimal financial knowledge. In contrast, in the US a senior financial investigator does the triage to capture early and critical leads.
The protection that the UK regulator offers a whistleblower is simply anonymity: it will not disclose their name to their employer. But most employee whistleblowers are easily identified both by their specialist knowledge and because most will have raised concerns with line managers and others before turning to the regulator. The regulator then stands aside and offers no support if they are penalised, demoted or fired, and will not even give evidence to an employment tribunal—and woe betide the whistleblower who has to go public and reveal themselves to the press, or even to give evidence to Parliament, because the regulator will not act. The norm for whistleblowers in the UK is years of legal battle and financial and career ruin. Even when settlements are made, typically they rarely cover the extortionate costs of bringing the various cases and attempting to resist retaliation.
Whistleblowing protection, little though it is in the UK, is limited to employees. Advisers, clients and accountants—indeed, anyone else—have no protection at all. I heard just this morning from an IFA who has identified potential fraud at a major insurance company and has been unable to report it to the FCA whistle- blowing team, although they attempted to do so, because he/she—I will disguise their identity—is not an employee. If he/she speaks out, he/she will effectively be put out of business as an IFA.
I have a Private Member’s Bill before the House to create an office of the whistleblower to turn this issue around. But I am not precious. What I want to hear from the Minister today is that the Government will now take serious action and come up with legislation of their own if they dislike mine. If we are going to end financial fraud, we have to unleash all the power of that citizens’ army I talked about.
I will make one last comment, because the next piece of legislation that will be used to deal with at least a subset of these issues—online financial fraud—is the draft Online Safety Bill. I have read the various briefings and it is completely beyond me to understand why actions that facilitate fraud through adverts or cloned websites will not be prohibited by the Bill. I cannot understand why, in the draft, paid-for advertising is explicitly carved out of the scope of the Bill. I have no idea what pressures were brought, but frankly the Government ought to dismiss them, and I would say to the Minister that if she and her colleagues do not make changes to the Bill, I think I can guarantee that both Houses of Parliament will. We have had enough of fraud and we need strong, clear action and leadership. I hope the Minister in her answers today will indicate that that will happen.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for securing this debate. I am afraid I will be repeating some of the figures that have been quoted, but most of my comments will be directed to what has or has not happened as far as the Government are concerned during the period of the pandemic.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said, the Crown Prosecution Service has said that fraud is now the most commonly experienced crime in England and Wales. Using data from the crime survey for England and Wales, the Office for National Statistics reported that there were 5 million fraud offences in the year ending June 2021, and that this represented a 32% increase compared with the previous year. There were large rises in consumer and retail fraud, advance fee fraud and fraud that just comes under the category of “other fraud”.
In contrast, the ONS highlighted that crimes such as theft and robbery saw falls during periods of lockdown. It said that the data may show
“fraudsters taking advantage of behaviour changes related to the pandemic”,
such as increased online shopping and increased savings. Some 26% of offences resulted in the loss of money or property with no or only partial reimbursement. The National Fraud Intelligence Bureau reported a 36% rise in fraud offences in the year ending June 2021 compared with the previous year, which included a 34% increase in online shopping and auction fraud and a 51% increase in financial investment fraud.
Some people are of course more at risk of becoming a victim of financial fraud—for example, individuals with a mental health problem or dementia. People who have experienced mental health problems are three times more likely than the rest of the population—23% versus 8%—to have been a victim of an online scam. Age UK has highlighted the impact of fraud on older people in England and Wales and, based on an analysis of Crime Survey for England and Wales data between 2017 and 2019, has said that an older person becomes a victim of fraud every 40 seconds. Age UK has said that alongside financial losses, becoming a victim can also
“seriously affect quality of life and wellbeing”,
with many people experiencing a deep sense of shame, embarrassment, anxiety and loss of independence following a scam—and that of course often leads to non-reporting.
The people engaged in such financial fraud pray on us all, as has been said, but particularly on the vulnerable. It is a premeditated, carefully planned, well-resourced and systematic activity, with those involved knowing precisely what a devastating impact they are having on their victims. They deserve everything they get and more, if and when—and it is not often enough—they are brought to justice.
I have no doubt that in their response the Government will talk about the draft Online Safety Bill, the fraud action plan, the relaunch of the Joint Fraud Taskforce and an apparent government intention to legislate to allow the Payment Systems Regulator to make reimbursement mandatory where a personal or business is tricked into sending money to a fraudster posing as a genuine payee. However, the extent to which proposed legislation, plans and taskforces will address and reduce all the different types of financial fraud and the different ways and channels through which they are perpetrated, as well as providing full financial protection for victims, remains to be seen.
I hope that in their response the Government will set out the specific targets for reducing financial fraud and protecting victims financially, which the various measures that I have no doubt we will hear about in their response are expected to deliver. Certainly to date the Government’s efforts to address rising levels of fraud, not least online fraud, have been woefully inadequate, particularly during the current pandemic. Reductions in police personnel during the last decade have only made matters worse.
I tabled a Written Question in May last year asking the Government
“whether they have broadcast advertisements to warn the public, in particular those who are vulnerable, of scams related to the Covid-19 pandemic; if not, why not; and what plans they have to provide advice about how to avoid becoming a victim of such scams.”
The Written Answer—not from the Home Office—said:
“The government has not broadcast advertisements to specifically raise awareness of scams related to the Covid-19 pandemic.”
The reply went on to say:
“HMG believes the best way to ensure the public’s safety is to make sure that they know how to protect themselves … so that the public know how to spot a scam and protect themselves from them.”
The reply continued:
“We have recently launched a GOV.UK page on coronavirus related fraud and cybercrime including easy-to-follow steps for people to better protect themselves as well as signposting all relevant advice and tips.”
For this Government, too often a GOV.UK page is the remedy to all problems.
I thought at the time that that reply reflected a fair degree of complacency. Now, though, we can ask the question: has the Government’s strategy for protecting the public, particularly those who are vulnerable, from scams during the pandemic been successful? The figures that I have already quoted suggest otherwise.
In addition, according to UK Finance, the public were conned out of £753.9 million in the first six months of this year alone, up 30% on the same period in 2020. The banks have already warned that the period up to Christmas and new year is likely to be the “busiest ever” for criminals looking to trap unsuspecting victims as the pandemic has pushed shoppers online.
It is of course a matter for the Government what they say in their response. But I hope that, if they are going to tell us what they intend and plan to do, and how much money they have spent and will spend, they will also answer the question: why was more effective action not taken to warn the public and particularly vulnerable people of the increased danger of financial fraud from scams and fraudsters during the Covid-19 pandemic? I do not wish to suggest for a single moment that broadcasting advertisements raising awareness of scams during the pandemic—which is what I asked about in my question—would have been the answer to all the problems that have materialised; clearly, it would not. But the Government’s approach has been very complacent and, frankly, it is many members of the public, including the most vulnerable, who have paid the price during the Covid pandemic, both metaphorically and literally.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for securing this very important debate and for all the very valuable points he has raised. I of course agree that we should protect people from fraud, particularly vulnerable people who are often targeted by callous and ruthless criminals. As he said, fraud is now the most common crime type in the country, accounting for some 40% of offences in the year ending June 2021, according to the Crime Survey for England and Wales. It is estimated there were 3.9 million victims of fraud in the same period.
As the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Davies of Brixton, said, we are all vulnerable to it. I almost became a victim of it a couple of weeks ago. It was not obvious that I was being scammed at first glance, but it nearly happened to me. Of course, the impact extends beyond financial losses. As the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Sharkey, said, the emotional and long-lasting harm that people can suffer is horrendous. Fraudsters can be very sophisticated and will exploit any means they can to trick innocent people out of their hard-earned money.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is absolutely right to point out the vulnerabilities during Covid, with so many people at home online, as opposed to out and about. For those who are very vulnerable, those impacts can be felt all the more, so we are focused on stopping unscrupulous fraudsters in their tracks and supporting victims so they can recover and protect themselves in future.
We are aiming to step up the whole-system response to fraud, which is the right way. While it is vital that we crack down on criminals behind scams, fixing the law enforcement response is just one part of the solution, as noble Lords have pointed out during today’s debate. To disrupt organised criminals and safeguard the most vulnerable, we need to prevent it from happening in the first place, as noble Lords have said. But we cannot, as government, do it alone. That is why the Home Office is working across government, law enforcement and the private sector—the private sector is really important in this—to better protect the public, reduce the impact on victims and ensure fraudsters are brought to justice.
To improve our collective response, we are leading work on the development of a comprehensive fraud action plan, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, knew I would mention, and we will it publish early next year. This will commit key partners in the public and private sectors to do more to tackle fraud. The plan will focus on public engagement to ensure that everyone, including those most at risk, understands the threat and therefore how best to protect themselves.
We know that those most vulnerable to fraud can become repeat victims—that is the horror of this. Despicably, they are placed on what is called a “suckers list” that is then sold on by ruthless fraudsters. It is essential that we improve victim support and make sure that everyone gets the information and help they need to protect themselves.
That is why we as the Home Office are working with the City of London Police to deliver a nationwide rollout of the National Economic Crime Victim Care Unit. It provides an important additional layer of support for people who report a fraud or cybercrime to Action Fraud—on which, more later—where their cases are not investigated by local police, and helps prevent repeat victimisation. The unit is currently supporting 20 forces, with a further rollout planned. As of October this year, it has helped support more than 160,000 victims, and since the start of this year has assisted in recovering almost £1.5 million that people had lost.
It is also very important that we bolster the local support available to vulnerable victims. To do that, the Home Office is supporting National Trading Standards in the rollout of fraud multiagency safeguarding hubs in England and Wales. These local hubs will improve the quality of care for fraud victims by bringing together multiple agencies that can work together to support them, making it easier for victims to navigate their way to getting the help they need. The national rollout follows a successful pilot in Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire during which more than £8 million was saved for individuals and society.
We continue to work extensively with the private sector effectively to “design out” fraud and stop vulnerable people being targeted in the first place. In October, we published three voluntary charters with the retail banking, telecommunications and accountancy sectors. These are partnership agreements to find innovative solutions that will drive down the level of fraud. New initiatives include: a pilot dynamic direct debit system that would introduce a banking authorisation step in applications for new telecommunications contracts, including mobile phone contracts, that have been applied for fraudulently or used for fraudulent purposes; a cross-sector plan to protect customers who have been subject to a data breach from becoming victims of fraud; and leveraging new technology to tackle the fraudulent practice of sending fake company text messages, known as “smishing”.
The progress of these charters will be closely monitored by the Joint Fraud Taskforce, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, which is chaired by the Security Minister and brings together senior partners from across the public and private sectors. We also intend to develop a suite of charters with other sectors that have a role to play in protecting vulnerable people from fraud, including tech and social media firms.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and others talked about the harms of the online world. The online safety Bill will provide further protection against fraud. Companies in scope will be required to take action to tackle fraud where it is facilitated through user-generated content. We expect this to have a particular impact on frauds such as romance scams, which cause significant psychological harm to victims.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, might stop shaking his head when I say to him and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that we are also considering whether to impose tougher regulation on online advertising, because that may well be the gap that he talked about. We have heard the strength of feeling in the House and in the public domain. The Joint Committee on the Bill will report shortly, and we will examine its recommendations on this issue extremely carefully. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport—the DCMS—will also consult shortly on a range of proposals to tackle harms associated with advertising. It may have been the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, or the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who commented on Google versus Facebook/Meta. I commend Google for what it has achieved. As for discussions with Facebook, I have lost count of the number of discussions that I have had. One thing that we said way back in the day was, “Look, if you don’t sort some of these problems out, we’re going to legislate to sort them out”—and this is where we are now.
On scam calls, as part of our response to fraud the Government are working with the telecommunications industry to tackle telephone-enabled fraud and break the business model of the criminals behind it. Through our joint telecommunications sector charter, providers have agreed a nine-point action plan to tackle fraud through scam calls. This includes commitments to identify and implement techniques to block scam calls and smishing texts. To protect those most vulnerable to telephone scams, DCMS provided £1 million over three years to National Trading Standards to fund the rollout of call-blocking devices to people across the UK. These help those most in need and provide 99% protection from nuisance and scam calls.
On phishing and smishing, we have been working to reduce the threat of phishing emails that can reach the most vulnerable. Last year the National Cyber Security Centre launched its suspicious email reporting service, which of course I encourage the public to use via report@phishing.gov.uk.
The noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Vaux, both mentioned APP scams, authorised push-payment fraud, where victims are tricked into handing over their money. This targets the most vulnerable with increasingly sophisticated scams that can have such a devastating impact on their lives. The Government are clear that the public should not be left out of pocket through no fault of their own. We have been working with the financial services industry to help tackle APP fraud, including through the implementation of initiatives such as Confirmation of Payee and the creation of the contingent reimbursement model code. Most high-street banks have now signed up to this voluntary code, which was designed to offer increased protection to the most vulnerable. Victims who use these banks will be entitled to reimbursement when they have taken the required steps to protect themselves, or if it is not reasonable to expect them to do so.
We really welcome the work that the industry has undertaken to date, including through this code, but it has clear limitations, including disparity in how different banks are interpreting their obligations and the fact that it does not cover all providers. As such, the Government are now engaging with the Payment Systems Regulator, the PSR, and industry on what more can be done to better protect customers. We welcome the PSR’s recent consultation on APP scams, which set out potential measures to reduce their impact, including mandatory reimbursement of victims. We now intend to legislate to address any barriers to mandatory reimbursement when parliamentary time allows.
Faster Payments, the UK’s real-time low-value interbank payments system, has been a great UK success story. In 2008 the UK was one of the first countries to launch a 24/7 real-time payments system, which now processes more than 3 billion payments a year. However, despite the speed and resilience it offers, banks already intervene in a variety of ways when they suspect fraud, including delaying the processing of payments and contacting customers. At this point I must give a shout-out to my bank, Lloyds, which has done that to me before.
On law enforcement and action fraud, we continue to work closely with law enforcement in line with recommendations from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. This includes working with City of London Police on a refresh and upgrade of the current action fraud service to improve victim experience and the law enforcement response.
To the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on the contract, as I said, we are working on plans to refresh and upgrade the current action fraud service, and the competition to find a new commercial partner to deliver that service was launched in July this year. We expect the service to be improved in both usability and effectiveness, which noble Lords have pointed to. Also since last year, City of London Police have increased the number of staff in their call centre, and recent performance data has been quite encouraging, suggesting that between 94% and 98% of victims were satisfied with their service.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made a point about the FCA. HM Treasury continues to work closely with the FCA to ensure that its duties and powers are sufficient to meet the threats in the financial sector. When I thought about this debate and saw the noble Baroness’s name, I thought, “She’s going to ask about whistleblowing—but in what capacity?” This year, the FCA launched its In Confidence, With Confidence campaign to encourage individuals working in financial services to report potential wrongdoing to the FCA, reminding them of the confidentiality that is in place. I totally agree with her on her point about non-disclosure agreements; that is one that we have discussed before.
Finally, on pension fraud, it is totally unacceptable and devastating that anyone should be cheated out of their savings and their plans for retirement. The Government are absolutely committed to protecting people from pension scams and pursuing those who perpetuate them. In the last two years, we have introduced a ban on pensions cold-calling and changes to the pension scheme registration process to stop fraudsters exploiting pensioners. The inclusion on fraud in the scope of the online safety Bill will also have a strong impact on preventing investment frauds.
I think that I have responded to all the points; if I have not, I shall write to noble Lords. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, once more for securing this important debate, and thank the not too many noble Lords who have taken part, because I think that has made it an effective discussion.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The Minister said that she would respond to any questions that she had not replied to. Will that include my question: do the Government really think that they did enough to protect vulnerable people during the pandemic, bearing in mind the substantial increase in the number of fraud cases?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I most certainly will get back to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on those statistics, and any facts and figures I have for him for during that period, because it must have been a very vulnerable time for an awful lot of people.
National Infrastructure Commission: Baseline Report
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to address the concerns in the report by the National Infrastructure Commission, The Second National Infrastructure Assessment: Baseline Report, published in November.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to be able to introduce this short debate on the national infrastructure assessment. As noble Lords will know, my noble friend Lord Liddle has had to scratch for transport reasons; he asked me to pass on his apologies. I declare an interest as an officer of the All-Party Group on Infrastructure and a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
This is a really good time to debate the infrastructure assessment. It is a baseline report, as we all know; it is the basis for the future work the NIC will be doing. It is also really good that the Government have expanded its remit to cover the transition to net zero and climate resistance, as we have been speaking about that a great deal in your Lordships’ House.
I will try to cover briefly where we are today on infrastructure, where we should be today—if I think that is different—and where we might be in 30 years’ time. Somewhere in this report, it states that we need
“bold action, stable plans and long term funding”,
which sounds just wonderful but might not always happen. At least we are trying.
The baseline report lists some of the successes. It is worth reminding ourselves that broadband circulation around the country has been good in most places and renewable electricity is getting better—we have spoken about electric vehicles. I question how much better flooding has got; drought resilience is not something we need to look at this week, but so be it. On the other hand, some good things have happened there as well.
One of the most important things the NIC has been asked to do is social research. It says that it has got better between 2017 and 2021, which is good news. I suspect there is still a great deal of work to be done there, particularly on things such as clean water and sewage, and probably on energy supplies as well. It also says that some things are not going quite so well, including emissions from electricity and heat, which are still too high—I think we know all that. Emissions from transport have not been declining; I will come back to that, as that is very serious. Asset maintenance is not so good. Five million properties are currently at risk of flooding—that is serious, and is still going on today, as we have recently heard. There is also the pollution from water and sewage. Then there is urban transport connectivity, which I will come on to.
One of the most interesting things which has come out of a briefing from the Institution of Civil Engineers is that only 10% of British adults think that the right conditions are in place for infrastructure to transition to net zero—10% is not very good. Only 31% of British adults think that the Government have a plan for net zero; they should be worried about that, and perhaps the Minister will have views on it.
However, going forward, I hope that the NIC and the Government will take forward some of these issues. I will cover just one or two of them. I will start with net zero, which noble Lords have been debating quite frequently. Other topics include transport, rail electrification—that is in the new policy document from the Government; whether it is enough we can debate—towns, transport within towns, the 20-minute city, which I shall come on to, and new road building and whether we should be doing it. We should not forget that, if every car becomes electrically driven in a few years’ time, there will still be traffic jams. They will be electric traffic jams rather than petrol or diesel ones, but they will still be traffic jams—and, again, that is why I think public transport is so important.
The NIC says that road and rail freight seems to be going quite well, especially with decarbonisation. I would question that, actually, because I think that the technology of making heavy goods vehicles not use diesel or petrol is still in its infancy. I used to be chairman of the Rail Freight Group, and rail freight has had quite a good time over the pandemic. But there needs to be an awful lot more, and really we should be electrifying the railways and trying to cover freight moving in the last mile or so to its destination, which we manifestly do not do at the moment unless we use petrol or diesel.
Turning to energy, there are problems with the sourcing of it, and with its distribution and use. Again, we have debated that frequently over the past few months. What worries me about that is that if we use electrical power to heat most of our homes, and we use electrical power to drive our transport, on road or rail—I think we have to leave air out of this, because it is a complete failure—the forecast is that we will need 10 times the amount of electrical energy that we have now. I view that as extremely serious. We can debate how it is generated, and whether it is a good thing to generate hydrogen from electricity or use electricity as it comes; that is another debate that has to come. We have another debate here on Monday evening about plug-in chargers and things like that. But the 10-times figure is one of the most serious issues we have to address.
Then there are a whole host of environmental issues. I was rather surprised that the NIC thinks that carbon capture and storage is a good idea, because I do not believe it has been demonstrated to work yet. How long will it last and what happens when it does not last any more? I may be being naive on that, but I am not convinced it is a proven technology.
The Government have an enormous amount of work to do on resilience, including on floods and storms —we had a debate about the storms in the north-east today—as well as on drought, energy, transport and the general quality of life. But what I do not understand is why we are still building on flood plains. It seems to be utterly crazy. We may be short of land—that is a different issue—but building on flood plains so that you get flooded is absolutely crazy. I am not going to speak any more about sewage, because we have talked enough about that.
However, it is interesting that the solution for Southern Water, which is one of the worst offenders and has been highly fined, is to sell the company to Macquarie bank, whose track record is that it owned Thames Water around 10 years ago and increased its debt by £2 billion and got fined £20 million itself. Does the Minister think Macquarie bank is the best possible investor to manage Southern Water and all the problems which we know it has had recently?
The last big issue, on the communities themselves, is that there has been a lot of talk recently about how far people want to travel to work, shop, go to school or whatever. Something called the 20-minute community is being talked about quite a lot. It does not just have to be in London or the suburbs around it; it can be anywhere. Maybe the NIC will start looking at something like this when it looks at the quality of life paper, which I believe will come out next year.
Finally, it is very easy to talk about building things—I am a civil engineer, so I love building things, if they are the right things. However, we also have to look at the cost and upset and everything of building new things compared with adapting existing things, which may cause less trouble and hassle. I will bring my remarks to a close. My last point is cost and deliverability. We all know the problems there, but building things small needs to be looked at. Couple that with the question of whether we will have to change our lifestyle as we go towards net zero or whether we can carry on the way we are—you can even drive to Waitrose for a box of matches.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for initiating this debate. The rules of politics and this House mean that I cannot formally call him a friend, but we have often found ourselves singing from similar hymn sheets in debates such as this. In particular, we focus on the central importance of rational economic decision-making in national life—we have certainly had some debates on HS2. We also sit on the same committee, where I am hugely grateful to him for the contribution he makes, as well as on the APPG on Infrastructure.
Adequate—preferably good—infrastructure is vital if an economy is to be able to operate effectively. Infrastructure in this sense includes communication, such as roads, rail, telephones and broadband, and utilities such as gas, electricity and water, which last covers both the necessity of adequate and pure supply and the risk of floods and drought. Some might say that adequate housing is another vital component of national infrastructure—here I should declare an interest as I am chair of your Lordships’ Built Environment Committee and we are currently conducting an inquiry into housing. But we do not need to split hairs. We all recognise that some entities constitute something reasonably described as infrastructure because they are required if economic ventures are to work. The Victorians —for whom I have a lot of admiration on the infra- structure side—understood that very well.
It is welcome that the importance of infrastructure has been recognised by the establishment of the National Infrastructure Commission, whose report we are considering today. It is under the leadership of Sir John Armitt, a very worthy chair—I know that because we served together at John Laing Construction when we were building Sizewell B in the 1990s. We might, in passing, wonder why it took so long to establish such an important body as the National Infrastructure Commission.
One answer to that question lies in a particular characteristic of infrastructure which separates it from other economic matters. In matters of infrastructure, a significant degree of national planning is necessary and desirable. In many cases, planning is not desirable; in most economic decisions the best course is to let those with ideas seek to put them into effect. If they are right then they will benefit substantially and so, by Adam Smith’s invisible hand, will the rest of us, to a lesser extent. The concept of Ministers and civil servants trying to decide what will succeed in the marketplace has rightly come to be regarded with derision. However, when it comes to, say, investment in train tracks or the electricity grid—or flooding and water resilience, in the circumstances of 2021—this is insufficient, as I think the noble Lord has explained very clearly, so a significant degree of planning is required.
For some of those contributing to today’s debate, all this theory might seem unnecessary. I say to them that they are wrong. Capitalism is the most effective method of economic advance ever discovered. Why has China become so rich? Because it has abandoned—in economic matters—the notions of communism and adopted, in a surprisingly pure form, those of capitalism. The shame is that it has limited its adoption of western ways to economic matters.
I come to the report before us. It is worthy, which is exactly what it ought to be. I have some quibbles. Thinking in terms of centuries or even decades, as we are bound to do on infrastructure, I do not think the emphasis on climate change will age entirely well. There are other challenges and of course innovation and changing weather patterns could alter matters by the time we get to the second half of the century, but we must certainly be more efficient and more careful in the use of our nation’s and the world’s resources in myriad different ways. It is wholly appropriate to assess matters in this long-term way and to look at both digital and physical aspects, as the report does so well. I welcome the report and the opportunity to debate longer-term infrastructure challenges, which is unusual but very important.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for giving us this excellent opportunity to debate these important issues. It is important to bear in mind that the Climate Change Committee has recently made the point that we as a nation are nowhere near restricting our CO2 emissions to the level that we need to achieve a 1.5 degree increase, which is what is needed. My comments today will concentrate entirely on transport-related issues.
Last week, we had the shapeshifting announcement of the integrated rail plan, which was slated across the north of England as a huge disappointment. The National Infrastructure Commission’s reports, statements and conclusions are important because they identify transport as the sector that has the most potential to reduce disparities in wealth across the country. The NIC concludes that urban transport connectivity is poor in many places and that the largest towns and cities have the worst connectivity, with congestion slowing journeys. It points out that improving urban mobility and reducing congestion can boost urban productivity and hence prosperity. That makes last week’s integrated rail plan, with its downgrading of the investment potential in the north of England, all the more worrying.
The NIC report points out that 33% of total UK emissions in 2019 were transport emissions. Of those transport emissions, two-thirds came from surface transport and one-third from aviation and shipping. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, has already mentioned, since 1990 surface transport emissions have stubbornly remained at similar levels despite technological improvements. That has happened simply because there is far more traffic around.
Surface transport emissions come from road transport, of course, as well as rail. However, the number of passenger journeys on rail transport has more than doubled since 1990, but, at the same time, there has been a significant reduction in emissions from railways. We can see that a transition from car ownership to public transport is vital if we are to deal with emissions issues.
Within public transport, rail expansion is of course important, but it takes a while to build a railway; it is much quicker to get people on to buses and to improve a bus fleet from an environmental point of view. We have the technology to move to electric and hydrogen buses.
The Government’s bus strategy has welcome and ambitious aims, but the price tag that they have attached to it is far too modest. The first round of bids is in for funding, which is to be spent largely on zero-carbon buses. There are more than 70 local authorities. Roughly 40 of them have made bids. Four of them alone will mop up the total funding that has been made available. The Government promised us 4,000 zero-emission buses. That sounds really good, but we have to bear in mind that there are 38,000 buses on the road, so what will happen about the other 34,000? The Government still have a roads programme of £27 billion. A quarter of that amount, if spent on zero-emission buses, would deal with the whole problem.
Realistically, we cannot deal with this topic of transport without referring to the need for a stronger government lead in the transition to electric vehicles. Their target is fine, but there is as yet no path to it. Earlier this week in Grand Committee, we considered a modest SI that started to tackle the core problem: the infrastructure for charging EVs. The SI was simply about smart charging, so really it was just about stretching the grid as far as possible—and it was pretty optimistic in what was thought to be possible. Many EV owners have no possible access to charge points at their homes, so they rely on the public realm. It is essential that the right mix of speeds of chargers in the right locations is provided. People rapidly learn where those chargers are and what suits their needs, but the big psychological stumbling block still to be tackled is long-distance routes. People will not buy EVs unless they can rely on chargers being as easily accessible and available as diesel and petrol.
The SMMT has recently produced statistics. One charger is being installed for every 52 new electric vehicles. That is not a sustainable position. The really worrying statistic is that the ratio of vehicle charge points to plug-in vehicles has deteriorated by 31% in the last year. We have one of the worst ratios in major global EV markets, behind South Korea, the Netherlands, China, France, Belgium and Japan. This has to be fixed, and it needs not just money but government leadership in terms of a structure of regulation and leadership of the private sector for investment.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Randerson, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on securing this debate and on his excellent introduction. This is an extremely wide subject of great importance to be covered in just a one-hour debate, but we have had some excellent contributions from all sides. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned road and rail connectivity, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, understands the national infrastructure network across the board and spoke eloquently.
Given the breadth of the baseline report, I shall concentrate on the areas within my spokesperson’s role—wastewater management and flooding. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA. Before I do that, I will just mention the issue of access to gigabit-capable broadband. The increase of coverage to 85% connection across the UK is to be welcomed, and the target of 95% connection by 2026 sounds excellent. However, this masks the dark areas of the country where there is no connection and where this is unlikely to be remedied by 2026.
Remote rural areas, especially in the national parks and deep rural hamlets, suffer from poor or no connectivity. The numbers affected are small but should not be overlooked. They will be the children struggling to do the homework that their friends in towns are easily able to complete, and the farmers trying to fill in the innumerable Defra forms. We have seen in recent days how storms can so easily bring down power lines and, again, deep rural areas are the last to be reconnected. As there is no government rural strategy, and various Ministers have repeatedly stressed that one will not be forthcoming, I make a plea for these areas not to be forgotten in the gigabit connection programme.
I turn to flood resilience and wastewater. During the passage of the Environment Act, flood resilience and waste were debated fully. Communities up and down the country have been flooded more than once. The misery that flood-water brings is truly heartbreaking; the slime and smell caused by overflowing sewage systems is difficult to describe if you have not experienced it yourself. It can destroy a lifetime’s possessions, many having emotional ties. The Government are due to invest £5.6 billion over the next six years to reduce the risk of flooding. Is the Minister able to tell us where this money is likely to be invested and the areas of the country that will benefit from this investment? I expect it to be in areas where the most difference can be made for businesses and homes, but this is likely to leave some smaller communities still at risk.
Despite recognition of climate change and the effects of building on flood plains and tarmacking over green fields, local authorities still build houses in areas where doing so will increase the risk of flooding. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned this. Inadequate attention is often given to how surface-water drainage will be tackled through properly engineered SUDS. Urgent attention needs to be given to how surface-water management is dealt with to prevent increasing the risk of flooding. Can the Minister give reassurance on this aspect?
Also during the passage of the Environment Act, and twice this week during Oral Questions, the issue of raw sewage being discharged by water companies has been raised. Due to the excellent work of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, the Government have given commitments that water companies will in future have to be stringent in how they operate. There will be heavy fines for companies that discharge wastewater and sewage into our lakes and waterways. However, the ability to fine water companies has been in place for a while and has not deterred them. Investment in their infrastructure is long overdue, but it seems that shareholder dividends loom larger on their agenda than the Environment Agency fines. Can the Minister say exactly what conversations have taken place with water companies about improving their infrastructure to prevent future sewage spillages?
I turn now to waste, a great passion of mine. I first became aware of how important it was to reduce waste as a county councillor, when the landfill tax was introduced. This tax concentrated the minds of councillors and officers immediately, as it rose year on year. Much has been done on the recycling front during the intervening years, with many councils having doorstep collections of recyclable materials. However, many of these recyclable collections are not processed in the way the householder imagines they would be but sent for incineration. Although this can and should be through a waste-to-energy plant, supplying electricity locally, this is often not the case. Councils that ask their residents to separate their recyclable waste and collect it through a single-pass vehicle with different compartments for glass, aluminium foil, cans, paper, cardboard and plastic have much higher rates of true recycling.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that we urgently need a single system for every council across the country to make this important change in recycling rates?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
I do indeed, and I am coming to that.
Each of these items can be dealt with in its own way and recycled into reusable articles, thus helping a circular economy. When I lived in Somerset, this system had been up and running for a long time. In Walthamstow, where I rent a flat, all recyclables are in one bin and much of what goes in is not currently recyclable. I know the Government are keen for this system to be rolled out countrywide. Wales has such a system, which has operated for some time, and has the second-highest recycling rate in Europe and, obviously, the highest in Great Britain. Can the Minister give an indication of when the rollout of doorstep separated recyclable waste collections will take place?
My noble friend Lady Randerson spoke passionately about transport and congestion. Reducing emissions and congestion will improve productivity. I welcome the NIC report. Much has been achieved but, goodness me, there is still an awful lot left to do.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley on securing this short debate. I express my thanks to the National Infrastructure Commission for its report, which provides us all with plenty of food for thought.
In his foreword, Sir John Armitt says he hopes the commission’s output will prompt discussion. Today’s debate is a good start, although we must all acknowledge that this topic requires far more than dialogue alone. We all know that improving infrastructure in its myriad forms is a complicated, long-term project. I hope we will get a sense from the Minister that the Government recognise this and share our appetite to meet the many challenges this country faces. It is also expensive. There will obviously be an important role for the private sector in innovating and delivering change, but those organisations will take their lead from central government, with many likely to fix their gaze on the Treasury and its spending plans. Value for money is and must remain an important consideration, but it seems to me that the starting point is to answer two philosophical questions: what do we want the UK to look like in 20, 50 or 100 years, and how do we get there?
For all the Government’s talk of levelling up, recent ministerial decisions about rail across the north of England seemingly fly in the face of the commission’s call for urban transport connectivity to be improved. Rather than levelling up, I worry that we will see some areas being levelled down to deliver an unsatisfactory equalisation of infrastructure, service and opportunities across the country. Indeed, Transport for London and its custodian, the Mayor of London, are concerned that transport in the capital will have to be placed into managed decline should the Government not ease the organisation’s Covid-related financial difficulties. The Treasury should surely be focused on how the quality and range of transport options can be improved for all.
Of course, it is not just transport identified by the commission as a priority for investment. The body’s list is wide ranging, and I worry that it is symptomatic of more than a decade of Conservative control in Westminster. The tragedy is that, while our Prime Minister takes an interest in infrastructure, his priorities tend to be the wrong ones: an airport in the Thames estuary, a garden bridge in London, a road bridge to Northern Ireland. Each was accompanied by warm words and promises of a brighter future. In truth, the feasibility studies and glossy brochures were a waste of public funds. By focusing on vanity projects, he was distracted from making the right decisions—initially for the people of London, and now for the country as a whole. The result is that we have fallen behind our international friends and competitors where it truly matters. Under this Government, we are not the global leaders we should be.
Problems relating to climate change, including increased risk of localised flooding and what the commission calls “unacceptably high” incidences of water and sewage-related pollution, must be met with concerted and strategic action. That will not only need hard cash but also a proper plan to ensure that resources are available to deliver the commission’s recommendations. The longest lead-time resource is undoubtedly appropriately skilled people. Cash without people is simply a recipe for inflation and disappointment. I hope the commission will study this issue as a vital contribution to the 2023 national infrastructure assessment.
The commission also draws our attention to asset maintenance issues. Those working in the public sector are cursed with the mantra that capital expenditure is good and current expenditure is bad. This results in the premature loss of capital assets as they deteriorate more rapidly due to poor maintenance. As one who was responsible for long-life assets, I know that value for money comes from the whole-life management of capital assets. I hope the commission will continue to emphasise this point in future reports.
There is much to do. The National Infrastructure Commission will now work up a detailed proposal and we look forward to following that work. While options are drawn up and costed, I hope that Ministers will undertake some of the necessary preparatory work, including gathering data, setting targets, and delivering reforms to education and training. As a nation, we are capable of so much; we have world-leading scientists, academics, engineers and architects. We have talented young people who, with the right guidance, can fill those roles and others into the future, building a Britain with much better, greener, and more resilient infrastructure. What they need—and what the country needs—is clear, strategic leadership. By the time the commission comes forward with its next assessment in 2023, we must be ready with our answers to the big questions. Until then, I hope the Minister can provide a sense that his party is learning from previous mistakes in relation to infrastructure and has a sense of where to go next.
Can I repeat some of the points I have made? First, the National Infrastructure Commission is a brilliant idea, but the problem is it does not have saliency. We as politicians should, on a cross-party basis, be helping to build its saliency so that it happens. Secondly, we mismanage the whole people issue; the people have to be related to their whole-life experience, including the skill and be able to learn new skills. Thirdly, we do not look after our assets properly. The maintenance problem comes partly from capitalism without appropriate rules, partly from the way we account for money, and it fails to take account of the real value of looking at all of an asset and all of its future. If we start to get these things right, which will need a partnership between state and private sector, we can look forward to a better value future.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for securing this debate. He is known with great respect throughout the House for his pursuit of certain causes célèbres, including matters relating to transport to the Isles of Scilly. I also know he is a long-standing advocate for the benefits of infrastructure and his speech indicated his clear focus on all the key issues, many of which I will be attempting to touch on this afternoon.
The Government recognise the transformative possibilities of infrastructure benefit here. That is why we have committed £130 billion to economic infrastructure since the publication of the National Infrastructure Strategy last year. However, it is fair to say that in past decades and under past Governments, the UK’s infrastructure has been plagued by stop-start public funding and policy uncertainty that has conspired to undermine private investment. In 2015, to help resolve these issues, the Government established the National Infrastructure Commission—which I will refer to as the NIC—to provide independent, expert advice. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe was right to ask why it took so long. I hope to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that the Government have a robust approach to infrastructure. We are focused not merely on capital spending but on long-term infrastructure planning, improving project delivery and supporting private investment. I will try to touch on those points as I go through my remarks.
I remind your Lordships of the crucial role of the NIC’s first national infrastructure assessment. Published in 2018, it set out a recommended long-term strategy for the country’s infrastructure over the next 30 years. That work directly underpinned our National Infrastructure Strategy, which we published last year. Alongside the strategy, the Government published their formal response to the commission’s 2018 recommendations, partially or fully endorsing the vast majority. Already those recommendations are becoming reality. For example, earlier this year we launched the UK Infrastructure Bank in Leeds, which is expected to unlock more than £40 billion-worth of infrastructure investment. Just over a month ago, the UKIB made its first investment with a £107 million loan to Tees Valley Combined Authority. Only yesterday we announced its first private sector investment, in subsidy-free solar energy.
I turn to the baseline report for the Second National Infrastructure Assessment, which is of course the main subject for today’s debate. The report highlights some areas where the Government have made significant progress, so let us start with that. First, on the delivery of gigabit-capable broadband, I mention briefly that, only yesterday, my flat was upgraded to full-fibre broadband, and the speed is much faster—that is just a bit of self-indulgence. The report draws attention to the fact that coverage is now at over 62% compared to just 10% in November 2019. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, mentioned that rural broadband connectivity is lagging behind. The Government recognise the importance of gigabit-capable connectivity to people across all areas, but particularly in rural parts. We have committed £5 billion to support gigabit-capable coverage in the hardest-to-reach-areas where possible, so that is an ongoing programme and the noble Baroness raised a good point.
Secondly, on the transition to renewable forms of energy, the report points out that the share of electricity generated from renewable sources has grown from less than 10% in 2010 to almost 40% in 2019.
Thirdly, on our ambition for electric vehicles, the report mentions the Government’s pledge to end the sale of new petrol and diesel cars and vans in 2030, with all new vehicles required to be 100% zero emission from 2035. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, stated that there was not enough funding for buses along the same theme. I reassure her that £3 billion of new funding over this Parliament will be dedicated, to double the amount given since the 2015 spending review levels. The £525 million for zero-emission buses in this Parliament is in addition to wider support, including a green uplift in the bus services operator grant, and £1.2 billion of dedicated bus transformation funding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also suggested that more needs to be done on long-range charging and charger ratios. The Government are making significant investments in electric vehicle charging, including £1.3 billion at the spending review 2020. That includes funding for a rapid changing fund to reduce people’s anxieties around long-range charging by rolling out thousands of rapid charges across our strategic road network. The UK has more rapid chargers per 100 miles than any country in Europe, according to a report. However, of course the noble Baroness is right to make that point, and there is always more to be done there—we all know that as drivers on our roads.
Fourthly, on drought resilience, which was raised. The report underlines that we have endorsed the commission’s recommendation that we increase drought resilience to reflect a one-in-500-year event.
Another positive aspect of the report is the NIC’s social research, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. Understandably, people will always call for more and better infrastructure. However, this research shows growing public confidence that infra- structure will meet people’s needs over the next 30 years—this is perhaps excepting the views on net zero raised by the noble Lord. I will need to check back on that.
Of course, we recognise that the report also highlights some concerns, including nine key challenges on which the NIC will focus in its second national infrastructure assessment. I want to focus my remarks around three important elements of these, again raised during this short debate: net zero, flooding and transport.
First, although net zero was mentioned in rather positive terms by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we recognise the report’s concerns about our journey to net zero, including in respect of decarbonising our electricity system and heating. That is why we have recently published our net-zero strategy, setting out how we plan to achieve our 2050 goals, in particular by leveraging up to £90 billion of private investment in green infrastructure by 2050.
The Government have also published the Heat and Buildings Strategy, which lays out our vision for a sustainable and affordable transition to a low-carbon heating sector. We are providing £3.9 billion over the spending review period for heat and buildings decarbonisation, including £1.8 billion for low-income households and £450 million for the new boiler upgrade scheme, which financially incentivises home owners to install heat pumps.
We have also provided significant funding to decarbonise transport. This includes confirming £6.1 billion at the spending review to support the policies and strategy in the transport decarbonisation plan. We have invested £620 million in the transition to EVs, building on the £1.9 billion committed at the previous spending review.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe stated that there was no road map for net zero and that the UK was not reducing emissions fast enough. I note those two points. In response, I would say that the UK reduced emissions faster than any other country in the G20 between 1990 and 2019. The UK reduced its greenhouse emissions by 44% compared to just 5% for the G7 as a whole. In June 2019, the UK became the first major economy to legislate for an end of contribution to climate change by 2050. As I mentioned earlier, the recently-published net zero strategy sets out a clear pathway to reach net zero and level up the UK by supporting up 190,000 jobs in the mid-2020s and up to 440,000 jobs in the 2030s.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
On progress on greenhouse gases and zero emissions, where does the into-the-UK part of international aviation come in this? At the moment, I get the impression that it is dumped and seen as not part of our problem. It is part of our problem.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that it is part of the problem. I suspect that he may be referring to the air passenger duty and other matters. I shall write separately to him on that important matter, because I think it is fair to say that there is a balance to be struck between allowing people to travel and being sure that our aeroplane sector is fit for purpose in terms of achieving our climate change goals. I think that was probably the gist behind his question.
On flooding, we recognise that action is needed to improve surface water management as flood risk increases, so we have commissioned the NIC to conduct a study into the management of surface water flooding in England, including the role of nature-based solutions. In addition, the Government have updated their partnership funding arrangements, enabling more surface water schemes now to be delivered via their £5.2 billion investment programme.
Finally, I turn to urban connectivity, as part of the wider transport issues that I mentioned earlier. We recognise the challenges in respect to this highlighted by the report. That is why in the Budget we committed £5.7 billion over five years for London-style integrated transport settlements that will transform local networks in eight English city regions, and we have announced £1.2 billion over the spending review period for bus transformation deals.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked whether the Government should consider the challenges and costs of delivering major infrastructure projects. He is quite right to highlight this. That is why the Chancellor set up Project SPEED to ensure that spending decisions are informed by deliverability concerns.
Moving quickly to next steps—with the Committee’s indulgence, I will go on beyond my time, but not too far—our work to create an infrastructure revolution is a remarkable cross-government effort. The Government have an established process for formally responding to the NIC’s recommendations. Once it has published the second national infrastructure assessment in the second half of 2023, we will respond as soon as practicable, although, as I have shown today, we are already engaging on these issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, asked about flood defences and where the £5.6 billion is being invested. Funding is distributed consistently across the country to wherever the risk is greatest and the benefits are highest. Defra published its flood and coastal erosion risk management investment plan in July 2021, as she may know. It provides an indicative regional breakdown of spend, including between £620 million and £750 million of investment in the north-west and £680 million to £830 million in Yorkshire and the Humber.
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked about funding and urban connectivity. The Government have provided £4 billion of additional emergency funding to support TfL through the pandemic to address urban congestion. We have announced £5.7 billion to support transport networks.
I will conclude with a few ad lib-type remarks, as I want to pick up on an interesting point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about our reflection on going to Waitrose to pick up a box of matches. We should be sure, as part of this debate on the NIC, of the vision we are looking at. This is probably not government policy, but we should look ahead—probably not too far—at how we might get our box of matches. Surely we would order a drone, which would deliver it to us. Or, if we were going to go to Waitrose, we would talk to our watch and ask a car—not our car but any driverless car—to come to our door. We would then get into the car with a coffee and a newspaper, be driven to Waitrose to buy our box of matches and then be driven back. The car would then disappear into the ether. We would then take our box of matches—perhaps rather cynically, I wonder what it might be for. Perhaps it is to light your fire in the drawing room, which adversely affects CO2, so maybe we should not go there. Anyway, the serious point is that we need to think quite positively about the changes that will definitely come to the way that we live. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about society and our way of life. He makes an extremely good point.
To conclude, this is an extraordinary moment—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps he would like to exceed his brief again and say something about the longer term. He has answered very well on some of the individual comments raised by Peers this afternoon, but the point I was trying to make is that the National Infrastructure Commission is important because it looks at the longer-term, comprehensive picture, and the need for planning is very important. As a former Treasury Minister, I know that it is not always top of the Treasury’s list.
Perhaps we might discuss on another occasion the excellent point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, about capital and current expenditure. I remember talking to Education Ministers who had spent lots of capital on schools. Capital was easy, free and glamorous, but running costs were not. The capital did not provide the cheapest possible way of running things, which commercial operators care a lot about. There is a profound point underlying his question, and it would be good if we could come back to that on a future occasion.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point, and I hope that I have made it clear that we are thinking big and long. I mentioned 30 years, but perhaps we should look longer than that. One example is HS2. Whether we like it or not, that is an example of long-term planning—now covering four Governments, because I think it goes back to before 2010 as a concept.
That plays in nicely to my concluding remarks. We are perhaps at an extraordinary moment in this country’s history, as we make our way in the world as global Britain and build back better after Covid-19. This Government’s infrastructure revolution will, as the Prime Minister has previously put it, unleash the productive power of every part of this country and allow us to seize these opportunities with both hands. I have no doubt that the advice and guidance of the NIC will be integral to achieving all this and ultimately to helping us reach new levels of success.
Finally, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the report put it,
“bold action, stable plans and long term funding”
are the aims. It is just a question of how we get there.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988: Sporting Events
(3 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Astor
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to include sporting events.
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I have just had a message from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan; he is in the debate in the main Chamber so will be a little late. He apologises but hopes to be here in time.
If you take a mobile telephone into a pop concert, a theatre or a cinema, or copy a book, and try to sell what you have filmed, then you have broken the law as set out in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. If you go to a football match, a race meeting, a golf match, an athletics event or any other sporting event and do the same thing, you will not have broken the law as sporting events are not covered by the Act. When the Act was introduced, it covered original literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, sound recordings, films and the topographical arrangement of published editions. I do not think that anyone foresaw in 1988 what new technology would be capable of, and clearly the Act needs to be reviewed and possibly revised.
In 1988 there was a view that sport did not constitute an intellectual creation. The reason why sporting events were omitted is that debate was focused on the individual sportsmen rather than the event, with the argument that the rules of sport left only limited room for creative freedom. However, it is the event, and the copyright in the event, that is important, and that is what is required. Copyright, one must note, does not exist until the event is captured in a broadcast or a picture. It is not the sport that I am concerned about but the event.
There are two reasons why reform is needed. The first is that sporting bodies are losing valuable media rights income. The second, which is just as important if not more so, is that the lack of copyright on events has resulted in a vast expansion of illegal gambling, leading to problem gambling and gambling harm. That takes some explanation, if noble Lords will indulge me. Illicit pictures are utilised by the black-market operators as a unique selling point to attract customers who are not subject to betting regulation. These operators have zero interest in protecting potential vulnerable customers. Sporting bodies in this country, from big football clubs to small race meetings, sell their media rights for broadcast on satellite and terrestrial television, which is then sold on, often to betting shops. The total sporting industry media rights are worth in excess of £1 billion. The largest amount obviously goes to the larger football clubs but then the money trickles down to grass-roots sports throughout the country.
In this country, terrestrial broadcasters are allocated low spectrum to transmit pictures, which results in a one-second or two-second delay between the live action and the broadcast. If you fly a drone that is linked to a camera and then to a mobile telephone, or use one or more mobile telephones to record an event, you can transmit those pictures faster than television pictures as mobile telephones use a higher-spectrum frequency and therefore have up to a two-second advantage. So rogue operators are selling live pictures at a discount, and sporting bodies are losing out from the resulting diminution of their media income. This means that, when they have to renegotiate media rights, they will be offered less.
Some of the large football clubs can stop drones flying over the stadium—that is quite easy. But it is impossible for many sporting events to do so, because the drones just film a yard away from being above the event and do not actually fly over it. It is possible but difficult to enforce against drones. You can stop them from flying directly overhead an event if you can find out who is actually flying them; the problem is that the operators just move the drone slightly further away, over a neighbouring property, and the cameras are so good that they can still film the event. The cameras have a really long range that they can transmit, so it is almost impossible to figure out how to stop them.
At some horserace meetings this summer, you could see eight drones flying in a preset pattern along the course. Someone would have come along in a van and unloaded the drones, let them fly up in the air and then driven away. They were following preset patterns loaded in, so there was no way in which to find the person responsible for them, because they would disappear on the day and do not come back until later. So it is an incredibly difficult thing to do. The problem is, because they are not actually flying exactly over the event, they are not breaking any of the air navigation rules as set out by the Civil Aviation Authority. It is not just drones doing this—there are multiple mobile telephones whose content is then aggregated. There have been instances whereby 30 students have been given burner phones and paid to go to a football match, hold them up and film the match, which is then streamed and aggregated somewhere in the ether and then sold on to illegal bookmaking sites.
We do not want to criminalise the sports enthusiast for filming his favourite sporting event—that is not the point at all. You cannot ban people from filming, and nor should you, but you can follow the money. We want to stop those who are selling the pictures on, and not only debasing media rights but affecting the growth of harmful gambling. Just to take horseracing as an example, it is a huge industry, and the amount of betting that goes on is probably worth about £9 billion throughout the year. It is very profitable for bookmakers, and millions flow back into the sport via media rights—that is true of all sports—and with racing through the horseracing levy.
The betting industry has done much to solve concerns about problem gambling, but there is more to be done. The Gambling Commission has been in the forefront of pushing for changes to prevent problem gamblers from using slot machines, casinos and betting shops or betting online. However, its important work is seriously being undermined by illegal gambling sites, which are often based abroad and therefore totally unregulated. There is no point in squeezing out problem gamblers from regulated sites if they can just as easily move to an unregulated site. The reason why they can do this is that the transmission of these sporting events is done by people who sell the pictures to illegal gambling operators in this country, which are not only unregulated but can easily be accessed via the internet in this country. You can put a bet almost anywhere you want in the world, so it is almost impossible to stop that unless you have some copyright. You have to be able to follow the money because, if you do not, it is really impossible. The illegal sites beat the bookmakers and betting shops by the two seconds when the broadcast is transmitted, because many bets are put on in the running or during a game. If you have a two-second advantage, although it might take someone like me a long time to put on a bet, if you are a clever person—and an addict, as it were—you can put on a bet very quickly, and that is what is happening.
I go back to the point that unregulated problem gambling is a very serious issue which has to be addressed. Assessment of recent statistics would suggest that illegal bookmaker betting in this country is now worth about £0.5 billion. There are probably over 400,000 customers using illegal betting sites in this country; it is a serious problem. I hope that the Government will consider, when they come to legislation next year, bringing sporting events into copyright protection. That would allow the Gambling Commission the power to follow the trail of the money and shut down illegal and problem gambling.
Gambling is a serious issue and there have been lots of debates about problem gambling. I note that the Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said in winding up a debate on the Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill the other day:
“Gambling is one of our society’s major ills.”—[Official Report, 19/11/21; col. 575.]
I hope that is not a reflection of government policy because I do not think gambling, whether in horse racing or any other, is a serious ill provided it is properly regulated and we regulate against gambling harm. Illegal gambling is the problem, not legal gambling.
I believe the Government could look at this. I note that copyright protection exists in France, Belgium and Italy, so I am not asking them to look at anything that does not exist in other countries. I hope the Government will look seriously at what is happening in Europe and see whether they can address this serious problem.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, not only noble Lords here but all sorts of other people will be watching this debate this afternoon, including racing as a whole, racecourses, owners, trainers, jockeys, honest punters and—yes, there are plenty—honest bookmakers, because it covers such an important threat to the revenues keeping them in business. Following the noble Viscount’s wonderful speech, I certainly do not want to drone on, but let me give a brief lay man’s account of what is going on here.
Go to a racecourse now and you can hardly miss the drones; there are perhaps eight or 10 of them flying about all over the course, so what is going on? As the author of a work of racing fiction—Counter Coup, in all good bookshops now, as it has been for the last seven years—I would not dare dream up so implausible a plot as the reality of what is going on. In a nutshell, what is going on is tech-assisted cheating. These days, you do not have to put a bet on a horse before a race starts; you can back horses “in running” as it is called. When drones come in, they can transmit pictures of a race seconds before they appear on conventional television.
So, Joe Bloggs is sitting at home in front of his TV. He sees the favourite lengths in front coming to the last and puts a big bet on at short odds that it will win. More fool him, because his drone counterpart is a few seconds ahead and he knows that the horse just fell at the last. Therefore, he can lay that horse for as much cash as he wants with no danger or difficulty of losing his money. He lays the horse and counts his winnings. Who loses? It is the punter who backed the favourite and racecourses which do not have copyright in the pictures and therefore cannot get any money from the pictures of the product they are supplying. There is less money for racing, less money for owners—I am an owner, so I can say that with some bitterness—and less money for trainers, jockeys and legitimate bookmakers, apart from a handful of often illegal bookmakers who may be in on the game.
This is not legitimate betting, to which I certainly have no objection. This is foul play, and it must be stopped. One way of doing so would be to give the racecourses copyright in all pictures so that at least the droners paid up out of their ill-gotten gains. Another would be to make such filming of sporting events a criminal offence. The Government will no doubt come to their own conclusions as to which route is the easiest. What is important is that they do not conclude that both routes are difficult and therefore do absolutely nothing about this scandal of legalised fraud.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I seek your Lordships’ permission. I had no intention whatever of being discourteous to my noble friend but equally I was trying not to be discourteous to the Minister after I spoke in the debate in the Chamber on the humanitarian issues in Afghanistan. With the agreement of the Committee and of the Chair, I will hand over now and speak in the gap, just to emphasise the important point in chapter 4.32 of the Companion that speakers should be present for the opening speech. I sincerely apologise to the Committee for that being difficult on account of the other debate overrunning. I will give way to my noble friend, who will speak now, and with the agreement of the Committee I will speak in the gap.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am glad we have come to that agreement. I thank my noble friend Lord Astor for initiating this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for his colourful perspective, although, as he says, the solutions in these matters are never easy.
Like both noble Lords, I love racing, especially on the flat, and believe that elite sport broadcast here and around the world is important to UK growth, enterprise and soft power. Over the years, I have spent a good deal of time in Asia and Europe and have been struck by the power of teams such as Manchester United and indeed Manchester City, English cricket, Welsh rugby and of course the Derby to bring people together and attract wealth and investment into Britain.
I was Intellectual Property Minister for nearly three years—happy times—mainly under David Cameron, and I helped others to understand the evolution and importance of intangible assets such as those that we are talking about. Over 4% of our GDP in 2019 was invested in intellectual property rights, and of course copyright, which we are discussing today, is the biggest intellectual property right in economic terms.
At that time, we not only had the best IP regime in the world but we prided ourselves on good enforcement of the rights, which provided certainty for business, sport, inventors, scientists and the creative industry, while the Intellectual Property Office and the IP crime unit in the City of London Police led the charge against infringements of all kinds. Some of them were very dangerous, such as counterfeit airbags and website scams. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, in his seat; we did a lot of work together on trying to get IP into a decent place, and to avoid the sorts of scams that we have heard about from my noble friend today.
One offending area was autovisual content, including live match footage, which could then be streamed in from abroad by, say, Greek or Asian providers for a very low fee but not be caught by the rules on copyright and the associated licensing because of the wording of an exemption in Section 72 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which followed a confusing ECJ judgment in 2011. The beneficiaries of that state of affairs seemed to be from overseas, as in the racing example that my noble friend Lord Astor has raised. While some pubs might have been getting cheaper deals, they might well at the same time have been breaching copyright laws, which was itself a big cause of concern.
Like much to do with IP, this area is very complex, as we will discover when we seek to put our towels around our heads and solve the very real problem that has been raised today. On the issue that I have mentioned, after two painful consultations, we concluded that the right thing was to remove film completely from the Section 72 exemption. We made regulations in 2016 that seemed to do the trick and reduce lawbreaking. We put a review clause in, which is something I am always very keen on in regulations, and that review is now taking place. I recall this and mention it today because of its relevance and because it has been mentioned in the excellent briefing by the Library for this debate. My strong advice to the Minister on that one is to leave well alone, because it is very complex and you can go around in circles.
I listened to my noble friend Lord Astor, who raised a new horror that perhaps could be addressed by the right regulation of copyright, which is what we were doing on that occasion. This is exactly the sort of issue that the Intellectual Property Office, of which I am a great admirer, is good at tackling. Illegal gambling is for the DCMS, of course, but in my experience they work well together and should act as my noble friend Lord Astor suggested.
He has identified a very valuable and unfair two seconds. That was the thing that struck me—the delay that allows this profit to be a completely wrong accretion of value. It is a new online harm for us to wrestle with, and regulation is no doubt needed. That is why this debate is very timely, with the legislation on that issue coming forward soon.
I very much look forward to my noble friend the Minister’s comments and hope that the two issues we have raised are not in conflict.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I again apologise to and thank the Committee for allowing me to speak in the gap. I will be briefer than I anticipated. However, I had the pleasure and privilege of reading my noble friend Lord Astor’s notes in advance of today’s Committee and I fully endorse what he said and agree with the position he has taken.
I well remember the discussions on the relevant Bill back in 1988, because I was then Minister for Sport in Margaret Thatcher’s Government and this subject came across my desk. It was at a time when sport was very much on the fringes of government. It was in the Department of the Environment and long before the days of extensive broadcasting rights, major television deals and the lottery. They were still years away. In fact, most of the work done then in the department was on the problems caused by football hooligans bringing shame to the national game and the country. Much has changed. The advent of sport as an intellectual creation was still to come. The commercial world I have just described really happened in the 1990s.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Astor that I read is absolutely pertinent, because we have to act on this now. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was right. I will not talk about the gambling side of this. They both made a strong argument in favour of bringing sporting events into copyright protection. It is worth quoting the excellent brief by the WIPO:
“IP rights … and the legal protection they give … help to secure the economic value of sport. This in turn stimulates growth of the sports industry, enables sporting organizations to finance high-profile sports events”.
We already have precedent in taking action on exactly what my noble friend is looking for, when we brought forward legislation for the London 2012 Olympic Games specifically to protect the rights of the organising committee at that time. Only recently we have had legislation to the same effect with regard to the Commonwealth Games to be held next year. There is ample precedent for us now to consider this in the wider context of sport and to follow the ideas my noble friend raised.
I close by endorsing what he said, supporting what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, and apologising once again to the Committee. In nearly 30 years I have never missed an opening speech in a debate I intended to speak in. I would normally have scratched immediately but, given that I missed just a speech I had read, I hope I have the Committee’s forgiveness for being present in the Chamber for the winding up by the Minister, who referred to the speech I gave on the appalling humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. I end with further apologies and thanks to the Committee.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I do not feel offended at all by what happened and am very pleased that we can accommodate the noble Lord’s comments and contribution to this debate. As regards our side, he can relax on that matter.
I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for bringing this debate forward. It is one of those areas that the more you look into it, the more complicated and complex it gets. Battling with advances in technology is bedevilling us in so many areas, and it has been very illustrative to hear the cases so eloquently put by both the noble Viscount and my noble friend Lord Lipsey. I also pay tribute to the Library for the briefing that it gave us.
On the protections being called for in this area, I think that we are all looking forward to the Minister’s comments on where we have got to in what is a very technical and complicated debate. I want to add from my perspective just how important sport in its broadest context is to local economies as well as national economies. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, gave an assessment of travelling to the Far East. As a long-suffering Leeds United supporter who has been on trade missions to Malaysia and China, I found the collective memory in those places of how Leeds was a great team incredible—because, until they returned to the Premiership, the length of time that Leeds were out of the top flight was quite significant. I am talking about the direct trade talks I had as leader of the council with significant businesses and how important that contribution was. In my time as leader, I was able to secure the triathlon world series coming to Leeds as the UK venue, the television rights that came with that, and the exposure of the city and the whole region that came through securing the grand départ of the Tour de France. It is very difficult to put a value on the importance of that to the sense of well-being as well as wealth growth in our local communities.
I therefore recognise the World Intellectual Property Organization’s comments about helping to secure the economic value of sport and about how that, in turn, stimulates the growth of the sports economy, enabling sports organisations to finance high-profile sports events and providing the means to promote sports development. It is absolutely critical that we look at this through the lens of sports organisations, and we should of course recognise the benefit that the sale of broadcasting and media rights brings and that it is the biggest source of revenue. We should also consider how those funds can then be used to contribute to the development of sport at grass-roots level. Do the Government have plans to encourage intellectual property revenue being directed into the development of grass-roots organisations?
The Sports Rights Owners Coalition has argued that protection against rights infringements is
“key to a sustainable financing of both professional and grassroots sports”
and, as such, it has called on the Government to
“fully recognise, protect and promote the special nature of sport and sports rights”.
We have heard of course how the UK’s Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allowed organisations that do not charge admission to show television programmes to the public without permission from the owners of film and broadcast copyright in those programmes. The Act was subject to amendment in 2016, when “film” was removed from the list of exceptions. The Explanatory Note to the regulations stated that this change would ensure that
“Section 72 will only provide a defence against infringement (in the showing or playing of a broadcast) of the rights in a broadcast per se, and will not extend to any film rights in the broadcast”.
Five years on, does the Minister believe this change provided greater clarity, as was intended? What impact has this had on the wider licensing framework? The pertinent question for the debate is this: when will the Government publish the response to their review of these changes? If there is any sense of what options for action could follow, I would be very grateful for an understanding of where this is heading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Astor for tabling what has been a very important debate. I have certainly found it constructive, interesting and informative and am grateful to those Members who have contributed. First, let me make it absolutely clear that the Government are committed to supporting sports and sporting events, as well as athletes, spectators and all those whose livelihoods are dependent on the successful running of sporting events at all levels.
The Question for Short Debate tabled by my noble friend is
“to ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to include sporting events.”
To address this directly, I should start by explaining that the main purpose of that Act is to protect creative works and intellectual creation, innovation and invention. For copyright, this includes original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works, as well as films, sound recordings and broadcasts. Live sporting events and athletic performances are not eligible for copyright protection.
The main reason for this is that copyright must be an intellectual creation. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, would argue that some of the fantastic performances of Leeds United in the 1970s were intellectual creations, but I am sorry to tell her that, in general, sporting performances are not considered intellectual creations since the rules of sport leave only limited room for real creative freedom.
Proposals to have sporting performances protected by copyright provisions raise grave concerns about the development of sport—for instance, if an athlete were able to protect their performance, or an aspect of it, from being copied by other athletes. We can see how many difficulties would be caused by going down that route.
The owner of copyright in footage of sport is the person who films it, as they have creative control of how that race, game or event is filmed. The proposal before us of having a sporting event protected directly under the CDPA would reverse this, meaning that the copyright in any film of a sporting event would be owned no longer by the person who filmed it but instead by the event’s organiser or perhaps even its participants. This would represent a significant departure from the prevailing understanding of the purpose of copyright protection, which is to protect the creator and creative industries. This would not just entail reopening the domestic copyright framework; we would also have to consider whether there would be consequences for the UK’s obligations under international legal frameworks.
The CDPA, along with the Trade Marks Acts, forms the basis of an essential form of legal protection available to sporting events. For example, trademarks are valuable assets that can build confidence and loyalty in a business by protecting things such as names and logos. This is especially important in the world of sport, where sports clubs wish to engender a sense of pride and identity in their brand—such as Leeds United—allowing them to invest in and build up a reputation in their club names and logos and then control and commercialise official club merchandise based on that brand.
In addition, films of sporting events are protected by copyright, and this is how organisers of sports traditionally create and control the intellectual property linked to their events. Footage of sporting events allows clubs to license their match or race footage to broadcasters, which of course generates a crucial source of revenue for a wide variety of sporting enterprises.
Certain forms of sports data can also be protected by IP rights, such as database rights. Anyone wishing to use that data would need to seek the permission of the rights holder. That said, copyright does not protect facts themselves, including facts around sporting events—but it can protect how facts are expressed.
My noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, both raised concerns about the use of camera drones to film sports events and using their live streams to gain an advantage over official broadcasts and betting sites. The Gambling Commission regulates nearly all commercial gambling in Great Britain, including all sports betting, and has so far found little evidence that illegal drone filming is linked to illegal gambling sites. The commission can take action against illegal operators, using its relationships with web-hosting companies and payment providers to disrupt these websites.
It is true that filming or recording sporting events is often prohibited under conditions of entry to sporting venues, as it is in cinemas. Drones may be one way of bypassing conditions of entry. The Gambling Commission believes that using unauthorised drones, much like using unauthorised phones from inside venues, is driven primarily by gamblers who are in-play betting on legal sites seeking an advantage from information that is more up to date than that available to operators or other betting exchange users who are watching an official broadcast. However, this type of courtsiding and other forms of illicit filming are not considered an offence under the Gambling Act.
Furthermore, the commission’s sports betting intelligence unit works closely with the betting industry, sports’ governing bodies and the police to protect the integrity of sport and betting. The unit will determine the most effective course of action in each case. This can lead to further investigations being carried out by the commission or the police. The commission also supported a police-led initiative on drone use in racing and invited the UK national police adviser to speak at a sports betting intelligence forum. The commission already requires gambling operators to have policies designed to manage betting integrity and regulatory risks within in-play betting.
The Government are determined to take steps to help sporting events put a stop to organisations and activities that support illegal gambling and the unauthorised use of footage protected by copyright. The Gambling Act review is taking a comprehensive look at gambling regulation in Great Britain to make sure that it is fit for the digital age, including looking at the powers the Gambling Commission has to tackle illegal operators. The Government recognise that these are issues of genuine concern to the businesses that have raised them, but they have not yet seen sufficient evidence of any harm arising to justify any intervention at this time, much less an unorthodox expansion of the copyright regime.
The Government would of course be open to receiving further quantitative evidence on the matter. If the businesses concerned were able to make a better case for government action, backed by persuasive data, of course we would consider what measures might be effective. However, an expansion of copyright-like protection in the way proposed is in our view simply not viable. Not only would it be a significant and unprecedented development, with unknown impacts and unintended consequences, but it would move the globally well-established scope of copyright well beyond the protection of creators and creative industries and fundamentally alter the nature of what subject matter is protected.
I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for her observations on Section 72 of the CDPA. The Government are currently analysing the review of the section and we will publish our findings in due course. I fully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, that sports and sporting events, including grass-roots sport, are of crucial benefit to all levels of the economy. IP can and does provide sport with opportunities to develop and promote revenue and we fully agree that promoting IP rights is crucial to this. As I mentioned previously, the Government are analysing the review of Section 72 of the CDPA and we will publish our findings in due course. I also thank my noble friend Lord Moynihan for his contribution and for his experience in this field.
I end by again thanking my noble friend Lord Astor and those who have contributed to what I think has been a very good and informative debate today.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Patient Safety Commissioner
Baroness Cumberlege
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the process to appoint the Patient Safety Commissioner will commence; and when they expect the Commissioner to be in post.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, we are making good progress towards appointing the first patient safety commissioner for England. We expect the appointment of the postholder by spring 2022. We have publicly consulted on the appointment and role of the patient safety commissioner and have agreement that the role will be regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments and subject to pre-appointment scrutiny.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very interesting reply and I thank all those who have been involved in establishing the patient safety commissioner—the first in England and, I am told, the world. But my deep concern is that we are setting up the commissioner to fail, with a term of office too short to establish the role, set up a new organisation and get to grips with a very complex task. Three years is too short. Does my noble friend agree that five years would be preferable? Will she please work with colleagues to lengthen the term of office from three to five years, as is the case with the Children’s Commissioner?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that Question. The postholder will be offered a three-year term of office and may be reappointed for a further three years, subject to ministerial agreement. This is in line with most other public appointments. We believe that three years, with a possible extension of a further three, subject to ministerial agreement, is the right approach. This means that, if reappointed, the postholder could serve up to six years, which is a good amount of time for the role to become well-established within the healthcare system.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the independence of the patient safety commissioner is vital. Will that independence be built into the regulations to ensure that the patient community is confident that the commissioner has the authority to do the job and protect the patient?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Of course, that is vital. The commissioner must have the freedom to act independently if they are to be effective. We will work with the commissioner to agree how the commissioner’s independence will be safeguarded.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, one of the key tasks of the independent patient safety commissioner will be to make recommendations on patient safety issues as they relate to medicines and medical devices. The important question I would like to ask the Minister is: who will be responsible for implementing those recommendations and where will the accountability lie?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Accountability is obviously very important. We are making sure that the patient safety commissioner is complementary to the many bodies already operating in our health service and enhances their work. The commissioner will have the power to request and share information with relevant persons in the NHS or the independent sector in carrying out their core duties, which will facilitate joined-up working. Shared accountability to the Secretary of State for many of these public bodies and the commissioner will also help them to collaborate and co-operate across organisations, with a responsibility to improve patient safety.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, in view of the size of the liability for clinical negligence in the NHS, is it not urgent that the commissioner be appointed and be successful in introducing measures for increased safety?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Yes, we obviously want to get the patient safety commissioner in position as soon as possible. The consultation ran from 10 June to 5 August. We will shortly arrange for publication of the Government’s response to the consultation and publish the job advert and job description to kick off the appointment process. We will also bring forward the necessary draft regulations, which will be subject to debate in both Houses.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply to the question of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. However, the Government first said that the patient safety commissioner would be in post by the first quarter of 2022, and it is clear from the timetable that that will now not be achieved. So, can the Minister set out the current thinking on when the patient safety commissioner will actually be in post?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I fear that I cannot really add to what I said to my noble and learned friend. We are going to advertise the role shortly and we have finalised the relevant details. The patient safety commissioner will be a regulated public appointment, which means that the appointment process will follow the requirements of the Governance Code on Public Appointments. The process will be open and transparent, but all of this takes a bit of time. It may still be spring 2022.
Baroness Wyld (Con)
My Lords, it is a shame that my noble friend cannot commit to a date. As others have said, this has dragged on. Given that she has given a commitment to do this by spring, can she say what the department is doing to come up with new ideas to ensure there is a genuinely broad and diverse field of candidates, so that patients’ voices really are heard?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that question. As I said, the appointment process will follow the Governance Code on Public Appointments. The process will be open and transparent and the appointment will be made on merit. The process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, who will approve a senior independent member of the assessment panel. The appointment will also be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny hearing with the Health and Social Care Select Committee.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB) [V]
My Lords, given all the pressures on the NHS at this difficult time, is it not more necessary than ever to have a patient safety commissioner who could hear and co-ordinate patients’ voices and act on their concerns? Are there some hopeful candidates waiting?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I am sure there are hopeful candidates waiting. I am afraid I have no idea who they are—obviously, that is not within my remit. I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to get on with this. I think the department realises that and is concentrating on moving this forward.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I think it is worth reminding ourselves of the problem: we need a patient safety champion because many patients, particularly women, were disregarded and dismissed for many years by those across the whole of our NHS. This was graphically and effectively exposed by the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. Will the commissioner report to Parliament, and how will we ensure—I say “we” because I think we all have a responsibility in this regard—that their independence is safeguarded and their status protected?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
Those are both very important questions. We place enormous emphasis on patient safety, which is central to effective functioning of the NHS. Appointing this commissioner will make sure that we are beginning to go ahead with that. As far as accountability is concerned—the consultation has not been announced yet, so I am probably going to be told that I am going beyond my brief—there is supposedly going to be an annual report. The commissioner will produce an annual report, to be laid in Parliament, setting out activities undertaken during the year. The commissioner may appoint an advisory board whose members will have a broad range of relevant interests, experience and knowledge of the health system.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, how will the Secretary of State inform the public about the commissioner and his or her role, and how should he or she be contacted?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I think that that will all become obvious when we have set out exactly how this is going to work. The fact that the commissioner has to report to Parliament annually is one way. How patients themselves will get in touch with the commissioner will be laid out in the regulations when that has all been sorted out.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the important inquiry of the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, shone a light on the consequences of the dangerous drug, Primodos. Is the Minister aware that within the last 18 months, 19 parents of children severely damaged by Primodos have died, while still worrying that their children would be left financially dependent on the state? They died in despair. What can the Minister do to ensure that others do not also die without hope, knowing that justice has not been served and that the request for redress, recommended in First Do No Harm, the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, has also been refused?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
It is upsetting to hear of these deaths, and we offer our deepest sympathy, obviously, to the children and families. Our priority remains improving the future safety of all medicines and devices. This means we will continue to focus our work on direct support for future safety, and on improving how the system listens to patients and supports and monitors safety and clinical practice in respect of medicines and devices. This is very much what the patient safety commissioner will be concentrating on.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Oil and Gas Authority: Remit
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to align the remit of the Oil and Gas Authority from seeking the “maximum economic recovery” of North Sea oil and gas, to meeting the United Kingdom’s net-zero emissions commitments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, even though renewable electricity capacity has grown five-fold since 2010, oil and gas are still essential for our energy needs and are vital to the production of many everyday essentials such as medicines, plastics, cosmetics and household appliances. They will remain so in declining amounts, even in a net-zero world. It is therefore essential that we have a managed transition away from fossil fuels, as set out in our landmark North Sea Transition Deal.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the global atmosphere stands at an unprecedented 417 parts per million. At the very least, we have to stop exploration for new fields. The truth is that the UK is the most profitable country in the world for large offshore oil and gas projects thanks to our MER policy. Companies can offset all spending on exploration against tax, as well as receiving millions of pounds in direct grants. What plans do the Government have to phase out such inefficient subsidies, as required by the Glasgow climate pact?
Lord Callanan (Con)
As the noble Baroness knows, we have some of the most ambitious climate targets of any major economy in the western world and we are committed to net zero; indeed, it is a legal obligation. However, we will still need declining amounts of oil and gas, and the choice we face is whether we wish to use that produced domestically or to import it. In every scenario set out by the reductions, we will still have a requirement for petroleum products.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I congratulate the Government on their ambitious climate targets, but can my noble friend tell the House what proportion of the oil that will be extracted from the Cambo development is likely to be exported under current scenarios, as there seems to be little domestic demand for the heavy crude oil that Cambo and other future oilfields will produce? This seems more about exporting than about domestic energy security, and, in that context, some extra taxation on production would anticipate some of the future taxpayer costs that might arise if these oilfields end up being unable to export in a future scenario of other countries having to reduce their oil imports.
Lord Callanan (Con)
No decision has yet been made regarding the proposed Cambo field. The export market for oil and gas produced from Cambo is purely a commercial matter dictated by the market, the quality of oil and the different refinery capabilities. But, as I said, even with continued development, we expect the UK to remain a net importer of both oil and gas throughout the transition period when following the Climate Change Committee’s balanced net-zero pathway.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, HMRC estimates that decommissioning will cost the taxpayer £18.3 billion over the next few decades. Oil and gas companies can claim tax back on all decommissioning as well as R&D, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, pointed out. We also have one of the lowest tax burdens for oil and gas in the world. Shell paid $1.8 billion in tax to Norway last year, but the UK gave it $99.1 million towards decommissioning costs. What has happened to the polluter pays principle? After all, the oil companies have made a lot of money and trashed our planet, and now we are going to help them continue to make money in order to transition to a better future.
Lord Callanan (Con)
It remains the case that the petroleum sector is a net payer of taxes to the UK Exchequer. I frankly do not understand the argument that we should stop all production in the North Sea and instead import those materials that we will continue to need in every scenario. We would be declining to give ourselves the revenue and spending extra to import those same products.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, a global poll of energy workers showed that more than half want to leave the fossil fuel industry. What are the Government doing to support these workers in the UK to ensure that there is a fair and just transition both for them and for their communities?
Lord Callanan (Con)
That is a very good question, and this is why we have our world-leading oil and gas sector transition deal, the North Sea Transition Deal. We are committed to it, with the support of all the oil and gas companies, to precisely bring about that happy state of affairs so that workers can transition to working in the clean economy.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, speaking last month, Tim Eggar, the chairman of the Oil and Gas Authority, was bullish when referencing future offshore licensing rounds in the UK. He said:
“Let’s be clear, there is no current ban on exploration and licensing”—
and, of course, he is right. On the other hand, the International Energy Agency—the global expert on energy stats—is equally unequivocal that the development of any new gas or oil field is incompatible with net zero by 2050. Perhaps the Minister could help us here and confirm what his department’s objectives will be with regard to future licensing. Will it adhere to IEA advice, aim for net zero and end future exploration, or will it go along with the oil industry and keep on drilling?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We will go along with our net-zero commitment. I do not know how many times I have to repeat this for the benefit of the Liberal Democrats, but under all of the climate change scenarios, including that towards net zero, we will remain a net importer of oil and gas during that period. The choice that faces us is whether we wish to import them or produce them domestically and gain the tax revenues from that. I really cannot see why this is such a difficult concept for the Liberal Democrats to grasp.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister surely must know that the target of net zero means reduced consumption; whether it is produced in this country or imported, it is still our consumption. How is that compatible with the Oil and Gas Authority’s target of “maximum economic recovery” of oil from the North Sea? Bearing in mind that it takes so long to commission and decommission North Sea oil and gas plants, is it not about time that the Oil and Gas Authority changed its target now to give it time to achieve net-zero carbon when it is due?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I actually agree with the first part of the noble Lord’s question that production from the North Sea is on a declining pathway. Our usage is, of course, on a declining pathway as we transition to net zero.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register. Would it not be helpful to explain even more clearly to the public that none of the needed energy decarbonisation or transition is going to happen smoothly without a proper back-up of swing suppliers and fuel sources? Unless there is a prudent level of continued investment in fossil fuel sources, we will see many more of the violent fuel and energy price spikes we have now, which cause considerable stress and hardship for millions of households experiencing this every day and threaten our national security.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know my noble friend speaks with great authority on this as a former Energy Minister himself, and I agree with him. Of course, the ultimate solution to the problem of high gas prices is to use less of it. Indeed, we are doing that, and we are continuing to develop our renewable sources. We have one of the largest productions of renewable sources in the western world. However, fossil fuel generation, such as unabated gas-fired generation, currently plays an important role in keeping Britain’s electricity system secure and stable. The development of clean energy technologies means that it will be used less frequently in future, but it will still be required.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I think it is the Minister, rather than the Liberal Democrats, who may be failing to grasp the implications of the Government’s own policy. But is the Minister aware that if warming is kept to well below 2 degrees in line with the Paris Agreement, new oilfields such as Cambo will become stranded assets? In the light of that, will the Government ensure that the risks that such stranded assets pose to financial stability are properly reflected in increased capital adequacy requirements for those institutions that continue to finance them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
We have a role in the licensing of future developments, but whether to proceed with them is, of course, a commercial decision for the operators concerned. I am sure they will bear the noble Lord’s comments in mind. I am sure many of the big companies would not wish to end up with stranded assets either.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I am sure the Minister will say that it is right that we await the Oil and Gas Authority’s scrutiny report looking into the proposed Cambo oil and gas field. But surely it never made sense for the Government to consider progressing with the plans, especially in the run-up to COP 26 and now post COP. I reiterate: will the Government listen to the science and, starting with Cambo, help workers and industry wind down production of oil and gas in the North Sea?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness answers her own question—indeed, I would say, “Let’s wait for the decision of OPRED before we make any final observations about this.” But, as I mentioned to her colleague earlier, at the same time we are proceeding with our ground-breaking North Sea Transition Deal to ensure exactly what she asks: to help workers to transition away from these industries in the future.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Homes: Environmental Standards
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
The Government’s ambition is for as many homes as possible to reach EPC band C by 2035. Our Simple Energy Advice service provides tailored advice and guidance for home owners and landlords on how to improve the energy performance of their homes and has received over 1.7 million users to date. We are also looking to improve the tailoring of recommendations on energy performance certificates to individual properties.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, it is a mammoth task to bring the many millions of homes in this country up to the standard suggested by the Minister. What are the Government going to do to ensure that we have enough trained workers, apprentices and others to do the work? Surely we need a massive training programme for the skilled workforce that is required to bring our homes up to standard.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord: we need exactly that. We are working both through the Department for Education, with some of its training investments, and with many of the private sector providers which are also introducing new schemes, apprenticeships and training even as we speak. I went up to visit some of them only a few weeks ago, and the way industry is coming to the fore with these advancements is very impressive.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, we are going to need a massive step change if we are to achieve reductions in emissions. An important element of that will be providing financial incentives for people to adopt the new technologies and get their houses sorted out, such as the money people can make from selling surplus energy from their solar panels. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of other small, domestic, green energy production methods which might help us offset emissions from the built environment?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The right reverend Prelate is right to draw attention to some of the export guarantee schemes that we already have. I also draw his attention to the boiler upgrade scheme, which we will be introducing from April next year. That is £450 million of straight, upfront grants for people to install heat pumps.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I remind my noble friend that I am president of National Energy Action. Does he agree that much can be achieved through building regulations to make houses more energy efficient and more resilient to flooding? Does he share my disappointment that the review for sustainable drainage systems will not be concluded till autumn next year? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the regulations are brought forward by the middle of next year at the very latest?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. She is right that building regulations have an important role to play. From 2025, the future homes standard will ensure that new homes produce at least 75% lower CO2 emissions compared to those built to current standards.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister indicate when the Government will publish a long-term strategy for the sector, so that home owners and landlords seeking to meet new energy-efficient standards do not find in the years to come that they have to undertake further work to meet changed standards?
Lord Callanan (Con)
With regard to landlords, we consulted in the summer on raising energy performance standards of rented property to EPC C by 2028. I am happy to tell the noble Baroness that we will publish our response to that consultation shortly.
Baroness Thornhill (LD)
Does the Minister agree that, given the house price variability in the UK, landlords who operate in the lower-income market see this as an investment that will not be returned, as it is usually the tenant who pays the fuel bill? Does he agree that more incentives might be needed to meet targets in these areas? Can he reassure us that the—dare I say it—failed one-size-fits-all funding systems we have had previously will not be repeated and that local authorities will have more genuine autonomy to meet local needs and overcome their particular local barriers?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very good point. Local authorities are of course one of our key delivery partners through many of the schemes that we currently subsidise. We are spending billions of pounds on home upgrade grants, the local authority delivery scheme, the social housing decarbonisation fund and so on, and local authorities are our key partner in those projects.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
Housing retrofitting is arguably one of the toughest infrastructure challenges the UK has ever seen. Concerted public sector intervention will be required to have any chance of achieving the legally binding and local net-zero targets. I was pleased to hear that the Minister visited Leeds last week to see schemes that are developing on the ground. However, we had to wait months for the Government’s heat and buildings strategy, and it was a massive letdown when it was published in October. Unfortunately, there was no replacement for the ill-fated Green Homes Grant for home owners. Can the Minister simply explain where the long-term retrofit plan is?
Lord Callanan (Con)
The heat and buildings strategy is our long-term retrofit plan. Within that, we announced a number of forthcoming consultations; previous questions have referred to the consultation on the private rented sector. The noble Baroness referenced the visit I made to Leeds last week to look at the local authority installed measures that are going so well. We continue to invest large sums of money in these projects.
Lord Jones of Cheltenham (LD) [V]
The Government propose that private landlords will be required to pay up to £10,000 to ensure that the properties they rent out have an energy performance rating of C or better. Given that NRLA data suggests that the net annual rental income for landlords is under £4,400 a year, what financial support will be available for private landlords to make the energy improvements required of them?
Lord Callanan (Con)
There are a number of financial packages that private landlords letting to low-income tenants can take advantage of; I referred to some of the schemes earlier. Private sector landlords are entitled to take advantage of them, but the noble Lord is right and points to one of the dilemmas in the private rented sector, which is that the investment is made by landlords but the benefit is gained by tenants through lower fuel bills.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I hear the optimism and the claims, but, sadly, these are not carried through into government action and the Government know that full well. The Public Accounts Committee reported yesterday that the Government’s
“Green Homes Grant … Scheme … underperformed badly … and risks damaging … future efforts”
to deliver net zero. It also said that it is “not convinced” that BEIS has
“fully acknowledged the scale of its failures with this scheme.”
If you do not understand how or how badly you have failed, how will you ever deliver this green stuff that you clearly do not understand?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I am sorry the noble Baroness thinks we do not understand this “green stuff”—we have her advice to rely on, constantly, and she tells us all about it. To be serious, she is of course right that the National Audit Office acknowledged that the Green Homes Grant scheme did not deliver at the pace we would have expected. Nevertheless, we did deliver some 80,000 vouchers and spent some £300 million on precisely the kind of measures that I know the noble Baroness would support. We have certainly learned lessons from the Green Homes Grant and are taking those forward in future grant schemes, such as the boiler upgrade scheme to install more heat pumps, which I am sure the noble Baroness will also welcome.
Covid-19: Vaccination in Developing Countries
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support COVID-19 vaccination programmes in developing countries following the emergence of the Omicron variant.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the new variant omicron is showing us yet again that no one is safe until everyone is safe. Global vaccination continues to be vital for our defences against the pandemic and we are committed to making sure that people in the poorest countries get vaccines. We are a leading supporter of COVAX, which has delivered over 483 million vaccines to low and middle-income countries. This will rise to 1.8 billion doses by mid-2022.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. I am slightly confused because I am hearing very different stats coming out. Affinity said yesterday that we have in fact delivered to developing countries only 11% of the vaccines we have promised, so I wonder when the remaining 89% might be delivered. Is the Minister aware that the Anglican Communion is working hard with local leaders in grass-roots churches right across Africa and parts of Asia on overcoming vaccine hesitation? Would he and his colleagues be willing to meet some of our team to see how we can roll these programmes out faster?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for his question. I do not recognise those particular stats, but I can give him some others which perhaps may reassure him. As I said earlier, the UK is one of the largest donors to the COVAX advance market commitment, which supports access to Covid-19 vaccines for up to 92 low and middle-income countries, 46 of which are in Africa. Our commitment of £548 million will support the COVAX AMC to deliver up to 1.8 billion doses to those countries in early 2022. We have already delivered 16 million doses through COVAX and directly to recipient countries, of which over 6 million have been delivered to 14 countries in Africa. Some 5.8 million doses are with COVAX and are in the process of being allocated and delivered and a further 9 million will be delivered to COVAX in the coming weeks, direct from AstraZeneca. Countries receiving those doses include Kenya, Nigeria and Mozambique.
I apologise for my long answer but, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, many factors contribute to the slow vaccine rollout and one of those is vaccine hesitancy. I pay tribute to the Church for the extensive work it does on both Covid and other diseases, in particular in Africa, and of course we would be more than happy to meet and talk about this.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, this is a real north-south issue. On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, told me that the UK did not have a stockpile of vaccine doses and the supply chain is managed carefully to ensure that donated vaccines are able to be used by recipient countries. So, can the Minister explain today why hundreds of thousands of vaccine doses reached their expiry date and have been destroyed rather than distributed to countries that need them? Will he also reflect on what Gordon Brown said: is it true that the UK has 33 million vaccine doses that we could immediately deliver to the rest of the world without impacting our own vaccine programme?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I do not know the answer to the noble Lord’s second question. As regards the expiry date issue, decisions on donations are driven by the availability of vaccines from domestic supply. Once the Health Secretary is confident that vaccines are available to donate directly to partners, the Foreign Secretary prioritises how they are shared. Obviously, avoiding vaccine expiry and wastage is a UK core objective, determining when and where we share or deploy doses, and we strive to observe WHO guidelines on that. No vaccines will be shared without an agreement with recipients that there is sufficient time for distribution and deployment before expiry. To expand a little: obviously, it would be much more sensible to manufacture in Africa, and the UK is working with the new Partnership for African Vaccine Manufacturing to develop its road map for African vaccine manufacturing over the next year.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his position; it is the first time I have been able to do so. But does he not understand that at the very time our Government are asking our health networks to work together for a third jab, the Government’s cuts to health networks in developing countries—40% at a minimum, wiping out programmes across many countries—are inhibiting the distribution of the first and second jabs to those countries? The Independent Commission for Aid Impact said that this was a direct impact on the world’s ability to vaccinate. Can the Government at the very least review and reverse the shameful cuts to the health networks for the very people who need them most at this time?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot commit the Government to all those things, but I can tell him a bit about some of the things we are doing, which I hope will reassure him a little. He will also understand that this is not necessarily my specialist subject so I ask him to bear with me. We have deployed UK emergency medical teams to 11 African countries to provide training and clinical advice. We have also deployed a UK public health rapid support team to provide specialist technical assistance to public health agencies in Nigeria, the Gambia, Tunisia and the Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention. We are continuing to provide technical support to build genomic sequencing and country capability through the UK’s new variant assessment platform, including in African countries. We are doing a lot.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, when the Government responded last year to our Select Committee’s report on UK relations with sub-Saharan Africa, they stated that
“we are investing up to £20 million in the African Union’s ‘Africa anti-COVID 19 fund’”.
In the light of omicron, can my noble friend update the House on investment in that fund and whether it has been affected in any way by our cuts to overseas development assistance?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am pleased to be able to give my noble friend a good answer: the £20 million contribution to the African Union’s Covid-19 response fund was not affected by the ODA cuts. The first contribution of £5 million was disbursed in July 2020 when the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the African Union agreed an MoU. The remaining £15 million was disbursed in March 2021, so the money was disbursed in full.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, the World Health Organization has said that developing countries urgently need not only vaccines but health- care workers to deliver them. Yet developed countries continue to rely on healthcare workers’ migration to deliver their own services. The Nursing and Midwifery Council data shows that the number of nurses coming to work in the UK from overseas has increased significantly. In the last year, the increase has been 225% from Africa, meaning that 3,503 nurses have joined the NMC registry, driven largely by four countries—Nigeria, Ghana, Zimbabwe and Kenya. These nurses are extremely welcome; however, can the Minister explain the Government’s commitment not only to share vaccines but to ensure that there are healthcare workers to deliver jabs into arms in developing countries? Is investment through overseas aid in training and retaining healthcare workers part of future plans?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question, and it is an incredibly important one. Clearly, one of the factors of slow vaccine rollout is a lack of ability to distribute and administer. The UK Government are preparing a cross-departmental support offer to multiple sub-Saharan African countries, including: scientist-to-scientist conversations to provide technical advice to Governments; genomic sequencing and variant assessment support; medical and technical personnel surge response; and in-kind donations of PPE and other medical supplies. I also go back to the answer I gave to the noble Lord earlier about sending emergency medical teams to 11 African countries and the fact that we have deployed a UK public health rapid support team to provide specialist technical assistance.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise the deep sense of anger and betrayal in southern Africa over the rich world’s handling of the omicron variant? Is the response of economy-crippling travel restrictions and doubling down on vaccine boosters, when many in southern Africa have not been able to get even their first shots, not only deeply immoral but utterly counterproductive in encouraging countries to be transparent in the future and preventing new variants emerging, both of which are crucial if we are to get off this Covid treadmill?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I think, actually, the first duty of a Government is to protect their own population. I do not regard that as deeply immoral. However, I agree that there is clearly inequity between the rich and the less well-developed parts of the world. With regard to the travel bans, we are putting in place a lot of economic support for Africa, as I have already detailed to some extent. There are other aspects of it as well, such as debt relief, and we will continue with that support. On the travel ban itself, we acted fast, in line with many other western countries.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, given the global agreement from the scientific community that Covid-19 badly affects older adults and those with obesity and underlying health issues in particular, I found the decision to use millions of doses of vaccines on children under 16—who are not really at risk—here and in Europe and elsewhere most odd. This was not supported by the JCVI or the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Nevertheless, does my noble friend the Minister agree that to divert future millions of doses for the use of adults across the third world and other countries with a minimal uptake would be a more positive move towards protecting them and addressing the catastrophic effects of this deadly virus?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank my noble friend for her question. I think I have already explained and outlined the extensive efforts the UK is making as regards exporting vaccines. I am afraid I am not qualified to comment on the advisability or otherwise of vaccinating particular cohorts of the population. That, as I am sure my noble friend will appreciate, is significantly beyond my brief.
Power Outages: North of England
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ongoing power outages across the North of England.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, I declare that I am a customer of Northern Powergrid.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
In the face of damage to infrastructure unprecedented in recent years, network engineering staff have been working tirelessly in challenging conditions to make repairs and restore power as quickly as possible. As of this morning, fewer than 20,000 people remain without power, and more than 950,000 have had their electricity restored. The Secretary of State has commissioned his officials to conduct a post-incident review to learn lessons and improve system resilience and customer support.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. He will be aware that there was simply no way to report a power cut or to receive information as to how the planned power cut might be expected to be terminated. There was no mobile signal and, obviously, there was no access because there was no power to the internet, which are the two main means by which customers are asked to report a power outage. Will my noble friend ensure that the military engineers are sent in to support Northern Powergrid and others responsible for the remaining thousands of customers who are without power, and ensure that a rumour going around that some will be without power until the new year is absolutely untrue? In the long term, will my noble friend ensure that we reduce reliance on overhead power lines and the overhead transmission of power, and seek to put these giant electricity wires underground, as is the case in other parts of the country?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Of course, there are many lessons to be learned from the past week. It has been extremely challenging in the north of the country. I am from there myself and well aware of the issues: many people have contacted me about it. I just say to the noble Baroness that more than 4,000 engineers have been working to repair the damage, 750 generators have been deployed to provide emergency power and vulnerable customers have been prioritised for support. There are clearly issues about being able to contact Northern Powergrid, in particular; it was overwhelmed by the volume of calls. These were exceptionally strong winds of more than 100 miles per hour, and it is the most damage that has been done to the system for 15 years.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, obviously, the capacity to respond is in question, and I am pleased to hear the Minister say that there will be a review ongoing, but the review is no good to the people who have lost power today. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said, there are rumours—indeed, statements—that this could go on for some people right up to Christmas and the new year. Speaking in the House, the Secretary of State was unable to say whether that was true. He said
“I will do everything in my power to ensure that this does not happen.”—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/21; col. 924.]
Given the structure of the industry, perhaps the Minister can say what is in the power of the Secretary of State and what practical help he has given to the people who still do not have power.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My colleague, Minister Hands, went up to visit the area yesterday, spoke to many people who had been affected and met many of the engineers who have been working around the clock over the past week to restore power. As the noble Lord said, there are a number of lessons that we need to learn from this. It was fairly unprecedented, but of course that is no compensation to the people affected, concentrated in the north of England and Scotland, who have been suffering greatly—I have heard many of their stories myself. We must give any resources or support that we can to the companies concerned. Restoring power is a complicated, technical exercise. We need to ensure that the people doing it, who are very skilled personnel, are working safely and we will want to support them in every possible way.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, this was a very bad series of storms in the north-east. I do not think it is unprecedented, because I recall a similar one in the south-east of England in 1987—some older noble Lords will remember that. It sometimes took weeks for the power to be reconnected. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said that the answer is to put more power lines underground. Is there not a conflict between the enormous cost of putting power underground and the fact that we do not like cutting trees down? Trees tend to fall on wires, railway lines and other such things. Is there a solution to this, or have we just got to accept that we love our trees, they will knock the wires down occasionally and we just have to accept that there will be delays and congratulate all the people trying to put it right?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I hope we will not just accept it. Balancing the different factors that the noble Lord mentioned, we need to put as many cables underground as possible, but he is right that that is much more expensive than running overhead lines. We need to do what we can to improve the resilience of the system, but I am sure we would meet many objections if the solution was to cut down more trees near power lines.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how many people are still without power—the figure of 50,000 has been mentioned; whether the Army has been asked to go in to support those people who are cut off in this awful winter weather; and what plans the Government have, given the prospect of climate change, with such storms likely to be increasingly prevalent, to forestall or deal with situations of this nature that arise in future?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My understanding is that there are currently about 20,000 people who are still without power. As I said, 950,000 have had their power restored. I understand the calls for the Army to be deployed, and its abilities are legendary, but it is important to recognise that in work such as this, safety priorities mean that only suitably qualified engineers can work on electricity network infrastructure. The military resource cannot support the restoration of electricity supplies, and network distribution operators have confirmed that military assistance is not necessary in this case.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister give us some idea of how much it would cost to put all these power lines underground?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not have that figure to hand. The noble Lord, with his work on infrastructure, will know that the cost of putting power lines underground is much greater than that of overhead lines, and these are difficult balances that have to be struck in any particular circumstance, particularly in rural communities or if the lines are going long-distance across the countryside. To put them all underground would be immensely expensive. If my officials have access to any figures, I will certainly let him have them.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in responding to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, the Minister said that “we” need to ensure more resilience, but of course we are talking here about private companies, whose entire focus is on private profits. Will the Government ensure that regulators force those companies to build more resilience into the system?
Lord Callanan (Con)
They are indeed private companies, but resilience is in their interests as well as ours, and they are very tightly regulated through Ofgem. They will be seeking to learn all the lessons they can so that the system is suitably resilient in future.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I feel increasingly frustrated by the lack of appreciation of the fact that many residents in the rural north have felt utterly abandoned by the Government. What have the Government done practically to support people who have had no heating, no water and no hot food? It is not good enough—I am really sorry to say this. The Government knew the extent of the crisis in advance. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, asked about the Army and the Minister talked about the fact its personnel were not qualified electricians. Surely, however, the Army could have gone to rural areas and brought in gas heaters, hot food, generators—anything to mitigate the impact. It has been appalling for many people.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I know that it has been appalling for many people; I come from the area myself and have spoken to many MPs in those areas. I have been contacted by many residents. There are Members of this House who also live in the north and have suffered. With regard to the noble Baroness’s questions, we are giving all the support we can to the companies responsible for delivering this, with the appropriately trained engineers. In answer to her question about generators, more than 750 have been deployed since the incident began. Almost 1 million customers experienced disruption, but 950,000 have had their power restored. As I said, 20,000 people are still, unfortunately, cut off from electricity supply, but I know that engineers are working at this moment to try to get them restored.
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the sub-judice resolution.
Later today, the House will debate a Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, on the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Noble Lords may be aware that there are active legal proceedings in the High Court between International Military Services Ltd and Iran’s Ministry of Defence. I have exercised the discretion given to me in respect of the resolution on matters sub judice to allow full reference to those proceedings, as they concern issues of national importance.
BBC: Government Support
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bragg
That this House takes note of the BBC’s value to the United Kingdom and a wider global audience and the case for Her Majesty’s Government giving it greater support.
Lord Bragg (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the House very much for the opportunity to introduce this debate. It is a privilege to open a discussion on such a subject.
I work for BBC Radio 4 and Sky Arts as a freelancer. I joined the BBC in 1961 as a trainee. My first television posting was to Huw Wheldon, editor and presenter of “Monitor”, the arts programme. Huw was a man full of terse advice, chiefly plucked from his distinguished military career. One example is: “You ignore the obvious at your peril.” He also said that the BBC is the “sum of its programmes”.
I begin by stating obvious things about the BBC. It is regularly sniped at, sliced up, and its parts disparaged. It is blamed for this, that and the other, and every current malaise. It purpose is often punctured. Few of its detractors take on the obvious—the full darts board—and concentrate exclusively on a double top to make a splash. I think that the BBC is unique in the world of broadcasting; so, in my experience, do many world broadcasters. Its strengths are even more valuable now when all around us, at this tipping point in our history, so many other institutions seem to be failing.
No other single broadcasting company in the world is as targeted, comprehensive, Hydra-headed, cross-class, successful on several levels and knitted into the audiences as the BBC. Of course it makes mistakes and stumbles, and is subjected to justifiable criticism, but on the whole, over almost a century, this institution has grown into one of the most reliable staples of our troubled society. It is all the better for being neither propagandist nor fawning on its public. Despite many assaults, it is still independent and arm’s length from a Government who are slow to praise, quick to blame and sometimes eager to interfere.
At a time like this, the BBC deserves to be appreciated for what it really is and not presented as the obstacle to certain factions, corporations and individuals who see it getting in the way of their own broadcasting ambitions. Unfashionable though it is, it seems that, by and large, the BBC’s ambition is now as it was when Lord Reith invented it almost a century ago, which is to reach all of the people some of the time and many of the people all of the time but, most of all, to weave itself into the texture of this country and serve it, which the BBC has always attempted to do. It is called public service. That original vision was to inform, educate and entertain the UK without favour or prejudice. It was a bold and tall order but, on the whole, it has been steadily pursued.
Reliable statistics show that the BBC is still on track. The findings are remarkable. The BBC is used by, on average, 90% of UK adults and 80% of young adults every week. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the BBC extended its role as a broadcaster to bring programmes to audiences safely, while creating new shows and events. Nearly 6 million people watched “Lockdown Learning”, and 45% named the BBC as their number one source for information and news on Covid. The nearest runner-up was 13%. Who else would have done that?
Radio 4 is the UK’s most listened-to speech station. In any year, it broadcasts over 3,200 hours of news and current affairs, 375 hours of documentaries, and new strands of drama and the arts. Its many experts and reporters at flashpoints all around the world keep us up to date. There are news programmes that feature probing, feisty discussions that skilfully dice with impartiality, bias and wokeism on issues of the moment. There are programmes on science, the arts, philosophy and sociology that pick out some of the most relevant intellectual arguments of the day.
At the BBC’s pinnacle are the Reith lectures, which are currently on air, but it is also in the context of quizzes, comedies and quirky niche shows that make many people’s day. I see it as an ingenious, illogical patchwork, inspired by the tastes of its audiences—from “Strictly” to “Panorama” to David Attenborough. Half the output of Radio 3 is live or specially recorded music. Last year alone, 50 new musical works were commissioned. Then there are the magnificent Proms and the BBC orchestras. This directly feeds into the quality, wealth and reach of classical music-making in this country. Without BBC support, that would deflate like a burst balloon.
Another example is BBC Radio 2, the most listened-to of the BBC radio channels, with high production and presenting values in popular culture. Oh dear: some who want the BBC to be exclusive rather disapprove of popular culture. But what is wrong with it? I would like to know. Popular music can be transformational and Radio 2 satisfies millions with its carefully orchestrated shows in a vital aspect of the arts. It is part of the BBC’s broad culture.
BBC television drama, such as “Line of Duty”, “Small Axe”, “Sherlock”, “Doctor Who”, “Call the Midwife”, “I May Destroy You”, “Normal People” and “Killing Eve”, hold their own in world television drama, despite the jumbo bombers coming across the Atlantic, powered by budgets that could buy a small country. Along with the Americans, we mop up the prizes. BBC drama is at the heart of the outstanding and profitable arts, media and entertainment industry in this country. More than 2 million highly and particularly skilled people are employed in the sector. They bring back profits in the billions—more than many of our great industries.
I wonder why the Government do not double the subsidies—or should we call them investments?—in the arts and the BBC. These areas could be at the forefront of an energised British recovery. They have grown unstoppably since 1945. It is not too fanciful to imagine the arts, universities and media—culture—becoming the dominant part of our economy before too long. Why not play to our strengths now? The future is already here. We need to recognise it, back it, celebrate it and hang on for the ride.
We get all of this from the BBC for about 40p a day. By the time one adds together the basic subscriptions just for Netflix, Amazon Prime, Disney+ and Apple TV, that alone is more than double the cost of the licence fee, despite the limited range of their programmes. The BBC can also produce big figures when it has to: 25 million people watched Euro 2020; 25.8 million people watched the last Wimbledon on BBC TV; and over 28 million people come to the BBC every evening for their entertainment on an average day.
The BBC World Service is a triumph. Almost a billion people listen to its voice—our voice—which carries authority around the world. Yet, for incomprehensible reasons, the Government are presiding over cutting its budget and producers are being forced out. At such a crucial moment in our history, it beggars belief. I am tempted to say that if around the world our Government were accorded the same respect as the BBC, we would be home and dry.
In another area, the BBC is being resolute in its determination to nurture diversity on radio and television nationwide. Greg Dyke, a previous director-general of the BBC, called it “hideously white and middle class”. That is being steadily eroded in London and the regions —an underrated part of the BBC.
So why is the BBC so often attacked, and why by the Government? It makes no sense. Over the last decade, the BBC’s income has been cut by 31% in real terms through the freeze in the licence fee from 2010 to 2017. The Government have stopped paying for the World Service and removed the funding for free licenses. In short, the Government have fleeced the licence fee paying public to dig themselves out of a hole in social services.
The multiplication of new channels continues to test the BBC but, on the creative side, it has not buckled. The press, some of which has its own fish to fry, keeps up a relentless offensive against the BBC. Sometimes the criticism is fair, and the BBC has often benefited from competition, such as when ITV came in and challenged the BBC on its news and documentary values. Sometimes it can seem that the BBC is taking on too much. Can it still, as Lord Reith hoped, serve all the people? The answer is in the programmes. The BBC is not letting that down. Many of those programmes stand up with the best on the spectrum wherever one looks.
This Government seem bent on making the BBC weaker at the moment, when every indicator suggests that the opposite course would be the wiser. The Government seem to be ignorant of the BBC’s deeply held strengths and the affection in which it is held in this country for its reliability, talent, fun, originality and the feeling of being part of a nation that it engenders. It belongs to us, the licence fee payers.
Recently, it has sometimes seemed that, sadly, we are becoming a lesser country by the year. I hope that the BBC is not allowed to become part of this surrender to a creeping deterioration. Indeed, I believe it could be one of the forces that leads by example the fight against what is happening and organises us to get out of this mire. It comes down to what sort of country we want this to be. The BBC has earned our respect and repaid our support, in war and peace, over many years. It has built itself in our image. Surely, now that it is so clearly up against it, we cannot let it down.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge honour and privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. I know that this is sometimes a pro forma that people say in these debates, but his has been a reassuring voice throughout my life: informing, educating and entertaining. He is a genuine polymath, as I discovered when I once appeared on his show on the anniversary of the Great Charter. He is one of those people who can take your special subject and argue as though it were also his. His has been a life of public service.
I do not think that anyone of us here would disagree with the strengths he has identified in our national broadcaster. The question is whether, as implied in the Motion for debate, these strengths depend on more government support and subsidy. Very often, government support, which is always well intentioned, ends up having a very different effect. There was a time in this country when it was thought that it was the role of government to install telephones, to manage airlines, to build cars. Those things did not work out very well —for the same reason that some of the rival broadcasters the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, mentioned are outperforming some of the older ones in audience share.
How do we preserve the strengths of our national broadcaster, while allowing it to enter into an age of streaming, Netflix, YouTube and all the other innovations? I do not think that my children are ever going to own a television set—it just is not how young people expect to watch programmes these days. To them, the idea of a poll tax on the population belongs—as it literally does—to a previous century. It made perfect sense when there was only one broadcaster. It is much more difficult to justify today.
There has always been a traditional attack on the BBC from some in my party on the grounds that it is biased, partial and so on. It is a line of reasoning that goes all the way back to Thomas Jefferson’s observation that it is sinful to force a man to furnish money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves. I hope it is still okay to quote the third President, as his statue is taken down in New York City Hall. He had some useful things to say about this, but that is not really my argument today. I do not think it matters nearly as much that the big, flagship news and current affairs programmes have been losing audience share. There is now a multiplicity of broadcasters. Out of the cacophony of differing interpretations, we can usually discern something close to the truth. We have that pluralism that is so necessary for impartiality. The problem is simply that we are trying to defend a 20th-century behemoth as though the technological changes of the last generation had not happened.
The question for the BBC is whether it can retrench and defend what it does well, rather than squandering its resources and capital defending things that are no longer sustainable. For example, do we really need a state broadcaster engaging in local radio? That area was perfectly well served by the private sector before. Do we need all these unbelievably unfunny comedy programmes on BBC2 and Radio 4? Are they a core part of what makes us a nation, shaped and defined by this relationship? Can we not retrench and make the line more defensible? We still have five or six years left of the existing funding system. I hope that figures within the corporation will use these years to think imaginatively about how to go with the changes, rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world. If there is a future for a state broadcaster, it will have to be more agile, cheaper and apter for the demands of our current age.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing his timely debate in such a comprehensive and authoritative way. Although I do not agree with many of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I follow him in saying that no one has done more than my noble friend Lord Bragg successfully to demonstrate the quality of public service broadcasting in this country, through his own very distinguished programmes.
I must declare my own, more modest interests, having been employed by the BBC over many years in various roles, as a producer and reporter. I want to mention that today because the corporation’s record as a good employer is rarely mentioned, and I think it should be. For example, even many decades ago, when I was a very junior producer, there was almost no discernible gender bias in the corporation. Even in the 1970s, women at the BBC were not treated in any way other than as equals. Although it is obvious that we have not yet seen a woman director-general, none the less, there are many women visible at senior levels. My noble friend Lord Bragg has already mentioned diversity. Just last month, the BBC was the only broadcasting organisation ranked as a top employer in this year’s social mobility index. When we talk about the multiplicity of broadcasting organisations, I hope that this will be noted.
In introducing this debate, my noble friend referred to the invaluable role played by the BBC during our ongoing national pandemic crisis, but I want to focus a little on the global role it has played, because that has been possibly even more significant. It is worth remembering that, through its multimedia platforms—and they are multimedia platforms—the international news services now reach record levels, with 450 million adults using them every week. Today, the total worldwide audience is a staggering 489 million and is confidently expected to reach 500 million in 2022. Vast numbers of people have accessed the special programming designed to help populations, particularly those in less well-developed countries, to navigate and understand the dangers of the pandemic. For example, a daily podcast—the coronavirus global update—is coupled with a mini, specialist radio bulletin, with individual separate versions for India, Africa and Latin America. Enormous efforts have been made to tackle the wild rumours and many myths about the virus—and indeed the vaccines—which have spread frighteningly quickly, particularly in vulnerable societies. The Trusted News Initiative is well established, and BBC Africa has set up its own dedicated misinformation hub. In general, the World Service has greatly expanded its work on media literacy to try to undermine the influences of so-called fake news.
Together, as my noble friend has said, all these global services play a major role in enhancing the United Kingdom’s international reputation. In the five- year review of the World Service, published in October, new research showed that
“awareness of the BBC … is strongly linked to … positive perceptions of”
this country. This is soft power at its very best, and the Government should give it their utmost support—the support for which my noble friend calls in today’s Motion.
However, although the Government’s autumn spending review mentioned continuing to invest in the World Service, no specific funding figures have been confirmed beyond next March. This must be immediately addressed. When the Minister replies, perhaps he will be able to give us positive, official information about the next financial grant. I hope that it will be increased, so that the BBC can successfully go on expanding its international role and remain one of this country’s strongest brands.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, first, I send my good wishes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool on making his maiden speech. My parents were both born in Old Swan; they gave their allegiance to the cathedral at the other end of Hope Street. Successive bishops of Liverpool have worked hard to eliminate religious intolerance, and Hope Street is well named in housing those two cathedrals.
My first task is to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for introducing this debate with such authority. His words of wisdom, delivered in that mellifluous Cumbrian accent, always put me in mind of another iconic author and broadcaster: JB Priestley. The noble Lord’s “In Our Time” programmes are not just brilliant radio broadcasts in their own right; they will be repeated as source material for the study of all aspects of our social, scientific and cultural life for decades to come.
In the world of fake news, it is more important than ever to safeguard the impartiality of broadcast news. In its 100-year history, the BBC has been able to rely on cross-party consensus to support and protect our values. It would be a tragedy if that consensus were to break down now. As I have said before, much depends on the courage of those on the Government Benches to defend the BBC from this death by a thousand cuts.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, one area where this consensus still seems to exist is in the recognition of the soft power and global influence that we receive from the BBC World Service. Today’s Motion
“takes note of the BBC’s value to the United Kingdom and a wider global audience”.
It would be helpful if the Minister could spell out in his reply the ongoing support and financial commitment to the World Service, which achieved its highest-ever global audience, of nearly half a billion people last year. Not only that, but all the research shows that listeners and viewers worldwide believe and trust the BBC. The research also showed that World Service users have positive perceptions of the UK and are more likely to use British goods and services.
Around the world, the BBC is associated with distinctive British values of fairness, integrity and impartiality. The quality of its coverage is underpinned by a two-way flow of experience and expertise between the BBC at home and the World Service. We all know from our own experience that, whenever a crisis hits the headlines, wherever it is in the world, people will switch on the BBC to find out the facts. We also know that to be true because of the way in which authoritarians seek to block BBC broadcasts and expel BBC journalists.
Brand Finance’s respected Global Soft Power Index said in its latest report that:
“The UK ranks 1st globally in the Media & Communications pillar—overtaking the US this year to clinch the top spot”.
It went on to say that the BBC
“is arguably the most respected and well-known media outlet in the world … and acts as one of the nation’s greatest soft power tools.”
That is the asset that this Government and Parliament must defend and nourish. We know the benefits that the BBC brings us, both home and abroad. We know who its enemies are and the damage that they have caused elsewhere to other broadcasting ecologies. Since this is a Labour Party debate, I think I can quote Nye Bevan: “Why look into the crystal ball when you can read the book?”
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I quote the former Secretary of State for DCMS, who said in November 2020:
“When people around the world think of Britain, they think of the Royal family, and the Premier League. And they think of the BBC. From the moment its first radio transmitter crackled into life a century ago, our oldest broadcaster has been a steadfast national institution, a champion of British values across the globe … The pandemic has illustrated what the BBC does best. It has helped us educate our children, and been a trusted source of information on the virus. And it has provided a national gathering place for millions tuning in to hear government updates or watch the first live Premier League game”.
The value of universal service broadcasting, with the BBC at its heart, has been essential over the past two years. The BBC has delivered on its mission to “inform, educate and entertain”.
If you put it in context, in real terms, the licence fee costs less today than it did a decade ago, yet the amount of BBC services has increased in that time. You get 10 TV services, 10 national radio stations, 40 local radio stations, plus everything on iPlayer, BBC Sounds, the BBC website, the World Service, all for just over £3 a week. In many ways, it is phenomenal value for money, which is why more than 90% of people in the UK use the BBC every week.
With fake news abounding around the world, one of the biggest advantages of the BBC is that it is seen as impartial and trusted news and information, which is more important than ever before. It is the best at countering misinformation and fake news, supporting local communities and, of course, providing educational services—particularly during lockdown, when they reached 4.5 million pupils. Of course, providing high-quality entertainment is key, whether that is coverage of the Proms, the FA Cup, the World Cup, the Olympics, the jubilee, Remembrance Sunday, “Line of Duty”, Sir David Attenborough—a national treasure—I could carry on.
The World Service matters a lot to me as someone born in India. My grandfather in Hyderabad listening to the World Service when I was a child is embedded in my memory; I can picture it now while I speak. Ongoing government investment in the World Service—in particular to boost digital, tackle disinformation and reach new audiences in India, Africa and the Middle East—has enabled BBC News to play a critical role in helping people across the globe safely navigate the Covid-19 pandemic. The BBC has strengthened its position in markets of need such as Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar and the Democratic Republic of Congo, where access to trusted impartial news is more important than ever. Its added value is £5 billion of economic output, according to KPMG, which reported that, for every £1 of direct economic activity generated by the BBC, there was £2.63 of economic output; and that, for every job it creates, a further 1.7 jobs are created.
We all know about the challenges that the BBC faces. We all know about the criticisms of it as well. However, at the heart of the BBC’s values are providing impartial news and information, supporting learning, showing the most creative, highest-quality output—the BBC is renowned for that and is a phenomenal example of it—and reflecting the United Kingdom, its culture and values. We are one of the most creative countries in the world. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for initiating this debate. He is a legend in his own lifetime and an example of Great British expertise.
During the pandemic, 84% of UK adults came to the BBC in a time of need during both lockdowns. Through its international audience, the BBC reaches 489 million people per week. That is almost half a billion people; it is absolutely phenomenal. As other speakers have said, the BBC is one of our strongest elements of soft power. When it comes to its reach, 12 new language services have been launched and—this is one of the most surprising statistics—a Reuters report showed that the BBC is the “most trusted news brand” in the United States, with it coming
“second only to local television news, and ahead of all major US news brands.”
The Soft Power 30 2019 ranking cited the BBC World Service as one of the two British institutions that are key to British soft power. The other tangible benefits are that it encourages people to do business with the UK and inspires people to visit the UK. It inspires international students to study in the UK; as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Students and the president of UKCISA, I see this at first hand. Most importantly, the BBC is associated around the world with the amazing respect that Britain and we as a country have for fairness, integrity and impartiality.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to address your Lordships for the first time and on this subject, and for the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his kind words. I thank all noble Lords for the warmth of the welcome that I have received, and, for the quality of briefing and induction from the officers and staff of your Lordships’ House, which has been exemplary and profoundly helpful.
I speak as one whose first degree was in drama and theatre arts, and who was almost employed by the BBC as a trainee script editor in what was then called “English Regions Drama”, at the Pebble Mill studios in Birmingham, in 1975. With whatever wisdom, I chose instead to enter the ordained ministry of the Church, and there have been times when I have felt that I chose the lower calling. Forty-two years of ministry in six different dioceses have culminated in the enormous privilege of my being appointed Bishop of Liverpool in 2014. I have been preferred to your Lordships’ House late in my ministry, but I am very grateful to be here and to receive wisdom for at least a few months.
Among its many dimensions, I want to speak of what the BBC does uniquely in our fragmented public square. To me, the gift and value of public service broadcasting is a matter of form before it is a matter of content: it rests on the decision to assume a tone of voice. The value of the BBC to this nation and our global position is rooted in its decision to be calm, to choose a particular volume and quality of scrutiny and to sustain it, no matter how unpopular it may be.
I have described the public square as fragmented. Increasingly, it is one where to be opinionated is to be rewarded, and where volume and shrillness of tone have become praiseworthy in themselves. In such a world, it is surely the role of a public service communicator to still the waters so that they reflect the truth. Calm scrutiny will cause people with power, whoever and wherever they may be, whatever they may say, however loudly they may speak, one and all, to be uncomfortable. This applies as much to the Bishops of the Church of England as to anyone else.
Calm scrutiny is a gift, but it must also be proclaimed. In the Hebrew scriptures, we are told that
“Wisdom calls out in the street”.
To me, the impartiality of a public service broadcaster rests in impartiality of scrutiny and courage in scrutinising, rather than in attempting the even-handed presentation of increasingly strident points of view. In Liverpool, the work of my distinguished predecessors, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, and Bishop James Jones KBE, rested on this commending of quiet scrutiny in the face of riot after poverty or institutional defensiveness after tragedy, for example, or any other falling away from coherence, community and the common good.
Your Lordships will know of the recent terrorist incident in Liverpool. It faced us with a mystery. To this day, we do not know why that young man did what he did, and we may never know. In the face of that mystery, the response of the English media was diverse. For some, the journey of the young man concerned provided a fine opportunity for the naivety of people of faith to be exposed, or for the systems by which people seek refuge to be deplored. These words had little purchase in Liverpool, where a number of organs of commercial media have been deeply and permanently distrusted for 40 years.
The BBC, on the other hand, nationally and regionally, genuinely provided the impartial platform of scrutiny which I have described, and it continues to hold the significant trust of people across my community, where few other voices do. In this case, that trust rested on a readiness, particularly on the part of local BBC journalists, to explore on its own terms the self-understanding of communities of faith as places of God’s welcome. In other words, it rested on a platform of religious literacy.
The BBC is not perfect, but it should be treasured and supported. Having said and meant all these nice things about it, I also underline the urgent need for that religious literacy to be intentionally sustained and intentionally deepened, if the BBC is indeed to hold its value for a global audience in a world that remains, predominantly, a world of faith.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate on the occasion of his excellent maiden speech. He describes himself as a late arrival in this House, but we greet him with eagerness and look forward to further contributions. His speech emphasised calm thoughtfulness and scrutiny, and his approach epitomised what he advocated. We have much to look forward to. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on securing this debate. His speech, like his broadcasts, epitomised all that is best in the BBC.
I declare an interest. My father worked for the BBC throughout his life, albeit in a humble capacity, away from the cameras and microphones. However, he instilled in me a reverence for the institution, and I still have a great affection for the BBC, even though that sentiment is not reciprocated. I admire the quality and breadth of its output and I have no desire to end the licence fee, although it may become more vulnerable through technological change, as my noble friend Lord Hannan pointed out.
None the less, the BBC should not be exempt from criticism, as the right reverend Prelate has just said. It is not perfect. Despite its tedious obsession with gender and racial diversity, the BBC suffers from a lack of diversity of opinion and an overwhelming liberal metropolitan bias. That manifests itself less in what is said than what is not said, the voices not heard, the questions not asked, the issues not addressed.
The three areas in which this bias and censorship are most blatant are the EU/Brexit, energy/climate change and immigration/skills. Time permits only brief examples of these. As far as the EU is concerned, last week on “Today”, Nick Robinson, who can be one of the most perceptive and rigorous of interviewers, interviewed the Irish Foreign Minister, who claimed that the EU’s proposals on Northern Ireland were far-reaching and would reduce checks on goods from GB to Northern Ireland by 80%. Nick Robinson could have asked whether the EU was offering to reduce existing checks by 80% or to reduce the demanded additional checks by 80%. Instead, he argued that the EU should not be making any concessions to the UK at all:
“Isn’t the problem with the concessions that the EU have made that they feed a sense in Downing Street that the EU only responds to threats? What those around Boris Johnson believe is that the EU blinks if you’re tough.”
I cannot imagine any other state broadcaster urging the Minister of a foreign country not to make any concessions towards his own country’s position, but that was the approach taken by Nick Robinson, without comment or subsequent apology.
On climate change, anyone who argues that there is a trade-off between the costs to poor people in current generations of achieving net zero and the benefits to future, far richer generations, is labelled a denier—even though the very existence of a trade-off means that you accept the science of global warming—and is banned from Broadcasting House, as I am. By contrast, claims that global warming will lead to the extinction of the human race are never challenged, even though the Government have confirmed that no peer-reviewed studies predict the end of the human race as a result of climate change. Alarmist claims about the supposedly catastrophic impact of climate change, which have no basis in the IPCC report, are never challenged. The IPCC says:
“For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers … Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact of climate change.”
Could you possibly reach that conclusion from listening to the BBC’s output on the subject?
On migration, the BBC invokes shortages of nurses and doctors as totemic reasons why we need a continued inflow of skilled workers, but it never reports—and it challenged and rebuked me when I said it—that, annually, we turn away over 20,000 British applicants for nursing courses in this country and the majority of the applicants for medical schools. I recently asked a politically literate audience who got most of their information from the BBC whether they were aware of this, and they were astonished to learn that it is true.
These three issues are immensely important to most people outside the metropolitan bubble. If the BBC fails to cover them in an informed and balanced way, if it believes its job is to convince and censor rather than to educate and inform, it will not secure the support that this Motion calls for.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Bragg on initiating this debate. He covers the waterfront so well that I do not need to go over his arguments, but I will focus on some of the challenges that the BBC faces.
I am a very eclectic listener and viewer. I am such an old fogey that I still get a printed copy of the Radio Times, which is a good thing to have because it shows the extent of the competition that the BBC faces. I am puzzled by some of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, who said that most children do not own a TV. Well, no, they usually depend on their parents or grandparents, but they still watch the things that they want to. But I agree that one of the challenges the BBC faces is to capture the next generation of both viewers and listeners. Talking to young people about where they get their news from is quite illuminating. Many of them do not read newspapers or books but rely on social media channels such as Reddit. It is not that they do not watch the BBC at all, but this is a challenge that the BBC faces.
Then there is the argument of whether we really need the BBC to do things such as local radio. My answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, is yes, we emphatically do, because it is one of the largest groups bringing on the next generation of journalists—its record on apprenticeships is second to none—and it serves a real audience. Do we need the BBC to provide comedies, et cetera? The answer is yes; look at the standard and quality of what it produces. I always think back to the amazing mission statement of Lord Reith, to inform, educate and entertain. That is part of the challenge to the BBC: can it still entertain an audience in the 21st century?
I am not ashamed to say that I enjoy watching “Strictly”—it is first-class entertainment. Interestingly, this year, it tackled two issues of diversity and inclusion. It included a young woman who is deaf, and a whole new group of people is now thinking about the value of sign language. Even more controversially, in a way —and even I was not sure—two gay men are dancing together; they have been an inspiration and are a contribution against homophobia. Who else would have done that in the middle of an entertainment programme? It is not perfect, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said—and maybe there are times when I agree with some of what he says—but I think there is diversity of opinion on the BBC.
I think also about children’s programmes—the Prime Minister is clearly obsessed with “Peppa Pig”. Of course, it is one in a long line of great BBC achievements. Those of us who are as old as some of us are can go back to the glories of “The Magic Roundabout” and, even further, to “Muffin the Mule”, which was quite an interesting proposition. Children’s television and radio are important things, and I think the BBC still has a wonderful role to play.
I will end on this, because I am conscious of the time. If I have any criticism, it is that I am worried about impartiality and integrity. I forgot to thank the right reverend Prelate for his maiden speech, which I found inspiring, in which he mentioned impartiality. I am glad to see, at long last, the recent decision of the BBC to withdraw from Stonewall—an organisation that I do not believe had a good influence and, in some ways, undermined its ability to demonstrate that it would hear a range of views. I am aware that this is a controversial issue, but I think it is important.
My concern about the future of the BBC is whether it is worth the funding and can still cut the ice in today’s broadcasting circumstances. I believe it can and I wish it well, but it has to think carefully about impartiality and integrity. I thank my noble friend Lord Bragg once again.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, in my brief time, I will talk about the educational work of the BBC. First, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for his thoughtful contribution. As a Liverpool resident of 40 years, I look forward to hearing other contributions from him.
As we have heard, the first director famously said that the BBC should inform, educate and entertain. As a young teacher, I remember using the BBC’s radio “Music and Movement” programmes for PE, dance and drama lessons, and the BBC’s school programmes were inspiring and invaluable. Who, for example, could ever forget Harry Armstrong? Who? Harry Armstrong brought the world of science alive for young children in the 1970s. The BBC has impressive world firsts in education. In 1924, it launched the first schools radio broadcast; in 1928, it launched the first adult education radio broadcast; in 1957, the BBC schools television service was launched; in 1971, the BBC and Open University partnership began; in 1981, BBC Micro launched, as part of the BBC’s computer literacy project; and, in 1998, BBC Bitesize, the flagship education website, was launched. In 2016, BBC micro:bit, a pocket-sized codable computer, was given free to every year 7 child.
Then Covid came along and lockdown occurred, including the shutdown of all our schools. The BBC sprang into action and, in literally a few weeks, launched Bitesize Daily to support learning for our schoolchildren and students during the Covid-19 pandemic. Bringing together top BBC talent with the best teachers across the UK, Bitesize Daily delivered a fun curriculum linked to lessons focusing on English and maths, as well as covering key curriculum subjects and student well-being. It reached an average of 2.7 million unique visitors every week, with a peak of 5.2 million unique visitors. Bitesize Daily TV shows reached over 6 million viewers on iPlayer and the red button; they explained learning in a fun and exciting way, and children and students loved them. Bitesize was used by 80% of secondary school pupils and 80% of GCSE students, who agreed that it made them feel more prepared for their exams. The Prime Minister called the initiative “fantastic”, and the Culture Secretary said:
“The BBC has helped the nation through some of the toughest moments of the last century, and for the next few weeks it will help our children learn whilst we stay home, protect the NHS and save lives.”
Lord Reith was general manager and managing director of the British Broadcasting Company. He resisted the US commercial model and campaigned for the BBC’s royal charter, and the British Broadcasting Corporation was established. Would education have flourished if he had chosen that American commercial model? I doubt it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, talked about things that the BBC should perhaps not do, and he mentioned local radio. He suggested that the commercial sector could do local radio, but we have local commercial radio stations and guess what? They might be commercially successful but they are no longer local—the programmes come from London and are broadcast to local communities. They have got rid of—sacked—local presenters and local production staff, and even closed down a local studio, I think in Brighton, so they do not seem very local to me. I was delighted to hear the right reverend Prelate talk about the importance of local radio to our community in Liverpool during Covid. Guess what? Radio Merseyside’s audience has increased dramatically.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, it is a thrill to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on calling it. I praise the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for his wonderful maiden speech, and I am glad to be the warm-up act for the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, who is one of the best discoveries that I have made since I joined your Lordships’ House.
I love debates about the BBC, mainly because we all suffer from “Strictly” syndrome—all our speeches descend very quickly into the programmes that we like or dislike on the BBC, and from that we extrapolate some grand stratagem about its future, but I want to concentrate a bit more on its structures because I am a critical friend of the BBC. In fact, the excellent speech of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, teed me up quite nicely, because as a Back-Bench MP I actually campaigned against the BBC’s education services and succeeded in closing some of them down. I did this because, as an Oxfordshire MP, I had a lot of publishing companies and education companies coming to me and saying, “We are private companies, and we employ hundreds of people in your constituency. We cannot compete against ‘free’”. That is why we now have the market-access test for the BBC’s new services, because sometimes the BBC, despite the much greater media world that we now live in, ends up stamping on the commercial sector.
I once found myself on the front page of the Sunday Times because I had mused to a journalist—thinking that I was in a seminar and not having an on-the-record drink—that perhaps Radio 1 could be privatised. The point is that we forget that Radio 1 was established in the 1960s to combat pirate radio. We now have Radio 1, Radio 2 and 6 Music, all existing in a highly competitive and commercial popular music environment. It is legitimate to ask these kinds of questions. I always start from the premise that it is important to ask these questions, just as it is important to ask the question about whether Channel 4 should be privatised. I do not know what the right answer is, but we should not shy away from these kinds of questions.
I was the Minister who froze the licence fee when we came into government in 2010. Again, I have always wondered—it sounds like a dinner party one-liner; it is a dinner party one-liner—whether it would be interesting to have a director-general who came into office saying, “My ambition over the next five years is to cut the licence fee by 10% without having to have a fight with the Government.” These are the sorts of questions that I feel we should be asking about the BBC. I share the sentiment of this debate, which is that the BBC is a national treasure that we should support, but we should also ask critical questions of it.
There are three or four points that I want to make as I wrap up. The first is that the BBC never thinks enough about how it can support the wider commercial sector. For example, commercial radio companies complain to me that they do not want to go on BBC Sounds, because it is called “BBC Sounds”. The BBC has created an amazing radio digital platform that the commercial sector cannot work with. If one talks to the commercial sector about how easy it is to work with the BBC, they all say that it is impossible; similarly with the iPlayer. I would love to have the BBC see as one of its aims support for the wider commercial sector.
The absolutely core reason why we should support the BBC is precisely because of what we talk about when we mention companies such as Netflix, Amazon and Disney. The clue, of course, is in their names. These are huge, global, US companies. We need to find a way to preserve—and I make no apology for saying this—UK content for UK audiences, and to have a quality anchor for our broadcasting landscape.
The BBC must support market failure, and this where I part company with my noble friend Lord Hannan’s brilliant speech. BBC local radio is a vital service that we do not talk enough about. I do not think that anyone else apart from the BBC can really provide the local radio that I still believe is vital.
Finally, the BBC should be there—in a complicated media world that is now rife with disinformation—as a trusted source of news. That has never been more important than it is today. Moreover, the BBC should—and I welcome the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay—do the kinds of things that are difficult to do: really push in the area of diversity and people from diverse backgrounds, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he, like all of us, succumbed to “Strictly” syndrome.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure to be part of this debate, brought forward by my noble friend Lord Bragg. I have had the honour, twice on television and once on radio, to be part of programmes that he has put out, and it was a learning experience in its own right. It is almost as much a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, who has made my task infinitely more difficult by his mention of me, gracious as it was, a moment ago. It was also a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool—I must call him my noble friend or noble colleague—as he gave us an indication of what we should expect from him in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and I are both members of the Select Committee on Communications and Digital. Just last week the committee interrogated a Government Minister on the subject of online safety. I asked the Minister how the fine principles he was adumbrating might command respect and solidarity in the international community. We were, after all, discussing the worldwide web. The Minister informed us that he had recently attended conferences in various countries beyond our shores. He wanted to impress upon the committee the respect and trust in which we were held by countries abroad. They trust us, he said, and they know that we will keep our word and that we have integrity; they revere our culture. I am sure that we all wish that were true. Indeed, I venture to suggest, as others have in this debate, that if it is true, it owes more to the BBC than to Her Majesty’s Government—especially, perhaps, the present one.
I will limit my brief moment on the stage to the BBC’s radio output. For over 30 years, in a cameo career, I have worked on Radio 4, Radio 2, Radio Wales, the World Service and regional stations of the BBC. For a number of years, in faraway Haiti, run as it was by a dictator, our understanding of what was happening—really happening—in the world at large was provided by the BBC. I know that is as true now as it was then. Indeed, the BBC dominates the radio waves, with a 51% share of total audiences.
In countries where there is political turbulence, threats to the lives of public figures, one natural disaster after another and, nowadays, the onward and outward march of the pandemic, it is likely that the only proper perspective on a maelstrom of events will come to beleaguered and confused people—even with the competing demand for public attention by television and social media—through the informed work of our beloved BBC radio. I know that, in distant and remote places, in underdeveloped and developing countries, radio is available where television is not. Ask not, then, in these troubled post-Brexit times, who can best help to forge the frequently expressed desire for a nation that bestrides the ocean like a colossus. In pole position, we just have to recognise the BBC: Auntie, global Britain hath need of thee.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden speech, and the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on securing this debate, his incredibly forensic speech and his long and distinguished broadcasting career. As he said, the BBC is probably the best and most trusted broadcaster in the world, attracting international admiration. In an era of fake news, as we have heard, it is more important than ever that there are trusted, impartial news sources such as the BBC on which we can rely. But it is not just for news alone, as we heard. The BBC has an unparalleled range of services, from its education offering to its pivotal support for the creative industries. It is, of course, one of the greatest sources of British soft power throughout the world.
Even the BBC’s rivals share this view. Senior figures at Netflix, for example, talk of the BBC’s impact
“in building the profile of the UK creatively”
and their support for
“the long-term sustainability of the BBC”.
Despite significant growth in competition, the BBC continues to hold its own. More people use the BBC than any other media brand. Even when funding restrictions limit what the BBC can screen, it is still the broadcaster of choice. Broadcasting just 2% of sport on TV, it delivers around 40% of TV sports viewing.
So, on these Benches, while acknowledging, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said, that the BBC should regularly be challenged, we support a strong, well-funded and independent BBC and will oppose attempts to undermine this by seeking to reduce its funding or remit. Yet, sadly, decisions by the Conservative Government have meant the BBC having to take on more obligations with less income: a 31% cut over the past 10 years with a frozen licence fee, having to fund free licences for the over-75s—a social policy which should be funded by the Government—and additional obligations in relation to the World Service, BBC Monitoring, S4C and even broadband rollout.
Perhaps we should not be surprised. After all, it was the Prime Minister’s former advisor Dominic Cummings who called for the
“end of the BBC in its current form”,
advising right-wingers to work towards undermining the credibility of the BBC because it is the “mortal enemy” of the Conservative Party. There have been numerous examples more recently of that undermining. Following evidence that the decriminalisation of licence fee non-payment would cost the BBC dearly, rather than scrap their plans, the Government have said they will keep the matter under review, adding to what the NAO has called the “uncertainty” about the BBC’s financial future. A broadcasting Minister has argued that it will soon be possible to introduce subscription services as an element of funding for the BBC—a move that would undermine the crucial universality of the BBC, at a time when Ofcom has said that
“universality will still be necessary to deliver the benefits of public service broadcasting in future.”
I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that he recalls that the BBC was deliberately set up to disrupt the market because the market cannot and will not deliver this universality. We have had Theresa May’s former communications chief trying to block an appointment to the post of BBC News editor and the current Prime Minister’s attempt to the install former Daily Telegraph editor, Charles Moore, as BBC chairman. More recently we saw the Prime Minister desperately seeking, even trying to bend the rules, to appoint ex-Daily Mail editor, Paul Dacre, as the next chair of Ofcom, the BBC’s regulator, despite his well-known animosity towards the BBC and having earlier been judged by the interview panel as “not appointable”. He could hardly have been a neutral referee on BBC regulation. To cap it all, we have a new Secretary of State who has been so unclear about the sustainability of the BBC that she is not even sure if it will exist in 10 years’ time. The time has come for the Government to cease its attempts to “thwack” the BBC and, as the Motion proposes, start giving it greater support.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on having obtained this debate. I declare an interest, having been a BBC producer for 25 years. I am now a freelance producer working for United Kingdom and United States channels.
I support noble Lords who have spoken in favour of the value of the BBC to this country, but my fear right now is the big cuts taking place in staff in BBC news and current affairs. In BBC studios there are cuts to drama, arts and history, all of which will diminish the broadcasting environment in this country and impoverish viewers.
This afternoon I want to concentrate my comments on one particular area. After all, this debate is about the BBC’s value to a wider global audience. It is a service which is very close to my heart: the BBC Russian service, which faces constant threat of censorship. Every Friday night, the Justice Ministry in Moscow issues a list of journalists and organisations which are designated as foreign agents. From that moment, the designated journalist has to put a disclaimer, “foreign agent”, on all their posts, whether they are news items or on their child’s school’s social media page. Failure to do so three times could earn a prison sentence of up to five years. Not surprisingly, as a result there is great fear among journalists, people refuse to give interviews to them, and their work is tainted.
Independent Russian media outlets such TV Rain and Echo Moskvy have been designated foreign agents. Recently the BBC journalist Andrei Zakharov went on the list. Imagine the pressure on the 144 journalists of the BBC Russian service, many of them working in country, in that environment. Since I first worked in the USSR in 1989, I have known the importance of the Russian service as an independent voice and a projector of British values. At that time, I worked with a journalist from the Russian service who had been allowed to visit the country for the first time in 35 years. Wherever we went, she was greeted as a conquering heroine for keeping the voice of freedom alive through the long years of communism. Since the arrest in January this year of opposition leader Alexei Navalny, repression against independent and opposition voices in Russia has been dramatically ramped up, while this week the head of MI6 warned that Russia poses “an acute threat” to this country.
The BBC Russian service is now more important than at any time since the fall of the Soviet Union, reaching 5 million Russian users weekly and seeing a huge rise in young people engaging via social media. In a country where any criticism of the regime or support for the opposition is repressed and rarely heard in the mainstream media, this service has run brave stories. It published an important investigation into Russian mercenaries suspected of war crimes while being paid to fight in Libya, and connected them back to Yevgeny Prigozhin, the man they call “Putin’s chef” because of his ability to cook up murky deals for the regime.
Unlike many other outlets, the BBC Russian service has a network of journalists across the country whose reports take the real temperature of what is happening in the country. In the Russian Far East, they covered the firing of a mayor because he dared to be independent from the regime and allowed the voices of his supporters to be heard. In the small town of Dimitrovgrad, the BBC Russian service one was one of the few that reported on an Orthodox priest who was fired and then vilified for saying of the opposition leader Navalny, “I used to criticise him, but now I want to shake his hand”. Last week, when 52 miners were killed in a mining explosion in Siberia, the BBC was one of the few media outlets which carried the voices of the desperate, bereaved families. They said the miners knew the management was ignoring safety protocols and deactivating the methane gas monitors, but poverty and lack of opportunity forced them to continue working in the mine.
The BBC Russian service costs £5.9 million a year, 75% of which is paid from the licence fee. I hope that the Government decide on an inflation-linked settlement. I have no doubt that failure to do so will adversely affect the BBC World Service and its language services. I also hope that the FCDO will very soon confirm its continuing commitment to the additional funding of these services, as laid out in the October spending review but as yet not confirmed beyond March 2022.
I urge the Minister to protect the BBC and ensure that it flourishes. Domestically it is important as a trusted source of news, and internationally, especially in repressive regimes such as Russia’s, it is a lifeline for independent thought and the projection of British values. A strong BBC will maintain our standing in the world, which the Prime Minister says is a central part of this Government’s global Britain policy.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the BBC’s value as a beacon of excellence has always rested on the impartiality of its news output, but internationally and certainly domestically, that impartiality is under strain. Ofcom tells us that audiences consistently rate the BBC less favourably than other channels for impartiality, and complaints have trebled over four years. Even the BBC itself has now initiated new impartiality training, as it is worried that its staff do not understand it, which is worrying. Indeed, the BBC head of news, Fran Unsworth, recently had to explain to one staff team that they would have to hear and see ideas and people that they did not personally like. That such “journalism 101” lessons were needed should concern us all.
I will make some remarks as a critical friend—much as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, commented—and as a contributor, particularly to Radio 4, and a listener for decades. As an educator, I regularly introduced teenagers to the archive of the “In Our Time” programme of the noble Lord, Lord Bragg—that is why I am rather nervous speaking in front of him. By the way, I introduced those programmes against advice from other people at the BBC, who told me that their discussions with academics were a bit too highbrow for teenagers and would alienate urban youth—that was a kind of soft bigotry of low expectations that assumes that only Stormzy and “RuPaul’s Drag Race” will capture young hearts and minds.
But, at the risk of being slightly at odds with the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, I think that criticising the BBC is actually a duty. I appreciate that any criticism of the BBC in 2021 can easily be dismissed as, variously, a Daily Mail plot, a Tory coup against the licence fee and a Rupert Murdoch-driven attempt at stirring up the culture wars—
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord agrees with me; how brilliant. But, if the BBC is to be of value in the UK, we—its supporters—need to stop being defensive and accept that all grievances are not whipped up by devious political ideologues but arise from perfectly legitimate concerns from the public about impartiality.
Traditionally, a way of judging impartiality was the pride with which impartial broadcasters could boast that no one would know how they voted—their opinions were kept under wraps. But, today, the sense of compromised impartiality is the perception of groupthink at the BBC—not from party politics but from the embrace of values assumed to be incontestable but actually politically partisan and ideologically contentious, such as the BBC’s internalisation of identity politics.
Recently, the BBC’s director of creative diversity, earning a cool £250,000 a year, introduced an allyship training scheme and stated on the BBC website:
“build back better to ensure diversity and inclusion is baked into the ‘new normal’ once the crisis has passed.”
I emphasise the phrases “baked in” and “new normal”. Imagine, then, trying to be staff member in that BBC department who wanted to challenge its decision to spend £100 million on a drive for diversity and inclusion in response to the Black Lives Matter protest. Such an approach does not include but excludes those who disagree—diversity is never diversity of opinion. Try also being a gender-critical feminist working at the BBC—there are many, but they know to keep schtum. I even know people who work at the BBC who voted to leave the European Union, but they could not come out and remain secret Brexiteers to this day. That is how groupthink works: not everyone agrees, but everyone knows the narrative that you are expected to follow.
The embrace of such orthodoxies is rarely spotted as a threat to the impartiality of BBC output, but it is a new and very present danger. Why did no one at the BBC notice the danger to editorial independence when the corporation signed up to a partisan lobbying NGO such as Stonewall? This was so well documented and eventually revealed, despite pressure to drop it, by the Stephen Nolan podcast series—an example of BBC investigative journalism at its finest.
Yet, even now, BBC senior management has announced that it is working with another external organisation—Involve—on trans-inclusive policies, although Maya Forstater, co-founder of Sex Matters, has warned that it might be
“Stonewall in all but name”.
Kate Harris from the LGB Alliance has cautioned:
“For the sake of the BBC, its reputation and its audience, it must be open about the exact nature of the relationship and how it will safeguard its editorial independence.”
On another issue, do not alarm bells sound when we see a corporate logo for Albert pasted at the end of current affairs programmes, such as “Newsnight”? I was intrigued and looked it up, and I found out that the BBC has signed up to an initiative in which media organisations pledge to use their content to help audiences tackle climate change and inform sustainable choices. Tim Davie is quoted on Albert’s website, saying:
“At the BBC we will continue to tell the stories that matter ... or help audiences consider greener choices through our best loved shows like EastEnders”.
Is it any wonder that sections of the public will feel patronised, denied choice, lectured and nudged to embrace one true political outlook? That is not impartiality in my book.
To conclude: like the right reverend Prelate, who I welcome here and who gave an excellent, original and thoughtful contribution to today’s debate, I worry about some of the toxic trends in the public square. However, I worry that it is identity politics that is so tearing apart the public square and that it is the groupthink approach to fashionable political causes that threatens diversity of opinion. I hope the BBC will stop succumbing to both.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the whole House owes a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Bragg for securing today’s debate, whatever one’s views of the BBC are. Having listened to my noble friend on the radio and seen him on television for so many years, I find it a bit hard to believe that I am listening to him in person. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech, which was very thoughtful and caring. As someone who made a maiden speech only six weeks ago today, I know how relieved he feels— I trust—at the moment.
My purpose in briefly intervening today is to draw attention to the BBC’s role during the pandemic, which I regard as exemplary, in many ways—it is something that we should not forget. When we look back, a year and a half or more, to when the pandemic was unfolding, we remember that an awful lot of us—all of us, I would imagine—did not know what was to follow. It was a time of great uncertainty, and there is a slight hint of that today, with the new variant. But the fact is that there was a great need for trusted information.
I pay tribute to the BBC for, first, the production of factual information: the graphs showing the numbers of infections, hospitalisations and deaths, which became a daily or weekly feature of life. Having worked with many scientific organisations, I can tell the House that all of them relied on the accuracy of the statistics produced by the BBC.
Secondly, the BBC held and invented or created a whole lot of new Q&A programmes because millions of members of the public heard the news but also wanted the opportunity to phone in and ask questions about the situation and how it might affect them. The BBC was not the only broadcaster to do this, but it did this very well. Of course, it also carried the press conferences, which brought people together, in a way—they were must-see viewing to keep us in touch with what was happening.
I bring to the attention of the House some of the statistics available. For example, at the beginning of the pandemic, audiences for “News at Six” were the highest that they had been for nearly 20 years. There was a great surge of desire to tune into the BBC to find out what was happening. On the days that the lockdowns were introduced—23 March and 31 October 2020—it is estimated that 84% of adults in the UK came to the BBC in a single day. This statistic has perhaps already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Jay: 45% of people name the BBC as their number one source of information and news on Covid-19.
The right reverend Prelate talked about a fragmented public square, if I remember the phrase correctly. It is true: the noble Lords opposite have both spoken about the range of providers that exist in the modern world. But there are times when people want to come together. Of course, like other noble Lords, I remember the days, years and years ago, when the viewing figures for Morecambe and Wise at Christmas were astronomic—because there was no alternative, really, and they were very popular. But, at a time of crisis, as in the pandemic, the BBC’s role has been very great indeed.
Internationally, I understand that some of the figures here are just as important to reflect upon. The international channels brought the news about the pandemic in 40 languages around the world. Digital audiences for the BBC World Service surged to over 208 million people a week at the beginning of the pandemic.
Noble Lords perhaps know these figures, but they bear on one of the themes of this debate, especially in relation to the pandemic: trust. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey referred to this, and it is very important. We live in a time when there is an anti-science movement in this country, which you see in different ways—I ask those who may have been in the Chamber six weeks ago today, when I referred to this, to forgive me—and the BBC has played a very commendable part in countering that, to the benefit of us all.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I part company, slightly and even-handedly, with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, over the point about bias. When asked to name the source that they trusted the most, news consumers cited the BBC most often: 49% did, which is far ahead of its nearest rival. Sky News and ITV were both on 7% and the Guardian was on 4%, while all other sources combined totalled 23%. If any noble Lord wishes to challenge that, please do so.
However, it is a remarkable fact—this, I suspect, is what irks the Government—that the “what the papers say” consensus, which is faithfully reported every day at 8.10 am on Radio 4, does not reflect the news provider that people trust most, which is the BBC. With regard to the consensus between the Mail, Express, Telegraph and so on, the people out there do not instinctively trust such tabloids; they instinctively trust the BBC. Let us get that out of the way.
I will make a couple of personal points. First, I join noble Lords who have congratulated the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. I greatly admired his speech, which was what it says on the tin: calm, reflective and analytical. I hope that we will hear a lot more from him.
Secondly, I add my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Bragg. If, at 9 pm or 9.30 pm—I forget which—on a Thursday I fancied hearing a bit more about Aeschylus, or the ideas currently coming out of the community of astronomers, I could get it straight from my noble friend. I said to him once, “You know all this stuff backwards, don’t you?” He replied, “No, no, I forget it all one minute after I’ve finished”. I do not believe that, but we will all have to make our minds up about it. His is a remarkable arrangement, and it is quintessentially BBC.
We have to recognise that there is a difficulty for the commercial market in not having a slight increase in the financial commitment to the BBC. A noble Lord opposite— I think the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—asked only a few minutes ago why, since we had surely got past the stage of running a state motor car company, we should run a state broadcaster. The noble Lord will correct me if I have misquoted him. I query the phrase “state broadcaster”. There is no doubt what that has come to mean: Radio Moscow, Peking radio or whatever. To say that we should criticise the BBC for “allowing” Nick Robinson to say something that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, clearly strongly disagrees with or believes to be untrue is wrong; it is, surely, the way in which the BBC has to operate.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to participate in this debate, which was so ably opened by my noble friend Lord Bragg. He has been a steadfast friend of mine since I joined this House, as a fellow Cumbrian. I have the privilege of representing his home town, Wigton, on Cumbria County Council, and when I go canvassing people say to me, “You’re Melvyn’s friend, aren’t you?” It gets me lots of votes. What he said was a very moving testament to the work of the BBC and a reason why we should support it. I add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool on his very measured and well-argued maiden speech. I also confess to an interest, in that my wife was at one time deputy director-general of the BBC.
My own view of the BBC is that it does what it says on the tin: it informs, educates and entertains. I have held that view of it since my childhood. The Home Service news was the basis for all our family discussions of politics when I was growing up in my Carlisle home, and BBC News remains the essential anchor of political debate in this country. Comment is forthright, yes, but not, in my opinion, biased.
However, the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, about representing the views of the metropolitan elite has to be taken seriously. I qualify that statement in two ways. First, my wife was always telling me that the BBC was never overrun by leftists: many of the senior ranks of broadcasters supported the Conservatives. Secondly, as people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have to remember, it is not just holders of right-wing opinions who feel underrepresented. The hard left hates the BBC because it sees it as the representative of what they call the “mainstream media”. If you want better balance you will have to look in that direction too.
The BBC is wonderful. No organisation in Britain combines local depth and international reach. I support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about local radio. I recognise the very important role played in Cumbria by Radio Cumbria in emergencies such as floods. The World Service also goes from strength to strength, despite the dangers it faces from brutal civil wars and autocratic regimes that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, described, threaten the independence of its journalists.
The BBC is not perfect; it has to change and competition is good for it. But I believe it is our job as politicians to support the BBC in this essential process of adjusting to change. Our job is not to starve it of resources by freezing the licence fee, or to fiddle with it, as the coalition Government did, or to impose on it the duty to pay for licences for the over-75s. We must not try to weaken the cutting edge of BBC journalism either. I think the BBC represents what is best of Britain, and I honestly believe that those people who are enemies of the BBC are not patriotically standing up for one of the things that is best for our country.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I did not expect to have to stand here and take on a patriotic duty, but I will, to an extent. All of us are saying nice things about the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, and so I will pass on one anecdote. I was taking my sister round here—she now lives in the United States—and the thing she always remembers about the trip is not the building, not the great hall, not the nice tea and not my wonderful anecdotes, but the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said hello and waved to me as we went down a corridor. Clearly, his reach goes far beyond the architecture of this building.
When I think of the BBC, I think of an establishment, and of something that has touched all our lives. I also think of it as something that does things others cannot. My noble friend has pointed to the huge work that was done to support our education system during the height of the Covid pandemic—we hope it is on the wane now. Nobody other than a state broadcaster with a degree of freedom could have done that; nobody else could have taken that on and done that work.
For those on the Conservative Benches who are always telling me that the BBC is biased, I have an answer that will stop the BBC looking at you: be out of power for longer periods of time. Come on—the BBC is supposed to be an independent, inquisitive organisation, telling us the news. If you are making the decisions, you are the guys getting looked at. If you do not like it, other people are prepared—quite selflessly—to step into the role. That is the simple answer: if you are in power, you are going to get looked at.
I turn to one other small area in which the BBC has been something of a leader: the growth of elite-level women’s sport. When you arrive in the sporting world, you are covered by the BBC at the right times. The rise of women’s football and women’s rugby, in both codes, has been important and has been taken seriously. It gets coverage, and that has been led by the BBC. If you are out there taking part in sport that is being covered by the main broadcaster, you have arrived and are something to be commented upon. The BBC has found time to fit women’s sport into its schedule and not just into a small slot at the back. Every other broadcaster has for a long time said, “Oh, great, let’s film this nice little girls’ game.” No, this is serious sport, played seriously, at the right time. When your sport is shown on a free-to-air channel such as the BBC, you have arrived. The BBC might have been able to do more, but I think it has done the most. It has also been the most influential when it does this. When something is covered by the BBC, you have arrived.
I would like the Minister to tell me who else could conceivably do that. Who else could reach everybody—not just those who are looking for the coverage but those who discover it is there? I cannot see anybody else who can do it. If you pay for an exclusive service, that keeps it exclusive and you have to pay to get the thing you want. Such a service might advertise something else, but will something that competes with it change your mind and make you move away? Not really. Can the Minister give us some assurance that the Government will make sure that it is a state broadcaster that takes on the public awareness role of showing that elite-level sport is for everybody, or at least for much bigger groups? Elite-level sport inspires people to take up sport; it makes it okay to take it up and encourages people that it is the right way forward. We should be using the BBC to encourage the nations to get fitter in a way that they choose, and in a way that they can take up at their own expense, in their own time, and so saving the NHS money. Surely it is not too much to indulge a broadcaster that will occasionally annoy the Government of the day. Please give the BBC that support.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for this extremely welcome and timely debate, and incidentally for providing an occasion for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool to give such a thought-provoking maiden speech.
I will focus on the World Service and the foreign language channels, about which I have more knowledge and experience than its domestic output. That experience was most vividly brought to life during the years when I was Britain’s Permanent Representative to the UN between 1990 and 1995. It was during that pretty tumultuous period that I came to appreciate what an extraordinary asset the BBC World Service was to Britain’s soft power, perhaps summed up best by President Mikhail Gorbachev’s remark at the time of the coup against him in 1991 that it was the BBC that had kept him in touch with what was actually happening in Moscow while he was cut off in the Crimea, under arrest.
Why is it an asset? Not because it broadcasts pro-British propaganda—it does not do that—but because it provides a continuous flow of professional, evidence-based reporting and commentary. I believe that that remains the case; all the more so now, when the airwaves are full of the fake news and disinformation which has proliferated in recent years and shows no sign of abating. The facts about the BBC’s outreach speak for themselves: a worldwide audience of 456 million; an audience of 364 million for the World Service, up by 42% between 2016 and 2020; 43 language services. Can the benefit of that in terms of soft power be quantified precisely? I doubt that very much. But is it reality, in terms of influence? Undoubtedly, I would say.
That, in my view, is why it was a major error when the Cameron Government forced the BBC to finance its overseas work from the licence fee. This set up a disruptive tension within the BBC over the allocation of resources between its domestic and overseas work, which did not occur when the latter was financed directly by the Government. What on earth is the rationale for the poorest in society to pay exactly the same as the richest when it comes to financing that oversees output? I suggest that the sooner the old system is reinstated, the better, and I hope the Minister will address this point when he winds up the debate.
I do not wish to conclude these remarks without mentioning the cruel and disgraceful harassment of the journalists who work for the BBC’s Persian service, and their families, by the regime in Tehran. It may not be much solace to those affected by this harassment but, in a way, if you think about it, it is a tribute to the role they play in bringing to the people of Iran proper, facts-based, professional reporting, something which authoritarian regimes invariably fear and resent. The same is true in the case of Russia and China. We should, I believe, be exceedingly grateful to the BBC for what it does to make this possible.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I join the chorus not only of the Cumbrians here but of the whole House in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, on securing this debate at a time when, as we all can hear, there is a degree of controversy surrounding certain aspects of the BBC and its activities. I must declare at the start that I am a supporter, albeit a critical friend and, I trust, a candid one. I also recognise that we live in a fallen world, where the best aspirations are not always achieved but must never be forgotten.
I begin from the perspective shared by a number of speakers in the debate that the BBC has become an institution which helps define this country and its own brand of distinctiveness—Britishness. It is very important to very many people in all kinds of ways, but not to everyone, and it is, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, probably the greatest instrument of soft power and the promotion of British views and voice that we can hope for.
When, about 100 years ago, the media world—not that it was called that then—went through a revolution with the development of radio and then television, it was recognised that the fourth estate, which is of course an important part of the wider constitution, was changing. The BBC in its current form evolved from that, with its central attributes—and people may accuse me of being a semantic pedant—of being a national broadcaster, not a state or government broadcaster, which has public funding but, at the same time, is independently managed under the rule of law. This includes the rule of impartiality, which, as we all know, is a pretty slippery concept in certain contexts. It is also accountable both to Parliament and to the public. From that British concept, public service broadcasting evolved.
These attributes do not necessarily work smoothly but they do basically work. That is important. Now it seems to me that it is the central datum point around which the rest of the media world in this country relates. It is a touchstone against which other things are judged; some, as we have heard, are better and some less so. I believe that the availability of accurate information is at the core of democracy and voters need to be sure of a modicum of correctness, truth and true understanding properly to play their role, not least because decisions we all take as voters can have as big an impact on our neighbours as on ourselves. The BBC in particular, and public service broadcasting more generally, plays an important part in this. Like the National Health Service, it is always there, even if you do not use it. Furthermore, clearly the public must have confidence—it must be trusted and be impartial. One of the crucial aspects of this in the round, it seems to me, is that the media must never take the Government’s shilling as respects news and current affairs.
I now briefly turn to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, one of its latest initiatives in this context. For more than a decade I chaired a regional media group, principally newspapers, which were very important in the dissemination of local news and information and, as such, performed an important civic function. The well-understood collapse in the classified advertising market led to a collapse in our revenues, which led to fewer journalists which led to less local news, which in turn was a civic failure, I believe. In response to that, the Local Democracy Reporting Service provides money for journalists employed by local newspapers with financial support from the BBC. It then makes their stories more generally available. It is rather like a mini Press Association. The local press still matters in this country and this is an important initiative. I was initially sceptical about it but I am very happy to eat my words and say that it has been a very good example of how the Government and the BBC have responded to collateral damage from the digital revolution. To underline my point, it was only last week that I was metaphorically doorstepped by one of its reporters.
There is a lot of discussion, debate and rumour about where the BBC goes from here. What it seems to me must not happen is that the Government may feel tempted to eye up the BBC rather as Henry VIII eyed up the monasteries. It should remain at the heart of public service broadcasting and at the heart of this country’s media landscape. It is not a cash cow and should be run by Lord Reith rather than Lord Haw-Haw.
Lord Triesman (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bragg, who has done us a real favour by introducing this debate. I also add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. He lit a candle in his speech and, on the seventh night of Hanukkah, I am all in favour of more candles being lit.
We have a limited number of exceptional implements in our soft diplomacy toolbox. My noble friend Lady Jay and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, a few moments ago, made essentially this point. We look for things that are practical and that speak to our values. They are easy to identify, partly because there are not that many of them—the Chevening Commonwealth Marshall Scholarships, Wilton Park, the British Council and, rightly, the BBC World Service, and I share all the anxieties expressed a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, about its funding.
The independence and quality of the BBC World Service is based on a broad judgment that people around the world have of the BBC itself. It fulfils many functions as an institution, as the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said in his opening comments, but I want to focus on its independence as a news broadcaster, as an investigative powerhouse and as an entity that is not directed by the UK Government and is globally and internationally understood to have that level of independence.
I get the point that it is sometimes muddled on matters of balance. I think it has been in its climate coverage, for example, but occasional muddles are massively outweighed by the huge quality and independence. In short, the output is based on the BBC’s own processes, not on government processes or anything else. That characterisation of the BBC is, of course, not widely accepted everywhere in the world. The World Service was blocked by China over the years that I was in the Foreign Office. Diplomatic discussions with China were interesting. It alleged that we would not allow China to broadcast unimpeded to us. My view was, “Bring it on. Broadcast absolutely anything you want and let us broadcast to you”. I have no anxiety whatever about the standing of the United Kingdom in that kind of debate.
I want to quickly draw attention to one other area where the FCO, as it was in those days, advised the World Service. It was only a matter of advice, which was to refocus at that time—2005—from east and central European outlets to Farsi TV and radio output. Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, it was argued, had become media-rich and diverse in their own rights; exactly the opposite was true in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 in Iran. As we have learned graphically from Anne Applebaum’s remarkable book on the death of democracy, Poland and Hungary have joined countries such as Belarus as thorough dystopias. Their media have lost any distinction between their Government’s view of the truth or the fictions useful to those regimes.
I ask the Minister: will Her Majesty’s Government advise, and it will be only advice, the World Service to focus again—perhaps through enhanced shortwave broadcasting but there are, I think, a number of methods—on the central and eastern European states that I have mentioned? This is not a time for financial cuts in reaching out to broadcast to those countries. We need to understand the threat of dystopian regimes in our own near neighbourhood and recognise the extent to which destabilisation in central and eastern Europe threatens our security absolutely and directly in this country. We are seeing the reinvention in a virulent form of nationalism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism in those countries and the World Service is probably one of the best antidotes that we have available.
The qualities of the BBC may be among our best, most honest, best proven, most well-tested attributes in the circumstances I have described. As my noble friend Lord Bragg said in introducing the debate, unprejudiced public service is what the BBC provides us with. It is not designed to be an implement of foreign policy but its impact abroad is very significant, and possibly as significant as any impact it has in our domestic circumstances.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for bringing this timely debate to the House. I note particularly his comments in relation to the cuts to the BBC World Service. Perhaps I should declare an interest in that I was rejected by the BBC for its 1982 graduate training scheme. In spite of that, I would like to focus briefly on the subject of wider global audiences, as I believe that it is here that the greatest opportunity lies for the BBC, while raising fundamental questions about the business model of a public service broadcaster. I speak from my own experience as both a journalist and a publisher, having worked as a foreign correspondent in Latin America and the Middle East and, more recently, in setting up and running an online information provider underpinned by paid subscriptions.
In my experience, the BBC’s brand as a trusted, impartial broadcaster is considerably stronger outside the UK than within it. I apply this statement to almost all regions of the world, with the possible exception of Europe. As my noble friends have highlighted, the BBC brand is especially valued in emerging markets that do not benefit from their own world-class impartial broadcasters. I have witnessed this in countries such as Mexico, Brazil, the UAE, Vietnam and Malaysia, to name a few. The receptive audiences in all these markets are not limited to expatriates but include growing sections of national populations that are hungry for objective information on the world around them.
With this in mind, it is no surprise to me that the BBC achieved its highest ever global audience in 2020: an impressive 486 million people per week, as we have heard. That has been achieved in spite of an increasingly crowded market, with streaming services joined by fast-developing social media platforms, which, rather disturbingly, are becoming the first—and, in many cases, the only—source of news for the under-30s. Dig deeper into the data and we can see that BBC News, including of course the World Service, accounts for 438 million of that reach—some 90% of the BBC’s global audience.
As we have heard, this global reach represents an invaluable asset in terms of the UK’s soft power and influence, all the more so as we embark on becoming global Britain. It is hugely helpful to government relations but also, although this is perhaps less known, to UK multinationals and SME exporters, as I discovered in my days as a publisher. Yet this international reach does not translate into significant income. Licence fees account for £3.75 billion of the BBC’s £4 billion in income and reportedly only £200 million in net income is derived from the BBC’s global content.
The BBC does provide value, especially to the wider overseas audience, but with its current restrictions as state broadcaster, it is unable to commercially harness this huge global opportunity. I am arguing not for privatisation but for changes to the business model, particularly in the areas of tiered subscriptions and content licensing for overseas markets.
For the consumer here, the current licence fee of £157 per household is terrific value for money, as the real subscription value of BBC content is probably nearer £400 per annum, as highlighted in the BBC Value for Audiences report. However, the BBC should not remain so reliant on licence fees when BBC News, which I believe merits increased investment rather than cuts, has the potential to generate billions in income and, in time, contribute the greatest share of revenue to the corporation. That could and should be done, without resorting to advertising and sponsorship, which, in my view, would threaten the very thing the BBC is most valued for outside these shores: trusted information.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for securing this debate and introducing it so beautifully, even if, when I hear his mellifluous tones, I cannot help thinking we are about to venture off into the life of the astronomer Caroline Herschel or, as in a recent favourite episode of “In Our Time”, the evolution of crocodiles.
The noble Lord set out very clearly two of the gigantic threats faced by the BBC, which, although many might like to grumble about this piece of output or that, is, as an institution, a public service hugely valued by the public. Apparently, if you read the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, it is also valued by the Government for its place in international soft power, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, referred.
The first threat is the squeezing of funding. As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said, it seems that the Government are bent on making the BBC weaker. The second threat is what the noble Lord again so clearly explained as the “jumbo bombers coming across the Atlantic”. The great parasite Amazon, Netflix and other global monoliths are clearly something we need an institution to stand against.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, outlined some of the many ways in which the BBC has been cut away at. Unlike him, I am not going to celebrate the loss of free educational resources; nor, I suggest, should the Government, given their often-avowed attachment to lifelong learning.
Like others, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, spoke about our “broadcasting landscape”. The word “ecosystem” has also been used. The BBC is still a big part of that landscape, but is not, as some with certain ideological attachments often like to claim, a part that squeezes out the small, new and innovative. Rather, the BBC is a crucial part of nurturing talent and innovation from such sources.
The BBC is a bulwark. Think of it perhaps as a giant sequoia tree that stands against the threat of not many but a few giants; namely, a handful of multimedia tycoons and giant multinational companies—you might think of them as wildfire and raging flood, as they are certainly equally destructive. As the Media Reform Coalition, working in co-operation with the Center for Media, Data and Society, again highlights in its 2021 report on media ownership, concentration is endemic. Three firms control 90% of the national media newspaper market, up from 83% in 2019—a seven percentage point increase. Three local publishers each control one-fifth of the local press market. Facebook controls three of the top five social media services used to access online news. Two companies own 70% of the 279 local commercial radio stations—a 20% increase since 2018. That is not a healthy ecosystem. If the size of the BBC is reduced, the fat cats of the oligopoly only get fatter.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, on something: the licence fee is a poll tax and should be replaced by a hypothecated share of progressive income tax—far more progressive than it is now—with a level of funding at least restored to 2010 levels in real terms. Changing technological demands will require that.
I also agree very strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about the importance of local channels and stations at the BBC and—in another failure of regulation, of which we see so many—the total failure of regulators to ensure that what are supposed to be local commercial radio stations actually serve those audiences. I should perhaps declare that, a long time ago and in another country, I spent some time working as a producer on a local ABC radio station. That feeds my great respect for the local teams that continue to produce brilliant local content for the BBC under extremely straitened funding conditions.
I think of a young woman who covered the roles of reporter, camerawoman, soundwoman and social media outputter when she interviewed me in North Yorkshire. She was so slick, she was practically juggling the multiple digital tools of those various trades as she deployed them in the hasty 10 minutes she had with me before travelling on to her next job. We are getting very good value for money from that young woman and many like her. Communities value and rely on that output.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by congratulating my noble friend on the manner in which he introduced the BBC debate today; I think it was important. I would take issue, however, with some aspects of the debate, particularly the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Addington. He and I agree on one thing, in that we both support the same sport, but I had to watch the internationals on Amazon Prime—I had to have a smart television to do it—rather than on the BBC.
I will concentrate my remarks entirely on the licence fee, because it funds 70% to 75%—depending on what you read—of the BBC’s content costs, and the BBC depends on it to continue. The licence fee was initially introduced in 1924 to cover one radio in a house. TV was then included in the licence fee in 1946, and it covered one television broadcasting the BBC. Since then, it has continued to progress, but it is the same fee for everybody, whether they have one, two, three, four or more devices in their house. Therefore, a poor person with only one TV—a colour TV, maybe—pays the same licence fee as somebody who has two, three, four or five TVs, as we do in our four-bedroom house in Hamilton, in Scotland. We have three televisions, more than one radio and many things we can watch TV on, so we have four or five things that the licence fee does not take account of.
I think everybody should pay the licence fee and I am a supporter of the BBC, but I believe that its funding is wrong in that it ought to, somehow or other, be reflective of the way in which our society has changed and the technology has changed. We should think about the licence fee but, more than that, we should make sure it reflects what has happened in our society. I am prepared to pay more, whether directly, through providers or in whatever way I pay my licence fee. However, somehow or other, I think we have to reflect—and I am prepared to pay more to get more—that the licence fee as we know it is probably the most regressive tax, and it is a tax, even though it is purely to fund the BBC. The ONS has also said that.
I am well aware of the time I am taking up, so I end by saying that I am prepared to pay more for my licence fee.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I also declare the fact that I worked for the BBC. In fact, I think I may have been rejected for the BBC traineeship scheme in the same year as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, but I went on to have a very good and enjoyable career there. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg. I think in a previous debate I referred to him as a creative industry in himself, and I would repeat that now. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for a wonderful maiden speech. He comes from a city which is surely one of our most creative.
Last week was a good one for the creative industries. They got recognition, via “Peppa Pig”, from the Prime Minister for the wealth they generate for the UK economy. That is excellent—but, just to put the record straight, “Peppa Pig” was never rejected by the BBC, and though born in the UK, it is now the property of an American company. But the BBC has funded, created and distributed global gold such as “Doctor Who”, “Blue Planet” and “Mastermind”, and BBC Studios has supported the creation of the favourite programme of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, “Strictly Come Dancing”, and mine, “Small Axe”. The BBC is the world’s leading television distributor outside the US.
The point about our creative industries—the fastest growing sector of our economy—is that they involve an interwoven set of relationships and support systems very much nurtured by our PSBs, and the BBC is the cornerstone of all of this. Pivotal in supporting them through innovation, investment, skills and training, the effect of initial BBC spending is multiplied as it ripples through the economy from region to region and sector to sector.
As my noble friend Lord Foster said, the BBC is emphatically not just about news and current affairs, as so many politicians seem to think. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that it is not just about comedy programmes either. As well as showcasing British culture and creativity, the BBC functions as a catalyst for the creative industries as a whole. It invests over £1.4 billion in TV content production in the UK and generates for the UK economy the equivalent of £2 of economic value for every £1 of licence fee it receives. In other words, it doubles its money.
The investment and R&D the BBC put into iPlayer, for instance, was a trail-blazer for the global streamers. I have a quote for your Lordships:
“I think the impact the BBC has had over the last few decades in building the profile of the UK creatively, in nurturing talent, in its investment in production and so forth, is one of the key reasons we have chosen to make our home here and why we are such strong supporters of what they do and want to see them continue doing that.”
Those are not the words of BBC DG Tim Davie or BBC chair Richard Sharp, but those of Benjamin King from Netflix. The streamers want to be here because of the BBC—they do not want to annihilate it. This is not politics; it is creativity.
Contrary to what some have said today, the BBC is far from London-centric. BBC investment over decades has helped to develop significant local creative hubs across the UK, with major production centres in Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, Salford, Bristol and Birmingham, not to mention a network of local radio and TV which ensures a spotlight is shone on important regional issues and, of course, supplies local news.
That brings me back to BBC chair Richard Sharp and a speech he made the other day in which he said:
“I believe that the case for a well-funded, modern and efficient national broadcaster has not diminished over the past decade”—
reflecting what the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said—and he added that it has “grown”. His powerfully put argument was largely predicated on what he referred to as
“today’s global news and information landscape”.
We need the BBC, not just for its contribution to our economic well-being and social cohesion but because, so far as the dissemination of true, factual, unbiased news and information, the times we live in are quite frankly scary.
The BBC remains the most trusted broadcaster in the world, as the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Vaizey and Lord Bragg, mentioned. In this era of fake news, it is more important than ever as an impartial and reliable news source. Its universal availability and independent, well-informed and neutral approach have been particularly essential during the pandemic, when untruths and conspiracy theories have been rife. Does the Minister agree that we need news that can distance itself from the partisan and that this is provided by the BBC and, of course, our other great PSB outlets?
In my view, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool spoke most eloquently on the question of impartiality. To pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, when I worked in the BBC, the noble Lord, Lord Grade, was director of programmes; he now sits on the Conservative Benches. Jeremy Paxman was the “Newsnight” rottweiler; he declared himself a Tory when he left the BBC. The bête noire of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, Nick Robinson, was once president of the Oxford University Conservative Association; and Sir Robbie Gibb was head of BBC Westminster, in overall charge of BBC political programmes for years. I rest my case—although, of course, the BBC did employ the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, and me.
Internationally, the BBC is one of the greatest sources of British soft power, as mentioned by so many across this House—my noble friend Lord McNally, the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, of course, and many others. When he was Foreign Secretary, our Prime Minister described the BBC as
“the single greatest and most effective ambassador for our culture and our values”
and a crucial contributor to Britain’s role as a “soft power superpower.” As Prime Minister, he launched his vision for a post-Brexit global Britain in a document presented to Parliament which is redolent with praise for the BBC. We on these Benches agree. As well as playing a hugely important role in promoting the UK, it is the only British media brand with truly global recognition.
Turning to funding, I mentioned earlier that the licence fee doubles its money so far as investment in the creative economy goes. I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said—that we have to look to the future—but we believe that for the moment, it continues to ensure that the BBC is an independent universal broadcaster committed to serving everyone. That universality, as my noble friend Lord Foster mentioned, is an essential part of public service broadcasting which cannot survive paywalls and subscriptions; everyone pays less in our present system and everyone has access to the content. Actually, as the noble Lord, Lord Grade, said last year, there is a direct relationship between your source of finance and the kind of programmes you make; it is as simple as that.
However, the setting of the licence fee has to be free from political interference, so it is worrying to hear the Secretary of State say:
“The perspective from the BBC is that they will get a settlement fee and then we’ll talk about how they’re going to change. But my perspective is, tell me how you’re going to change and then you get a settlement.”
That is the wrong way round. Will the Government commit to setting up an independent BBC licence fee commission? I think I know the answer to that.
Alongside the issue of global Britain, which, in the Prime Minister’s own words, needs a strong, thriving BBC, is the part the corporation plays in levelling up. It feeds directly into this, supplying training and making programmes across the country, boosting local economies and utilising local skills. The BBC has held us together through the pandemic, providing news the people can trust and essential support for home schooling, as my noble friend Lord Storey mentioned. So, can the Minister explain why this Government are seeking to slash the funds of the BBC?
What the BBC needs, alongside the other PSBs, is prominence on all EPGs extended to all digital TV platforms. It needs secure and adequate funding. The Prime Minister in his CBI speech on global Britain called for support for the cultural and creative sectors; in which case, include the BBC. Global Britain needs it; a levelled-up Britain needs it; so, support it, do not unravel it. The BBC is precious; it is unique. As the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, said, it is ingenious and illogical, but once lost, it is never coming back.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bragg for giving your Lordships’ House the opportunity to consider the value of the BBC to audiences in the UK and across the world; and, of course, for underpinning the debate with his renowned experience, insight and wisdom. From these Benches I offer the warmest of welcomes to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and congratulate him on his maiden speech. I can only observe that the BBC’s loss was the gain of both the Church and this House.
It is so important to recognise, as we have done today, the place of the BBC and the need to protect its independence, as emphasised by my noble friend Lord Triesman. As a far-reaching media platform, the BBC commissions production and acts as a stimulus in many different ways and in many media formats. If it is not nurtured, the impact goes way beyond the BBC itself and undermines the whole of the media ecosystem, with a poorer end result. One only has to look at countries that have weak public service broadcasting to understand the downward effect.
As has been said, while the BBC may not be perfect—and it would not be reasonable to expect it to be so—it is a national treasure and internationally recognised as a much-valued broadcaster. As my noble friend Lord Griffiths observed, often, radio is the only means of broadcast available in the developing world.
While there will always be debates about the nature of the licence fee, as raised by my noble friend Lord Maxton, and the correct level of public subsidy for the BBC’s output, there is no doubt that viewers are offered tremendous value for money. The BBC supports our creative industries, engages in international collaborations, runs its own training and graduate schemes and helps to equip future generations with a variety of creative skills. It not only generates an estimated £4.9 billion of economic output but spreads its value across the length and breadth of the country, having been a key player in the evolution of Salford’s MediaCity, for example, while maintaining a presence in the nations and regions. When I was a constituency MP in Lincoln, I knew only too well the importance of local radio, TV and newspapers, because all those were far more influential and trusted than any amount of national coverage I might possibly secure.
Across the world, the global news service carries the flag for the UK’s international brand and reputation, as explained so eloquently by my noble friend Lady Jay. It reaches 438 million people across the world every single week, broadcasting in 43 languages, with correspondents in 75 news bureaux. As the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, the BBC gives a voice to those who do not have one.
Like so many of our public services, the BBC has had to respond nimbly to the unprecedented circumstances presented by nearly two years of the Covid-19 pandemic. During this time, it has been a trusted source of news and facts, globally and at home; it has stepped up to provide educational resources to children throughout the national lockdowns; and it has responded to numerous challenges such as those posed by the rapid growth of online streaming services. My noble friend Lord Stansgate was absolutely right to speak about the increased thirst for facts and information at a time of crisis.
In some senses, the BBC has become a victim of its own success. People have high expectations, and whether it is original programming or sports coverage, they expect the very best—and expect it to be done their way, as my noble friend Lord Liddle said.
Therefore, although one Conservative MP recently berated “Doctor Who” for casting a female lead, which supposedly robbed young boys of a role model, many more argued that it promoted inclusivity. As my noble friend Lord Young said, it ensures that people from all walks of life are able to see characters on screen who reflect their own backgrounds and life experiences.
The recent Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games were screened primarily on the Discovery network, restricting the BBC’s coverage and, therefore, disappointing many who had become used to the corporation’s comprehensive sports offering. The listed events regime means that public service broadcasters can afford to bid for the biggest sporting events and ensures that everyone can access them, regardless of ability to pay. This is in urgent need of reform. Very soon, we will see the marketing of the rights to the next four Olympic and Paralympic Games. With both summer Games—Los Angeles in 2028 and Brisbane in 2032—happening overnight for those of us on UK time, digital on-demand services will be critical to delivering this content. Do the Government have any plans to review both the contents of the list of events and the technicalities associated with it? If the Minister seeks to modernise this regime to ensure that digital rights are included—as I hope he will—how will these necessary changes be taken forward?
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referenced, the BBC has played a huge role in popularising women’s sport. Even though the Government looked at adding the women’s equivalents to the men’s events to this list back in 2019, this has not yet happened. Can the Minister update the House on progress? I urge him to act to rectify this disparity as soon as possible, particularly in the light of the inspiration provided by the recent Olympics and Paralympics. It is important to create a legacy by harnessing that interest in order to inspire women and girls to take part in exercise and sport at whatever level they choose. There is an opportunity here to promote good health and well-being and to close the gap between those who can and those who cannot access it. I urge the Minister to take this on board.
There will, of course, always be questions asked of the BBC, as we have heard in the debate today. I do not believe that there is any great appetite to see it undermined—whether that be through funding restrictions or other, potentially more back-door, means. With this in mind, if we expect the BBC to continue to do everything we value, the Government need to ensure that it is properly resourced. However, if the Government are determined—for whatever reason—to weaken the BBC, they must be honest with the public about what they would be doing, and why. They must give the public a choice on whether that would be acceptable. I suspect that the answer would come through loud and clear, as has the feeling in your Lordships’ House today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, for securing and for opening this enjoyable and important debate. There are many in your Lordships’ House who have experience of the BBC—either because they or members of their family have worked there. There is no one who can hold a candle to the noble Lord’s wealth and breadth of experience at the corporation. As he said, that began 60 years ago this year when he joined as a graduate trainee. I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that that was a very good hire indeed on the part of the BBC.
I also join those noble Lords who welcomed the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool and congratulated him on his excellent maiden speech. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, when she said that the BBC’s loss is a gain for the Church of England and for your Lordships’ House. I was struck by what the right reverend Prelate said about the need for calm scrutiny and careful consideration of not just what we say but how we say it. This is an important lesson for this place as well as for public discourse in many arenas.
The BBC is a great national institution of which we should all be proud. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said, the BBC is a “beacon” for news reporting and the arts around the globe. It is a first-rate broadcaster, a cultural cornerstone and a producer of some of the best television and radio in the world. It holds a unique place in our cultural heritage. In its near 100-year existence so far, it has contributed enormously to the British sense of self, as it has both evolved and endured during the last century.
Beyond our shores, the BBC carries British values and identities to a worldwide audience which has more than doubled in the last decade, and reaches hundreds of millions of people every day. The BBC is the single biggest investor in original British content, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, noted. In 2019 alone, the corporation spent more than £1.4 billion on original UK television content. Some 54% of its commissions went to independent productions, of which 57% were from outside London. The BBC’s focus on British TV production also attracts investment from others. In 2019, more than £1.2 billion of third-party production spend was directly attributable to the BBC’s grass-roots investments. As noble Lords have pointed out, it acts as a catalyst.
The BBC’s UK-wide investments are reflected in its output. As noble Lords have rightly said, this has been a lifeline for many people during the pandemic—whether through the trusted information highlighted by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, or through Bitesize, which helped those who were home-schooling, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned. The invented escapism of new programmes, such as Michael Sheen’s and David Tennant’s “Staged” brought a smile to many faces of people stuck at home.
As my noble friend Lord Vaizey of Didcot said, we all have our preferences and partialities about the BBC. Perhaps we even have our rituals. I wake up to the “Today” programme every morning. I fall asleep to “Today in Parliament”—not, I hasten to add because of the content of the speeches therein.
The BBC is a leader in British programming. Despite increasing competition in the entertainment sector, it is a conduit through which outstanding homegrown talent arrives on our screens, in our speakers and, increasingly, on our smartphones. The BBC’s approach to funding talent will be crucial to our creative industries and the many world-class creative professionals working within them, as the sector recovers from the effects of the pandemic and continues to grow at a brilliant speed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, noted. The Government also welcome the BBC’s pledge to move two-thirds of its staff outside London. This will ensure even more diverse programming and create a BBC that better represents every Briton.
The BBC’s reach and influence extend far beyond our shores. This debate rightly has a global focus too. The BBC World Service is the world’s largest international broadcaster. It provides accurate and impartial news, analysis and discussion in more than 40 languages. The BBC recently confirmed that the World Service audience is now 364 million people—its highest ever global figure. In an era of fake news and viral misinformation, the value of a free press has never been so important. The BBC World Service is, therefore, an essential vehicle for information across the world. Founded in the early 1930s, it continues to be just as relevant today—perhaps increasingly so.
Following government investment of £291 million, the BBC World Service has expanded and enhanced its services as part of the World 2020 programme. Today, it broadcasts in dozens of languages—from Indonesian to Igbo and from Punjabi to Portuguese. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, stressed the importance of the BBC’s Russian output. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, rightly spoke of the bravery of the staff of the World Service in their work. Its comprehensiveness and inclusivity are unparalleled.
A number of noble Lords asked about the funding of the World Service. The framework agreement guarantees that the budget for the World Service must be at least £254 million until April 2022. The Government are engaging with the BBC on the future of World Service funding as part of the discussions about the licence fee settlement. While details of the grant-in-aid settlement are still to be finalised, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is also committed to providing grant-in-aid funding for the BBC World Service through to 2025.
The Government support the BBC’s mission to bring high-quality and impartial news to international audiences. It is a crucial asset to Britain’s soft power and influence across the world, and its reporting is a precious resource to many who view it. The Government also support the BBC’s continued focus on global commercial opportunities, of which noble Lords spoke, working in conjunction with ITV and other partners. By continuing that work, the BBC is increasingly able to export great British content and values around the globe.
However, the Government have been clear that there are areas where the BBC can and should improve. It is perhaps pertinent that the BBC is still often known affectionately as “Auntie”, and, like all families, people can speak with both love and frustration about the corporation, with sincere thoughts about how it can improve and continue to flourish. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who says that we have almost a duty to criticise. I hope that we can do that, in the spirit of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool, in a calmly critical way and provide the calm scrutiny which is needed.
The BBC knows this too. The Dyson report and subsequent Serota review identified that significant changes should be made in order to provide assurance to Parliament and the public, and restore the BBC’s reputation. While much has changed since Martin Bashir’s interview with the late Diana, Princess of Wales, there is still scope for improvements to be made. The Serota review’s recommendations include an overhaul of the BBC’s approach to impartiality and transparency, and tackling what staff have called a “culture of defensiveness”.
The review also identified the risks of groupthink at the BBC, something that a number of noble Lords alighted on today. Like all big and long-established institutions, there is a risk, as with so many others, of succumbing to a “we know best” attitude that can be detached both from the criticism and the values of all parts of the nation that it serves. The BBC must continue to commit to improving diversity of opinion and perspectives at all levels in defending the pluralism of which my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere spoke. The BBC should also enhance opportunities for underrepresented groups of people, particularly those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, to access and enjoy and have careers at the BBC. It is right that the BBC reflects all communities across the UK, both on and off the screen.
The Government support the BBC. We want to see it rectify the institutional failings that led to the events in the Dyson report. A renewed focus on editorial standards, impartiality and accountability is essential in rebuilding trust. In that context, we welcome the BBC’s 10-point Impartiality and Editorial Standards action plan, and the commitment to implement the recommendations of the Serota review in full. But the proof, as ever, will be in the pudding. As Ofcom outlined in its annual report on the BBC last week, while the action plan is a good start, it needs to be delivered. The BBC must move forward with its plan as quickly as possible and should do so with appropriate transparency. This is necessary to show to the public the BBC’s real commitment to reform.
The Government also agree with findings in Ofcom’s recent report that the BBC
“must keep evolving to be relevant to all audiences”.
That is not a partisan point. Indeed, it was clearly articulated earlier in the week by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who cannot take part in our debate today. I would not presume to paraphrase the noble Lord, who speaks with great care and consideration, but I will quote from the article that he wrote. He explained that he would be unable to be part in this debate as he is chairing another meeting, but that
“if I could, I’d be loud in my praises of the Corporation. But I’d also have some stern criticism. Radio 4 has become so determined to address multicultural diversity, gender issues and identity politics that it forgets about all-embracing inclusion. People who live outside a narrow class of well-off professionals with rigidly right-on opinions, almost all of them in London, no longer feel included by the station.”
While not everyone will agree with every word of what the noble Lord said, it is clear that there are groups across the country who do not feel represented by the BBC, and it needs to do better in engaging those audiences across the UK, so that criticism like that can be met and need not be levelled.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, about the soft but important power of programmes such as “Strictly Come Dancing” in telling stories and increasing the representation of gay and deaf people, for instance. But there are so many other stories that need to be told too—points made by my noble friend Lord Lilley, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in his well-made point about elite-level sport and the diversity that we need there.
On that point, and the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, on listed events for sporting endeavours, we are considering the proposals made by Ofcom on the listed events framework but, at this stage, think that the current regime strikes an appropriate balance in ensuring that significant sporting events are available to as wide an audience as possible, with the ability of sporting organisations to generate revenues to invest in their sports. But we will of course continue to keep that issue under review, with the Olympics and other big sporting events coming up.
The Government will shortly begin work on the mid- term charter review, which will examine the governance and regulation of the corporation. This will consider whether the current arrangements are working effectively or if further reform is required. We have also committed to examining the licence fee funding model ahead of the next charter review. The noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, knows the answer to that question: work on this will begin well in advance of the end of the current charter period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, raised the question of gender equality at the BBC. I do not know whether other noble Lords enjoy watching former general election night programmes as much as I do or have seen the broadcast of the 1970 general election, when my noble friend Lady Fookes was first elected to another place. It went viral, as is said nowadays, when her interview with Sir Robin Day, moments after her election to the House of Commons, was replayed. The way he spoke to her as a new female Member of Parliament was shocking to modern ears, and deserves to be. I am glad to say that much progress has been made in the intervening years.
As a public service broadcaster funded by licence fee payers, the BBC has a responsibility to set an example for others and lead the way in promoting equality in the workplace. The Government are disappointed to learn that the median gender pay gap at BBC Studios actually increased to 11.2% from 9% in the previous financial year. It is for the BBC to determine how to close its gender pay gap, and we expect to see improvement in next year’s disclosure. As in so many areas of national life, transparency is vital in this area, and the BBC’s pay disclosure shows that it still has work to do. It is vital that we continue to see these figures in future years, so that licence fee payers can monitor progress.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Vaizey, rather than my noble friend Lord Hannan, on the importance of local radio stations and local BBC work. Local and regional news coverage provide a vital service, providing information about local public affairs, holding local decision-makers to account and providing a forum for community decisions, as well as important information in relation to floods, as the noble Lord, Lord Liddle pointed out, or storms, such as Storm Arwen, which we discussed before this debate.
The Government ensured that, in its royal charter, the BBC has a duty to consider its market impact and to ensure that it seeks to avoid adverse impacts on competition. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, also pointed to the welcome and important work of the Local Democracy Reporting Service. Under the new regulatory system introduced by the Government in 2017, the BBC board must ensure that the BBC complies with its charter duties. Ofcom was established as the BBC regulator to ensure that the BBC is robustly held to account.
The BBC is a beacon for reporting and the arts around the world. It provides distinctive British programming, supports our creative industries at a domestic level, and delivers quality output and news on an international scale. It is a priceless national institution of which we should all be proud, and we are. It is because the Government support the BBC that we are focused on encouraging it to improve and reform. We want the BBC to continue to succeed, to meet the challenges of a fast-changing media environment and to continue the mission set by the late Lord Reith to inform, educate and entertain for many more generations to come.
Lord Bragg (Lab)
I thank everyone who took part in the debate. There were a lot of interesting speeches. It shows that I am a bit taken by surprise when I use the word “interesting”, because it is an easy and ordinary word. It was fascinating to hear the level of support for the BBC; I had not quite expected it to be so warm and deep. It was equally intriguing to hear people criticise the BBC in such a well-informed way. The BBC, like any institution, does not like to take on critics, even friendly fire as it may be. But there are things wrong with the BBC, as I said once or twice, and things that could be improved. With great respect, I started to get worried when the Minister said that the BBC should do this, would do that and needed such and such—if it is going to be prescribed from the top in that way, especially when these things are coming up in the next two or three years, we will all have real worries again.
When the debate finished, I thought, “Well, we’re in quite a settled state”, but if the Government are going to say, “We’re going to take this opportunity to do this, that and the other, and look at this, that and the other”, there will be worries. The BBC is taking care of itself pretty well. Its critics around the place have been listened to—I hope that more of them will be listened to after this debate because their criticisms were so good—but it also has the support of so many people for the right reasons. It can go in the right direction if it is given that support and that support increases.
I thank noble Lords for their speeches and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for such a fine entrance. I am delighted that we have had this debate.
Adult Social Care
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
I thank the Government for the Statement, which has been a long time coming.
First, we are told that we have a health and social care Bill to deal with integration across the NHS and social care. Instead, we get a giant Bill that is largely about NHS reorganisation to undo the structures set up by this Government in 2012. We are also told that there is a plan to fix social care, but we now have a government levy that has working-class families paying for extra funding that could in any event result in the NHS swallowing up most of the money to deal with the ever-growing waiting lists for vital treatment, with little left for social care. Finally, we have the grand announcement of the care cap, for which there was strong cross-party support when it was first proposed by Andrew Dilnot in 2011 and legislated for in 2014. However, it is now due to be delayed for yet another two years and introduced at half the level recommended by Dilnot, with the terrible and deadly sting in the tail of the last-minute amendment to the NHS Bill that was forced through the Commons last week and means that state-funded care costs will not be counted towards the care cap at all.
I remind the House that we have waited for this social care White Paper for four years, with unexplained delay after delay against a backdrop of expectation that, when it finally came, the NHS and care Bill would embrace NHS and social care integration. The proposals for this and other measures in the White Paper should have been an integral part of the Bill, which we will begin to debate next week. Can the Minister tell the House how the integrated care system under the Bill will be integrated for social care? Will there be another piece of legislation? If so, what will it seek to do?
Of course, Labour has called for and supports a number of the measures in the White Paper, such as improving the housing options available to older and disabled people and the potential for technology to improve standards of care. However, there are two central flaws in the Government’s latest approach. First, Ministers have utterly failed to deal with the immediate pressures facing social care as we head into one of the most difficult winters on record. Secondly, they have failed to set out the long-term vision and reforms that we need to deliver a care system fit for the future.
Last week, we learned that a staggering 400,000 older and disabled people are now on council waiting lists for care, with 40,000 of them waiting more than a year. There are more than 100,000 staff vacancies and turnover rates are soaring. Because of these shortages, 1.5 million hours of home care could not be delivered between August and October alone, and half of all councils report care homes going bust or home providers handing back contracts. Hundreds of thousands of older and disabled people are being left without the vital support they need, piling even more pressure on their families and the NHS at the worst possible time.
Does the Minister recognise the figure, reported this week, that 42,000 care staff have left their jobs since April? How will this White Paper ensure that care homes facing huge staff shortages can stay open and recruit and retain staff? Absolutely nothing new has been announced to deal with these crucial issues. Where is the plan to end waiting lists for care? Unless people get support when and where they need it, they will end up needing more expensive residential or hospital care, which is worse for them and for the taxpayer. We know that improving access is the first step in delivering a much more fundamental shift in the focus of support towards prevention and early intervention so that people can continue to live independently in their own homes for as long as possible. Without enough staff with the right training working in the right teams, this will never be achieved.
Where is the long-term strategy to transform the pay, training and terms and conditions of care workers, and to deliver at least 500,000 additional care workers by 2030, just to meet the growing demand? Why do the Government persist in having separate workforce strategies for the NHS and social care when the two are inextricably linked? Where is the joined-up strategy for the whole health and social care workforce?
The proposals in the White Paper for England’s 11 million family carers, who provide the vast majority of care in this country, are, quite frankly, pitiful. Unpaid carers have been pushed to the limit by trying to look after the people they love. Almost half said that they had not had a break for five years, even before the pandemic struck, and 80% of them are now providing more care than ever before. However, the funding announced amounts to just £1.60 more for each unpaid carer per year. Does the Minister not agree that families deserve so much better?
What was needed today was a long-term vision that finally puts social care where it belongs: on an equal footing with the NHS at the heart of a modernised welfare state. Can the Minister explain how this White Paper does that and delivers the resources needed to bring it about? At its best, social care is about far more than just helping people to get up, wash, dress and get fed, vital though this is. It is about ensuring that all older and disabled people can live the life they choose in the place they call home, with the people they love and doing the things that matter to them most. This should have been the guiding mission of the White Paper, with clear proposals to make users genuine partners in their care by transforming the use of direct payments and personal budgets, and ensuring that the views of users and families drive change in every part of the system, from how services are commissioned to how they are regulated and delivered.
The Government’s proposals fall woefully short of the mark and the reality of their so-called reforms is now clear: it is a tax hike on working people that will not deal with the problems in social care now. It will not even stop them having to sell their homes to pay for care, as the Prime Minister has repeatedly promised. The simple fact is that, under the Government’s proposals, if you own a home worth £1 million more than 90% of your assets will be protected, but if your home is worth £100,000 you could end up losing it all. Millions of working people are paying more tax, not to improve their family’s care or stop their own life savings being wiped out but to protect the homes of the wealthiest. This is not fixing the crisis in social care, let alone real social care reform. It is unfair and just wrong.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is no exaggeration to say that we on these Benches, along with many other noble Lords, have been repeatedly pushing Ministers to publish this White Paper for years. It is now two and a half years since the Prime Minister announced from the steps of 10 Downing Street:
“My job is to protect you or your parents or grandparents from the fear of having to sell your home to pay for the costs of care. And so I am announcing now—on the steps of Downing Street—that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared to give every older person the dignity and security they deserve … that is the work that begins immediately behind that black door.”
We were pushing because it was evident even then that adult social care was already in crisis. High levels of staffing vacancies, and cuts to local government meant that fewer people who had been entitled to state support would receive it, as the criteria for eligibility were repeatedly tightened. Even then, it was common knowledge that private patients were having to subsidise those funded by the state, as the amount given to local authorities did not match the actual costs of that care.
Even allowing for the inevitable delays caused by the pandemic, this Government have insisted on continuing with their structural reforms, rushing through the Health and Care Bill—which NHS leaders are now asking to be delayed because of the continuation of coronavirus and its pressure on all NHS services—as well as the health and social care levy, rushed through your Lordships’ House in one day, six weeks ago, which now requires amendment in the Health and Care Bill, which will mean that house owners outside the greater south-east will end up paying a higher percentage of their assets than those in the greater south-east. So much for protecting them from the fear of having to sell your home to pay for the costs of care—yet another broken promise from this Prime Minister.
In setting the scene, we and others have pushed for the publication of the White Paper prior to the Bill starting its journey in the Lords, because we cannot understand how any Government could restructure integrated care services between the NHS and the care sector without knowing what plans they have for the future of the adult social care sector. Yesterday’s paper was deeply disappointing—but I think the Government know that, which is why Ministers announced yet another White Paper next year on integration. But hang on: was that not why this White Paper was due to be published? If there is to be another White Paper, the timing is important. Can the Minister say when this new White Paper will be published? This one certainly is not the answer.
Allocating some money to developing the workforce in five years’ time will not even start to address the current crisis in social care: with well over 100,000 vacancies; with social care providers still having to pay for expensive PPE that is provided free to the NHS; and with providers handing back state-funded payments to their local authorities because they cannot provide a safe service for those patients. It does not address the current practice, caused by lack of funding, of domiciliary care workers not being paid as they travel between clients. It does nothing to change the experience of unpaid carers. There are lots of great ideas about following best practice and getting people to talk together, but there is no real offer of funding for regular respite care or other benefits and support.
Reading the full White Paper, the truth about the promises in the Statement begin to be revealed. The Minister knows that, from these Benches, we have repeatedly emphasised the importance of housing in relation to care and support for adults of all ages. It was, therefore, perhaps encouraging to read the recurring phrase
“Making every decision about care a decision about housing”,
but closer examination of the funding for disabled facilities grants increases shows that there will be £570 million a year in 2022–23, 2023-24 and 2024–25. The current budget for this year is already £537 million. Although continued funding is welcome news, this is only a £33 million—or 6%—increase, which, given rising costs of labour and materials, will barely keep up with inflation. It is not the transformative grant that the Statement trumpets. On the funding for
“a new service to make minor repairs and changes in peoples’ homes, to help people remain independent and safe”,
for which most authorities are able to offer only £1,000 to £2,000 per person before they have to look at their assets, no cash amount is specified, but it is hoped that this will give a boost to handyperson services that are so highly valued by older people and provide such a great return on investment.
It is impossible to transform way our social care provision works, keeping people in their homes, unless this White Paper demonstrates the practical support that the Government can give to make that happen. The real difficulty we face is that staff in the sector, providers, the NHS and, above all, the users and their families are severely let down by the White Paper. The word “dignity” is used repeatedly in the Statement. The reality is the opposite: no vision, no real reform and, worst of all, no attempt to deal with the current crisis.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses for the points they raise. But let us be clear that for many years—not just five, 10, 15 or 20 years; some noble Lords have said that we knew this issue was coming after the war, in the 1950s—the demographics of the country meant that we were going to have an ageing population, and successive Governments of all colours have not grasped the nettle. They have commissioned a report, it has gathered dust on the shelf and another report has come along. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Lilley and others, have written papers for various think tanks, but those also gathered dust and nothing has been done. When I have spoken to friends of all political colours, they have said that, frankly, it was too difficult and there were other priorities. So the Government should be given some credit for finally grasping the nettle.
We have set out a vision. Before you set out a strategy, you have to set out a vision, and we have done so. This is a 10-year vision, and we have committed to the first three years. Throughout the White Paper, we have said that we will continue to consult the sector—experts, carers, both paid and unpaid, local authorities and nursing or care home providers—to make sure that we get the right balance and understand the issues. As technology develops—medical technology, information technology and other technology that enables people to live in their own homes—we will see how the vision might adapt, rather than laying out everything from day one. We have laid out the vision and the spending for the first three years, but we will continue to consult to ensure that we are adapting to the changing technology and circumstances.
Compared to the current system, more people will be supported with their social care costs and have greater certainty over what they pay and receive higher-quality care. We think the plans announced represent the best value proposals. As many noble Lords will appreciate, that means balancing many issues: how many people are supported; how much they are supported; and the cost to taxpayers of offering that support. We believe that the plan sets out an appropriate level for the cap and balances that with people’s personal responsibility for planning for their later years. A number of experts have written recently asking why financial advisers advise people to build up ever-larger sums of money but they then leave it to their children at the end of their lives, rather than depleting their assets as they get older to look after themselves. We were clear that the £86,000 would be the amount individuals will need to pay towards the cost of their care, and the amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill reflects the changes. We believe the new system is necessary, fair and responsible.
We admit that the Care Act 2014 was landmark legislation informed by a range of partners, and we want to build on those strong foundations, rather than reinvent the wheel. Many of the provisions in that Bill act as a platform for better, even more joined-up health and social care in future. We are the first Government to announce that we are going to integrate health and social care, and that we will have a system of healthcare all the way through—not social care as a bolt-on afterwards—from your birth all the way through your life.
The Health and Social Care Bill contains several provisions built on the Care Act 2014. We have looked at assurance, with a new duty on the Care Quality Commission, and we have looked at data, to make sure we have the appropriate data on adult social care. People should pass from hospital to social care with no delay and as seamlessly as possible. We have looked at provider payments and the better care fund. The Bill also proposes to put integrated care systems on a statutory footing, which will make sure that, in each area, working with local authorities, account is taken of the needs of social care, joined up with the other parts of the healthcare system.
On 3 November, we published the adult social care winter plan, because we recognise that this is a long-term plan, but we have constantly been listening to stakeholders and have drawn up recommendations with a number of people, including Sir David Pearson, who reviewed last year’s adult social care plan, advisers from SAGE and UKHSA. So we have listened carefully to make sure that we meet some of the short-term issues that we are facing. We have looked at how we can increase spending, where relevant, to make sure that we tackle some of those issues.
Across the House, noble Lords will want to pay tribute to social care workers, both paid and unpaid. We have a track record of responding to workforce pressures—for example, the £162.5 million workforce recruitment and retention fund and the £388 infection control and testing fund. We will continue to keep this situation under control. We are also increasing the rate of the national living wage, which means that many of the lowest-paid care workers will benefit from pay rises. We are also investing at least £0.5 billion in the way we support the development and well-being of our social care workforce—an investment in knowledge, skills, health and well-being, and how we drive the retention of existing staff and boost recruitment. This will set the conditions for professionalisation over a longer period, giving carers recognition. When we look at the social care workforce and how much they are valued, one of the great issues has to be recognition of their skills and giving them a professional development pathway.
In the longer term, as set out in the White Paper, we remain interested in working with commissioners and providers to make that sure care workers have the best terms and conditions possible, including being paid for all the hours possible. This is already set out in our existing market-shaping and commissioning guidance. We will also explore how we can champion best practice and support local authorities, including through the new CQC assurance framework. We acknowledge the prevalence of zero-hours contracts in the social care sector and we are interested in working with commissioners, providers and care workers to understand how those contracts impact this sector.
Chapter 6 of the White Paper sets out three key aims for the workforce strategy over the next three years, backed up by £500 million of investment. We want to create a workforce that is well-trained and well-developed, healthy and supported, sustainable and recognised. We want to make sure that social care is seen as a rewarding career—that it is not only heart- warming but has professional recognition. I should stop there and take some more questions at this point.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD) [V]
My Lords, could the Minister say exactly what the Government are doing right now to recruit more carers, in view of the huge shortfall in the workforce? Are they largely leaving it to hard-pressed local authorities?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government are in conversation with local authorities at the moment to look at the short-term issues. That is why we have announced increases in funding, particularly as part of the winter plan. The White Paper we are talking about today looks at the longer term, but we have also recognised the short-term issues, which is why we have announced these increases in spending.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, we have been waiting for four years—sometimes I think I have been waiting 40 years—for a White Paper that contained a vision for social care that would, once and for all, rescue it from its Cinderella role in public services. I did not get that, but I am a glass-half-full person and am relieved by how many times unpaid carers are mentioned and how many warm words there are about identifying, recognising and involving carers. I thank the Government for that.
But family carers are at breaking point now. As my noble friend said, most have not had a single break since the start of the pandemic. They need immediate help, so will the Minister tell the House how the proposals in the White Paper will help stressed carers now? My second question is about integration between health and social care services, which is the only hope for real reform. It is frequently referred to in the White Paper, but there is no vision for how it will be delivered. We understand that another White Paper about integration is being prepared; I wonder why that is necessary when it could have been tackled in this one. Could the Minister update the House on progress and assure me that carers will be consulted as that paper on integration is written?
Lord Kamall (Con)
First, I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness has done for carers over many years. She has personally raised with me issues with carers, both paid and unpaid, as well. The White Paper clearly raises issues of professionalising, training and recognising carers to help make this a rewarding career for many. At the same time, it looks at unpaid carers and understands that, for a number of reasons, they are not all similar. Sometimes they are school-age children. We have looked at young carers and at elderly carers—for example my mother, who, in her 70s, looks after an 80 year-old sister who suffers from dementia. They have different needs.
We are first trying to look at how we can help make their task easier, for example through technology freeing up time. We are also looking at respite and how we can make sure they have breaks. We hope that those conversations will be had at the local level, between ICSs and health professionals having meetings directly with the individuals concerned to make sure that unpaid carers have the appropriate support.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I feel torn on this. On the one hand, it is irritating that the White Paper has come out but everybody wants to bash it, when I am relieved that somebody has suggested something. On the other hand, it is not satisfactory. To ask some immediate questions, the crisis of care staff has already been referred to, but I am concerned that the White Paper is being used to avoid talking about the real crisis now. There are genuine problems in care homes in the aftermath of Covid. It is not just about staff, but the fact that relatives are still being denied face-to-face visits. There is still a climate of risk aversion and fear from some managements, with lots of people with dementia being locked in their rooms. All sorts of terrible things are happening and people do not know what to do. I do not want this White Paper to be used to bat things away.
That was the first thing. Secondly, in the longer term, can the White Paper create that vision and be used as a platform? To be honest, I think it is visionless and technocratic. We need to get talking and involve the nation in developing the vision we need. Everybody has an investment in improving this.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, makes a valid point: we have to look at not only the long-term vision but the short-term issues raised. This is why, on 3 November, we announced the adult social care winter plan for 2021-22. This was developed in conjunction with the NHS and social care stakeholders. We drew on the recommendations of the review of last year’s adult social care winter plan and listened to a number of different stakeholders in setting out the short-term issues.
As the noble Baroness acknowledges, we are the first Government to set out a long-term vision, not just from one electoral cycle to another but for 10 years. We have set out a vision with three years of commitment to specific spending, some of which is a discovery process, because we still have to know what will and will not work, and how to use and integrate technology. By doing that, we have laid down the gauntlet to whatever Government come after us, of whatever political colour, for them to continue to fulfil this vision. It is a vision against which this and future Governments will be measured.
Other politicians from other parties have known about this for many years. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, mentioned waiting for 40 years and others have known about our post-war demographic challenge. We have finally grasped the nettle. We are not going to get everything right, which is why we have not laid out a detailed, prescriptive plan for 10 years. We have laid out a vision of integration, making sure that we use the best technology to support people in their own homes, as much as possible. At the same time, we have committed for the next three years. After that, the challenge is for us to work with all stakeholders to deliver that vision.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I am particularly delighted to see this White Paper and congratulate the Government on publishing it in this timeframe. However, we need to look closely at workforce needs, at the same time as we look at workforce needs for the Health and Care Bill, because there is a real mismatch between the vision we now have and the staffing for that vision. I welcome this opportunity to hear how the Government think we can tackle that and give young unemployed people good opportunities to come into a proper caring profession.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for the conversations that we have had about this, and a number of other issues, as I got to grips with my brief. She makes a very important point. We have to make sure that social care is seen as an attractive career path and not just something unskilled; we know that there are skills involved, such as empathy. There will also be an increased need for digital skills, and people management skills will be handy in other areas. For far too long, social care has been seen as the poor relation of other parts of the health system. By bringing health and social care together, we are sending a signal that our vision is to put them on an equal footing. We are also explaining how we intend to spend over the next three years. We challenge everyone—stakeholders, local authorities, everyone—to come forward and help us develop that vision for the long term, and to hold future Governments to account against that vision.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I wish the Minister good luck with his nettle grasping—I think he is going to need it. He will know that the right housing is key to enabling people to remain safely and happily in their home, yet only £300 million, a very small amount, is being promised in the White Paper to integrate housing into health and care strategies. Take, as an example, the so-called extra care units, where people can live in a flat with appropriate on-site support; that will mean only about 3,000 such units across England. Can the Minister say over what period that money is being offered? Is it three years or a different period? How many units of supported housing can be provided for that amount of money?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising this issue. We want to ensure that people can live in their own home for longer. We have committed a sum of money and been quite clear that practical changes can be made, such as installing stairlifts, level-access showers, wet rooms, sensors, et cetera. New technology is constantly being developed to meet people’s needs in their own home. To this end, we have committed a further £573 million per year to the disabled facilities grant, from 2022-23 to 2024-25. We are also talking to local authorities and others, looking at whether we need to increase the subsidy amount per adaptation and reconsider funding allocation to better align with local needs, as well as funding a new service to enable minor repairs and changes to people’s homes. We need to know what needs to be done, and local authorities and others can come back to us on the adaptations that they need and the best way to achieve them. We must look at best practice to make sure that, as technology develops, people can stay in their own home for longer.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest; my daughter-in-law is a full-time unpaid carer. First, the report says that unpaid carers’ money will go up to £69.70 a week. That is fine if you also have a job, but quite a few unpaid carers have given up their jobs to be unpaid carers, so that is all that they have got, other than the benefit that the person they are caring for may get. That is a pretty tough situation. Secondly, unpaid carers get very few breaks—some get no breaks at all. We must devise a way of looking after the 10 million or 11 million people who keep everything going. Although there are aspirations in this document, I would like to see them translated into something absolutely practical, so that I can go to an unpaid carer and say, “You’re full time, and something will happen to help you and take off the pressure.” It is a lonely business working full time, on virtually no money, looking after somebody. If the paid carers who come in the mornings or evenings do not turn up, it is the unpaid carers who keep things going. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to that. There is a whole agenda there which many of us will be pushing very hard on.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I know that the noble Lord has been a champion in this area. We have been quite clear that, as we go forward, a number of issues have to be understood. For example, you cannot say that all unpaid carers are the same. They all have different needs: some can work and some cannot work; some can spend a couple of hours working and share their care duties with others; there are sole carers; some are elderly and some are younger. We want all the different partners to come together to discuss individual needs—including respite for carers, to rest and recharge—and to look at their financial situations. We have laid out that those who are not working may be eligible for other benefits on top of the care allowance that they get. We are exploring this. It is a process of discovery and we want to ensure that it works. We have therefore set out the vision and the three-year commitment.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I would like to pursue the points that were raised a minute ago by the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Watkins. Despite the welcome long-term aspirations in the White Paper, the reality is that the chronic workforce shortages in social care are getting worse, with uncompetitive pay being the main culprit. If Covid surges this winter because of the new variant, these workforce problems will be magnified, with potentially disastrous consequences. There are similar concerns with unpaid carers, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has just said. With no new resources from the new levy coming on stream until October 2023, and all the fragilities that I have just described, what are the Government going to do to address the pay and retention issues now, over this winter?
Lord Kamall (Con)
The Government have been listening to the workforce and understand its pressures. We recognise that this is the vision, and that we need to look also at the short-term issues. We announced £162.5 million for the workforce recruitment retention fund, and the new Made with Care scheme to recruit social workers and to send a message that social work can be a rewarding career. We are talking to different bodies, including the Department for Education, about how we increase professionalisation. We have also increased the national living wage, meaning that many of the lowest-paid workers will be paid more. We are investing at least half a billion pounds in supporting the development and well-being of the social care workforce, including an investment in knowledge, skills, and well-being. We will work with partners to set the conditions for the professionalisation over a longer period. We cannot do this immediately; we want to consult the education sector and care and social care experts, to give recognition. That will be a precursor to making progress on pay.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the primary obligation of a Government is to provide decent care for those who cannot finance their own care, and that the lowest priority is to provide taxpayers’ funds to enable those who own valuable assets to pass them on to their offspring? If it is possible to enable people to insure against the risk of having to use the value of their home to pay for their own social care, possibly through a state-aided scheme, would that not be desirable? Is he not astonished that the Labour Party, normally the champion of public sector provision and the enemy of channelling public money to the rich, should advocate channelling money to the rich and not a state-funded insurance scheme?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question and pay tribute to him as one of the authors of a paper on funding social care, which had a number of interesting ideas. I am also very grateful to noble Lords across the House who have approached me with different ideas, including from the Labour Benches, these Benches and the Cross Benches. The Government have looked at a number of plans and have decided on this, but we are in conversation with the private insurance industry, including the ABI and others, to discuss what financial products it can offer in response to the changes. Some people are quite happy to take out insurance policies, but it depends on individual wealth levels and circumstances, and a number of different matters. We hope that there will be a development of the private market, and we are in conversations with the insurance industry. It has told this and successive Governments that, at the moment, there is no private sector solution for social care insurance. I regret that and wish that there was. My noble friend’s idea of the state underwriting it is interesting, but many reports have been written. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will writhe in pain at this, but we have drafted that letter. Whatever we do, we will be criticised for it, but we will do this. We have set the vision for the first three years and have set the challenge for all of us to come together to provide the best possible social care for the future.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to reinforce something that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said: the distinction between unpaid and paid care workers is very unfair because people who have to care do not have a choice whether to do so—they just do not get paid. The noble Lord mentioned his mother looking after her sister—there is no choice in that matter. Something ought to be done to redefine the category of unpaid social worker, perhaps by making such people part of universal credit so that they will get a statutory payment as of right—because they are relieving the state of some expenditure on care and, of course, performing a very useful social function.
Lord Kamall (Con)
The noble Lord makes the very important point that unpaid carers save the state billions of pounds a year with all the work that they do and the love and attention that they give. Sometimes, they do have a choice, but they choose to be carers because they are worried about putting their relative into a home and are not quite sure about that—I understand that. But the fact is that, if they are unpaid, we are looking at how we can support them better. Unpaid carers are very different, and you cannot lump them all into one group: they have different needs and are at different stages of their lives. I emphasise the importance of making sure that we understand how we can personalise that journey for everyone—the cared- for person and the carer. But, if you have given up work, a range of other benefits may be available, and we want to make sure that unpaid carers are equally valued and not penalised for looking after a loved one.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, following on from my noble friend Lord Lilley’s remark, what percentage of people in need of care will be covered by the £86,000 cap?
Lord Kamall (Con)
I am afraid that I do not have the details of that, but I will write to my noble friend.
Afghanistan
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) poverty, and (2) hunger in Afghanistan; and what progress they have made with the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, I appreciate the opportunity to bring up the Afghanistan question, largely because, earlier this autumn, I had the privilege of speaking to three Afghan ladies who were trying to raise awareness of the dire situation developing there. When I met them, they were sitting outside the Palace of Westminster, taking part in a hunger strike to demonstrate their disdain for the new Taliban regime. Since our initial meeting, I have begun to understand more deeply the feelings held by those in Afghanistan, and our conversations have raised many questions, including how much global support is still needed to prevent a crisis and how vulnerable people can be protected from this repressive regime.
The ladies told me that Afghan people are scared and, contrary to some of the headlines that we have seen recently, they do not support the backward and fundamentalist Taliban Government. Inside their homes, people are continuing to educate their daughters, read books that are now banned, and give and receive special medical care. These risks are taken to prevent the backsliding on progress. My Afghan guests told me that when the Taliban took over, 20 years of progress were washed away overnight.
The United Nations is reporting that 22.8 million people are currently food insecure in Afghanistan, with 3 million children suffering from acute malnutrition. Dozens of news reports describe the crisis developing, as the country enters winter. Fuel prices are up 75%, hundreds of thousands of people are without homes and vulnerable minorities are being targeted by the Taliban.
We need this Government to take further action to prevent a historic humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan. More aid is desperately needed, but the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which was announced in August, has still not been opened. Today is not too soon; this scheme needs to open now, and I call upon this Government to fulfil this promise and help to protect some of the most vulnerable people in a country on the brink of disaster.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for introducing this urgent issue today. I declare my interest: I founded and run the Afghan Women’s Support Forum.
The situation in Afghanistan is an unnecessary tragedy. It is a takeover by the brutal Taliban, causing a breakdown in the banking systems and institutions. Although the Taliban say that they have formed a Government, they actually have no experience of governing. The scenes in the autumn were harrowing, with people desperate to be evacuated. I think we all remember that awful sight of a boy clinging to an aeroplane and falling. Now, there are terrible reports of the Taliban hunting people down and of summary executions and reprisals—a return to cutting off limbs for stealing, while the Taliban go into people’s compounds and take their cars, valuables and whatever else they want.
In spite of journalists now being pushed back and restricted, recent news has been chilling, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, has told us. Children are dying of hunger and families are selling their daughters to get money to feed the rest of the family. There are reports of crop failures and, with winter approaching, many remote areas will soon become unreachable. People there are starving, and the Taliban do not appear to be helping at all. Therefore, surely, we in the West cannot stand by and just let this happen. We must send help— and send it quickly.
We must ensure that aid really reaches down into the grass roots. Can we work through organisations that the Taliban have allowed to continue, such as the Red Cross, the Halo Trust, the Aga Khan Development Network and others that are already connected with the communities? Of course, there is UN World Food Programme—but can my noble friend reassure me that this does not take a large percentage, like some of the other UN agencies?
How do we reach the most vulnerable: those fearful and in hiding, and widows, now that they can no longer go out on their own? Others are also frightened to go out: young men are fearful of being seized to be recruited into the Taliban, and young girls are fearful of being snatched to become brides for the fighters.
We in the UK now have the 16 days of activism to stop violence against women and girls, but in Afghanistan, after 20 years of helping to build up the voices and role of women in Afghan society, women’s rights are once again being rolled back and their voices suppressed. Can my noble friend the Minister please tell us what the UK Government are doing to help them?
While I congratulate the Government, our military and officials who worked tirelessly to evacuate people in the autumn, we must not forget those people who are still threatened and desperate to leave Afghanistan—or those who managed to get out but are stuck in third countries that will not allow them to stay and may send them back. After 20 years, surely we have a responsibility to the Afghan people, and we must continue to help.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I intend to focus on the role that Qatar is playing. I apologise—
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I thank the noble Lord. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Roberts for bringing this most important debate, which is not only timely but absolutely vital. The only concern is that we have only an hour. We could talk for so many hours, but perhaps it is right that we have only three minutes each because, actually, the time for the Government to act is now.
The Minister who will be replying on behalf of the Government has development as part of his portfolio. What message can he send to the mothers who are in anguish in hospitals in Afghanistan? According to the BBC, one mother, on the point of giving birth, asked the obstetrician to kill her—not because she was ill in terms of a cancer or a fatal illness, but because she herself was starving and said, “I don’t know how I can live myself. How can I give life to another human being?” The very real point is that many mothers in Afghanistan might give birth, but they cannot give life to those children because, if you are starving, you do not produce the milk to feed the children.
What assessment have the Government made about starvation in Afghanistan, about what aid we are giving or not giving, and about what work can be done to ensure that, while we are not giving money to the Taliban, we are ensuring that mothers are not looking at their dying children? We owe it to Afghanistan; we were there for 20 years; we brought about change in that country, but when the US insisted on leaving earlier this year, we left chaos, carnage and starvation behind.
We also left behind people who were eligible to come here under the ARAP scheme, so what assessment have the Government made of how many people who are eligible for ARAP under category 2, and who were told they could come, are still in the country? What provisions are there for those British Council staff who should be eligible under category 4? Will the Minister say whether the British Council paperwork is sufficient for ARAP 4 and, if not, what additional paperwork is required? When will the Home Office deign to give us the information about the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, because, frankly, we have all waited for far too long?
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, on securing this important debate this afternoon although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has said, it is a shame that we have only an hour to touch on these subjects.
Of course, the real shame is that we are having this debate at all. We cannot roll the clock back, but the unilateral decision of the United States, started by former President Trump and continued by President Biden, which led to the precipitate withdrawal of international forces in the summer, has led directly—and there is no getting away from it—to the poverty and hunger that 23 million people in Afghanistan are suffering at the moment.
If we just pause for a moment to think about what we were doing in Afghanistan over the last 20 years, we were actually there to give those people the chance of a better life. At a stroke, that better life was taken away; so what should the response now be from the West? We do not like the Taliban regime, but is that actually a good enough reason to stand on those issues and not give the humanitarian support that the Afghan people really need? I do not believe that it is. There is a saying that my enemy’s enemy is my friend, and in these limited circumstances for a period of time, although we do not like the Taliban and what it is doing, a higher cause is to appeal to our own sensitivity and look after the 23 million people who are suffering in Afghanistan at the moment. Why should we leave it to the NGOs and the charitable sector to pick up these things? That is not right.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, referred quite rightly to a number of charities that are working there. I draw attention to Street Child—I declare my interest as a patron of that charity, started by my son in 2008 —which had plans at the start of this year to educate 65,000 children, in southern Afghanistan in the main. It is continuing with those plans and providing food for that community in southern Afghanistan. We should not leave it to the charitable sector to be picking up these things. Governments should actually make a decision that the time has come to bury our difference with the Taliban for the time being, support the people whom we tried to help for the last 20 years and sort out the other issues in slow time.
Frankly, wringing our hands and saying, “It’s awful” is not good enough. The time for action is now. Winter is coming; people are hungry; people are dying; babies cannot be fed. It is not good enough: we have to do more and we have to do it soon.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for introducing this debate and apologise profusely to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who made a powerful speech. I am sorry that I had the wrong speaking order in front of me. I think I also had the wrong time: I thought we were down to two minutes, so I offer my apologies for that as well.
I intend to focus briefly on the role that Qatar is playing in assisting this country, and indeed the world, settling many Afghan refugees who have come out of Afghanistan and routed through Doha. In so doing, I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Qatar, until recently so ably led by the late Sir David Amess.
Two months ago, with Sir David, I saw at first hand the outstanding work being undertaken by the Government of Qatar and the international agencies and charities that are seeking to deliver the best outcomes for many desperate families who had to leave Afghanistan suddenly. On my return, I asked what steps our Government planned to take in response to the unaccompanied minors with family links to the UK who had been evacuated from Afghanistan and were in temporary accommodation in Doha. The Home Office was, I am told, working closely with Qatar and UNICEF.
I fully appreciate that our priority is to ensure that these vulnerable children will be safe and well cared-for here in the UK, enjoying a better life than was first given to them through the generosity and friendship shown by the Government of Qatar and the charities that are providing a welcoming, close-knit supporting community. Will the Minister update the House on progress made in helping the unaccompanied children who are heading to the UK: how many are still in Doha, and what action is being taken by our Government and local authorities?
We should follow the world-leading example of the Government of Qatar. To them, engagement on refugees and the famine in Afghanistan does not require recognition. Qatar is undergoing change at a far faster rate than many countries in the Gulf. It is the only country which has invited the International Labour Organization to open an office and work alongside its Government. It deserves the strong support of this country’s Government. It is, after all, doing more than any other Government to provide a gateway for flights and to enable the operation of Kabul airport, where desolate and desperate Afghan refugees can be cared for and passed on. For that we should all be grateful.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, for securing this debate. I declare an interest as co-founder of the school in Kabul.
Afghanistan has been a heavily aid-dependent country for many decades. The withholding of multilateral aid and assistance funds affects not only the vulnerable groups in Afghanistan but a sizeable percentage of the entire population. The urgent need is for bulk food aid and efficient distribution mechanisms. Neither of these can be guaranteed, but given that there are still small independent NGOs working, often at village level, can the Government spell out what plans they have to recruit organisations such as Afghanaid to assist in the delivery of food to rural areas? The major food tonnage will, I guess, come from the World Food Programme, but has the UK any official presence in Afghanistan to ensure that the remaining longstanding and reliable NGOs are part of the delivery teams, given that they have a good knowledge of where the urgent need is?
Meanwhile, it has to be acknowledged that the massive inputs of aid and humanitarian assistance since 2001, and earlier, have not had a significant impact on poverty reduction. There is growing awareness that humanitarian assistance alone will not support the Afghan people immediately or in the near future. Now might, therefore, be an opportune time to see what lessons can truly be learned and what kind of coherent strategy might be devised to make development assistance work. Thankfully, a new initiative, the UK Humanitarian Innovation Hub, has been set up to adapt and innovate in aid delivery. Its focus will be on working with Afghan people and other experts to provide evidence-based insights and ideas on appropriate aid provision for Afghans.
Given that G20 leaders from around the world have agreed to limited co-operation with the Taliban on aid delivery, it is in the interest of the UK and the international community to strive to get it right this time. I ask the Minister to support these kinds of initiatives by allocating funds, facilitating access and, above all, adopting the results of this collaborative approach.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for tabling this vital debate. There was UN agreement to go into Afghanistan, and we did so. There are, of course, questions about how strategic and integrated that engagement was, but there is no doubt that for a younger generation of Afghans, particularly women and girls, that intervention enhanced their life opportunities, as we have heard. We either mattered little to the Americans when they unilaterally decided to pull out, or we failed to pick up their warnings. That withdrawal has been disastrous, as we have heard. We owe so much to those who worked with us and inched the country forward. They trusted us.
Given the time available, my focus will be on those who wish to leave. I appreciated the Minister’s efforts in those desperate days as the Taliban took control of the country and the allies beat a very hasty retreat. He sought to help the individuals who were in extreme danger. There was much media coverage at the time, and in the heat of that, the Government created the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. As the media shifts its focus, the Home Office has failed to open that scheme, even though it was designed and promoted as one to assist those at extreme immediate risk. It is beyond astonishing that this scheme is not yet open.
The FCDO and the Minister’s office used to be at the forefront in trying to assist those in danger. Now, I am afraid that they block the door, even in cases I have been dealing with of the most obviously deserving candidates: parliamentarians at extreme risk. In an Answer to a Written Question that I tabled, I was told by the Home Office:
“The Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme is not yet open and remains under development.”
It also makes it clear that it is pulling up the drawbridge. Those who are already here will be counted into this scheme, even though it was promoted for those still stranded in the country. I want the Minister to tell me honestly: does he expect this scheme ever to be opened? If it is, will it simply count those who are already here, so that those who have not made it here, but, as he knows, most certainly qualify, will never stand a chance of being included? I look forward to his full response.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I shall briefly anticipate the next debate and urge the Minister to secure the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, because the Government need to prove that global Britain means something.
I thank my noble friend Lord Roberts for this debate, timely as it is. As the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, said, the crisis in Afghanistan is substantially of our—NATO and the West’s—making. What the US call the “never-ending war” actually ended several years ago in terms of NATO engagement. Thanks to NATO mentoring and air cover, the resistance to insurgency was carried on by the Afghan forces, who took heavy casualties. The announced and dated referenced withdrawal of NATO support left the Afghan forces demoralised and no longer able to resist the Taliban.
The Taliban took over the country facing minimal resistance, yet it does not have the capacity to govern a country radically different from the one it left 20 years ago. However corrupt and dysfunctional the country was under Karzai and Ghani, basic services existed and the economy functioned enough to feed and support most people, even if poorly. With no money, no administrative experience and the departure or going into hiding of many of the people who kept the country functioning, the Taliban is presiding over disintegration into chaos, hunger and deprivation, with unpredictable but potentially disastrous consequences.
As a matter of urgency, the UK should take a lead in convening the international community—including Afghan’s neighbouring countries, which are especially vulnerable—at a crisis humanitarian meeting. So, having failed to persuade the US to stop the abandonment of Afghanistan to the mercies of the Taliban, will the UK Government seek engagement with NATO allies to secure the means of getting humanitarian relief to the beleaguered people of Afghanistan whom we so shamefully abandoned?
There is no need to recognise the Taliban Government, but there is a need to engage to ensure that essentials get through; the Taliban know this, and failure will lead to its displacement by a variety of uglier and even more destabilising alternatives. Otherwise, the country will become ungovernable and an agent for all the hostile and radical forces that threaten the stability of the region and the wider world. The irony is that the cost of retrieving the situation caused by the irresponsible disengagement is likely to be many times greater in money, lives and security than if we had maintained our presence. The reality is that neighbouring countries feel threatened, the region is in chaos and we are responsible, so we must act. Will the UK Government step up and take a lead?
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for securing this important debate today. In humanitarian emergencies, fast and pragmatic action is required if the response is to be effective. There is a real concern that when it comes to our obligations in Afghanistan, speed and pragmatism are in short supply.
When we speak about working at pace to open a resettlement scheme that was promised three months ago, or about our leading role in international aid and our generosity to genuine refugees, for whose benefit is that? It sometimes seems that our aim is to reassure the domestic audience that, on the one hand, we are doing the right thing, while on the other hand we will not allow overgenerous aid commitments to detract from domestic priorities and we will do all we can to keep out illegal migrants. The international audience may be harder to convince that we are doing the right thing to address the plight of Afghans. The real worry from a humanitarian standpoint is that it is not realistic to reconcile these competing goals in the way the Government seem determined to do. Putting domestic considerations first will continue to mean too little, too late.
It was clear back in August that food production and supply chains in Afghanistan would face catastrophic disruption, with predictably calamitous consequences for Afghan families, including women and girls, who were left behind. Our obligations to Afghans who associated with us were equally clear, yet the resettlement scheme announced three months ago, in full knowledge of the obstacles, remains but a promise. The matter is urgent, even more so now with winter approaching and the uncertain window of opportunity for Afghans to leave at risk of closing soon. Will the Minister provide not only reassurance but clarity on what outcomes can be expected and when?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like many noble Lords taking part in this debate, I have been receiving a continual flow of desperate emails from people in Afghanistan begging for help. I have been forwarding them to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to the address we have been supplied, and I thank the Minister for responding to one of those emails at 2.19 pm this afternoon. It concerned the case of a female journalist, who I will not name for obvious reasons. The response says, basically, “Here is the government website” and it lists the schemes, which I suspect is what others who are nodding at me have also received. My question for the Minister is, will a female journalist—someone in that category; I am not asking about the specific case—receive help from the British Government under any of those schemes? This journalist is in contact; the department has her email address and her details; will she receive help?
I turn to the broader issue of the many millions of people who will of course continue to be in Afghanistan. I recently spoke at a meeting held by the South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group, known as SYMAAG. Two Afghan women living in the UK also spoke at that event, and I want to bring their perspectives to your Lordships’ House. They illustrate what I acknowledge is an enormously difficult situation for the Government in trying to weigh up the problem.
This was expressed by Sahraa Karimi, an Afghan film director, who said that the Taliban is terrorising and murdering—the “only thing they know”. She pleaded that we do not do anything that would support the Taliban regime, for reasons we understand. We also heard from Dr Weeda Mehran, a senior lecturer at Exeter University, who said, as have noble Lords, that there is the most desperate humanitarian situation in Afghanistan and that we cannot allow people to be left to freeze or starve.
This is an enormously difficult situation. All I can really hope to hear from the Minister is a real grasp of its delicacy and balance, in thinking about our foreign policy. Like others here, I have just come from an event with the APPG on Drones and Modern Conflict, which talked about the damage that our actions have done around the world. We have to operate on a “first do no harm” principle. That is where our foreign policy should start, but we should also acknowledge that there is a situation in which we have to act. I hope to hear from the Minister something that reflects an understanding of that situation.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I also very warmly commend my noble friend Lord Roberts for securing this very important debate. I commend his essential humanity in what he brings to this Chamber and how he does so.
I have been struck over recent months by the stark contrast between the urgency of the withdrawal and the lack of urgency in the humanitarian response. That has been the thread running through the contributions in this debate. I commend my noble friends Lady Smith, Lady Northover and Lord Bruce for their very powerful contributions.
My noble friend Lady Northover asked very specific and deliberate questions on the settlement scheme; I hope the Minister has a very clear answer that those who are currently in the UK will not be counted towards that. When I chaired a round table last week with charities and NGOs that have staff in Afghanistan, they aired their frustration about the Home Office’s work at the moment. My noble friend Lady Northover is absolutely right. The lack of a senior official co-ordinating the cross-departmental work is obvious.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, indicated that the humanitarian challenges already existed and that we knew that, with Covid and drought, there would be humanitarian challenges in Afghanistan before the withdrawal. But what has happened since has been heart-rending.
My noble friend Lady Smith and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, indicated the particular impact on women. There are 700,000 pregnant women in Afghanistan at the moment. Almost all of them will now have to give birth in dangerous conditions and all of them are likely to bring up children who will have acute malnutrition. Of the 23 million people who now face insecurity, those in rural areas are particularly affected. All 34 provinces now have food insecurity alerts.
Charities and NGOs have a particular, urgent challenge at the moment. There is no agreement among the P5 or the UN on the release of finance and banking support to allow our charities to do their work. The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation has provided guidance and advice, but there is still no clarity as to how British charities and international organisations can work with the de facto regime. That challenge was shown in stark reality when one charity told me that it is currently spending more on lawyers to work through how it can be on the right side of the sanctions regime than it is on releasing finance to those Afghans who need it.
My noble friend Lord Bruce indicated that, if global Britain means anything, it is convening power. Will the Minister please ensure that there is clarity at the United Nations on the sanctions situation so that we can release support and allow our charities and NGOs to do the good work that is so desperately needed?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for initiating this debate. I also thank the Minister for all his help with Members of both Houses to get their constituents, families and other people out of Afghanistan. He worked tirelessly and we owe him a tribute for that. We also owe a tremendous debt of gratitude for the work, not just of the past few months but of the past 20 years, of our servicepeople, who gave Afghan women and girls a level of freedom and empowerment that they would never have previously imagined.
As we have heard in the debate, from all noble Lords, the humanitarian situation is dire. I welcome the £286 million pledge for 2021 and acknowledge the £30 million for Afghanistan’s neighbours to ensure regional stability and support for refugees. As the noble Lord has rightly said before, aid will be delivered through international organisations such as the UN, rather than directly through Taliban authorities. That is absolutely right. However, as noble Lords raised in this debate, we need to know the steps the Government are taking to ensure that these agencies can get to the parts of the country that are in most need.
I met the Governor of Punjab at the beginning of the week. He also made it clear that conditions must be placed on the Taliban, including protection for women and girls. How do we hold the Taliban to its promises? Recent evidence from human rights organisations suggests that it is not holding to them.
A real focus of this debate has been the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and why it is not open for applications. I think everyone in this Chamber heard the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, say last Thursday that the Government were “still working” on the scheme
“at pace to try to get it up and running.”—[Official Report, 25/11/21; col. 1013.]
But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said, people’s lives are at stake. It is a matter of urgency. We cannot wait months and months and we need action as soon as possible. What is the cause of the delay? Victoria Atkins said that
“we are very much in the hands of our international partners”
on
“safe and legal routes through Afghanistan”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/11/21; col. 12.]
I hope the Minister can explain just what discussions we are having with our partners and allies in progressing this most important humanitarian support.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their insightful and valuable contributions. I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, for tabling this important and timely debate. We are, of course, focusing on a very sensitive but equally very important and key issue for the global community, in particular the humanitarian situation currently prevailing in Afghanistan, as well as the Afghan citizens settlement scheme.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt—who indeed has direct experience of this—in recognising and valuing, as we all do, the incredible sacrifice, bravery and service of all those from the military and the voluntary sector who have worked tirelessly over many years in Afghanistan. Those like me who had an opportunity to visit during those 20 years before the Taliban takeover will have seen what has been delivered, particularly by our servicemen and, of course, to the women of Afghanistan. Several noble Lords mentioned the women.
I assure noble Lords that in our planning, policy and programming, I certainly, for one, have not relented in my focus on the importance of Afghanistan. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, rightly drew attention to the perilous plight of people within Afghanistan—a mother to a child. I have not just seen those images; I have heard direct testimonies. Irrespective of what responsibility one holds, I assure all noble Lords that I waste no time. I seek to make no excuses. We need to help and we need to help now. The situation is acute.
It is a matter of deep regret; here I join the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, knows from our experience of working together, as does the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about those desperate times when, basically, NATO left. If up to £9 billion is being pumped into a country which is reliant on development support and assistance and that tap is suddenly switched off, of course there is going to be an impact.
I hope that with some of my words—but, more importantly, with the actions I demonstrate—I will be able to address some of the concerns, particularly the key concerns that my noble friend Lady Hodgson raised. I pay tribute to her work, particularly with Afghan women. My noble friend works directly with incredible women such as Fawzia Koofi, Hasina Saifi and Fatima Gailani. I have met them directly to continue to ensure that we retain a direct focus on the women and girls of Afghanistan.
The Government fully share the concerns expressed by noble Lords but, more than that, we fully recognise the suffering of the Afghan people. The latest figures from the World Food Programme—I recently spoke directly to David Beasley of the WFP—and the Food and Agriculture Organization suggest that over 18 million Afghans, or 42% of the population, are today suffering “crisis” or “emergency” levels of acute malnutrition. The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, also drew attention to this very issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, reminded us in his opening remarks, and as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, as winter sets in, projections point towards 23 million Afghans being in similar peril by the first quarter of next year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reminded us, the situation for children is especially alarming. Half of all children under five—around 3.2 million—are expected to suffer from acute malnutrition by the end of this year.
In short, I do not hide behind any words or pull any punches: Afghanistan is in a crisis, and we need to act. There are many drivers of this crisis; one can cite conflict, chronic poverty, Covid and drought. Most recently, there are two other key factors at play. First, there has been a sharp contraction in the Afghan economy after the Taliban takeover, with less work available, which leads to rising food prices and a lack of essential items. Secondly, there has been a reduction in the provision of very basic services, including basic sanitation and healthcare.
First, in diplomatic terms, the UK has been at the forefront of efforts to address this. We are using our presidency of the G7 to mobilise and co-ordinate donors, as several noble Lords noted. The next step in our continued diplomacy is a special session on Afghanistan, led by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, when foreign and development Ministers meet in Liverpool on 10 and 12 December. This is a specific item on the agenda.
During the last few months, I have engaged extensively with key UN partners and continue to do so—including, last week, with Deborah Lyons, among others. Over the last few weeks and months, I have been in regular contact with Amina Mohammed, the Deputy Secretary-General of the UN; Filippo Grandi, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees; Henrietta Fore at UNICEF; David Beasley at the World Food Programme; Peter Maurer at the ICRC; and Achim Steiner, director of the UNDP. This is to ensure that we are directly informed about what the barriers and issues are and how we can ensure that humanitarian support reaches Afghanistan.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly pointed to the importance of cash flow. I am talking to the near neighbours of Afghanistan—particularly Uzbekistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan—and each and every one highlights the issue of cash flow. As the noble Lord may be aware, we were instrumental in persuading the World Bank’s board to agree on 30 November to release $280 million from the Afghanistan reconstruction fund to support basic health services and the humanitarian response.
But we cannot just sit on that. I am currently engaging—and I hope to engage directly tomorrow with our UN ambassador, Dame Barbara Woodward, to get an update—on what further efforts can be made to unlock some of the issues, particularly the point the noble Lord raised about sanctions and the UN. There are workarounds, as we have seen in previous crises and humanitarian responses. We are encouraging the World Bank and its shareholders to repurpose the remaining $1.2 billion in the fund as soon as possible.
Nationally, the Prime Minister has committed to double our assistance for Afghanistan to £286 million for this financial year. On 31 October, he allocated £50 million for immediate humanitarian needs, and I can tell noble Lords that this has been disbursed. I have worked through this—not just on the specifics of announcements of a million here or a million there, but on where this is going, where it has got to, whether it has left our accounts, and whether it has reached the people we need to reach.
I assure the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, that, through the engagement I am having, we are working on identifying the local agencies that are still operational and continue to provide support unhindered so that we can support their activities. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Hodgson mentioned the Aga Khan Development Network; it is one such agency that we are engaging with directly. This is in addition to the £30 million mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for our work with neighbouring countries as an immediate response to the challenge that they face on their borders.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that we are dealing with this with the urgency required in terms of both engagement and the parameters and challenges that exist, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, suggested. Most recently, in terms of additional support, we have disbursed £70 million of aid to Afghanistan in total, with £10 million for Afghans in the region. Specifically, we included £18 million for the Afghanistan Humanitarian Fund and £20 million for the World Food Programme. I am pleased to be able to say that the UN is now able to get larger sums of cash, notwithstanding the restrictions, into the country despite the lack of liquidity in the banking system. I assure noble Lords that funds are reaching Afghans in need and we are working intrinsically and closely with key partners on the ground. I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in paying tribute to the humanitarian aid workers who are committed to saving lives in Afghanistan in such difficult circumstances.
In addition to our aid, the Government are encouraging the region to step up its vital role in influencing the Taliban—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt. I assure him that we are doing just that. Sir Simon Gass is engaging directly; I met him today and hope to talk to him in detail again tomorrow. We are also talking to the likes of India, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which my noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned specifically. In that regard, I have met the excellent Minister responsible for the resettlement, and we continue to work closely with regional partners including Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.
We have been addressing the humanitarian situation closely. This has been a key part of our engagement at an operational level with the Taliban, including through the key provisions of the Security Council resolution on unhindered access, respecting human rights and, of course, providing for those Afghans who wish to leave. The Taliban has assured us but the proof will be in the pudding and the action that we demonstrably see; of course, at times, we get alarming reports of a regression in human rights. As I have said before, in my view, the Taliban has not changed. It is a regressive organisation that does not believe in human rights as any of us, or any person of faith, sees them. However, we are working with the situation that we currently face.
On the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, to be clear, there are two schemes. The ACRS is in addition to our ARAP scheme—or, to give it its full title, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, talked specifically about the British Council; as she knows, I am live to those issues. I assure noble Lords, on the cases that come across my desk, that when a specific and general answer is given, it does register it. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I will directly follow up. Yes, there are female journalists who have already arrived in the UK, but we continue to work with them and there is more to be done in that sphere.
I will not go through what the Home Office has already said in terms of what has been published—noble Lords are fully aware of that—but I know that the Home Office is working closely with the UNHCR to finalise the scheme. As my noble friend Lady Williams, the Minister of State at the Home Office, said only last week, we are looking to announce the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis—and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in her customary manner—asked me to be honest. I always am. Do I think that the scheme will be announced? Yes, I do.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the numbers. Of the 15,000 Afghans we have evacuated, 500 were particularly vulnerable, including Chevening scholars, journalists, human rights defenders and campaigners for women. Some of those people will form part of the first 5,000 who we will settle under the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme but I look forward to working directly with noble Lords alongside my colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that all routes are fully explained and that we continue to work to relieve the pressure on vulnerable Afghans within Afghanistan, as well as support those who have already arrived. I can assure noble Lords that we are working across government to ensure that those priorities are fully realised and actioned.
This is an ongoing chapter. We cannot be in any way immune from what we saw in August. Yes, headlines move on but if our commitment over the past 20 years is to mean anything to Afghanistan, it means that we will remain vigilant and focused. I assure noble Lords that, as the Minister responsible for the Afghanistan brief, I continue to engage directly to ensure that, first, the humanitarian support urgently reaches the people it needs to and, secondly, that more support will continue to be released. I will share with noble Lords the details, as I have done today, in further briefings that I will be giving on specific support that we are giving within country. I, like other noble Lords, fully hope that the ACRS scheme is up and running so that we can continue to provide the support needed, both through the ARAP scheme and the ACRS to the vulnerable Afghans who wish to leave.
Finally, I should say, as is often said—I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for his kind words in my direction—that my thanks go to all noble Lords because their continued vigilance, action, lobbying and bringing these cases forward makes sure that the Government also remain accountable to the commitments that they have given.
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House takes note of the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the case for further action by Her Majesty’s Government to secure her release.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, for five and a half years, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has been held in Iran, often in isolation and separated from her baby daughter, robbing her of motherhood and Gabriella of her childhood. Like many noble Lords, I visited Richard Ratcliffe, her husband, outside the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office during his recent hunger strike. No one can fail to admire his determination and incredible resolve in his campaign to seek the release of his wife.
Just a couple of weeks ago, I had the opportunity to be at the Magnitsky awards in Westminster Central Hall when I saw that same resolve in a young person. All those present witnessed the deeply moving part of the ceremony when Nazanin’s daughter Gabriella accepted the award for Courage Under Fire on behalf of her mother. Gabriella was just 22 months old when her mother, a project co-ordinator for the Thomson Reuters Foundation was arrested in April 2016 at Tehran Airport, just as they were travelling back to the UK. Iran claimed that she was a spy and, in September 2016, she was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.
In March 2019, the then Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, announced that the UK Government were giving Nazanin diplomatic protection. At the time, the Government said that this
“represents formal recognition by the British Government that her treatment fails to meet Iran’s obligations under international law and elevates it to a formal State to State issue.”
Nazanin is the first British national to be granted diplomatic protection since 1951, so can the Minister tell us how the Government have treated her case differently from other consular cases? Under Theresa May’s premiership, at least six trips were undertaken by five different Ministers to solve Nazanin’s case. Why has no Minister been sent to Iran for this purpose under Boris Johnson’s premiership, despite the assertion of diplomatic protection? Nazanin’s status of diplomatic protection means that her ongoing torture is an injury to the United Kingdom itself. What are the Government doing to exercise diplomatic protection for Nazanin and to challenge the fact that she has been tortured?
On 17 March 2020, Nazanin was released from prison under house arrest and allowed to stay at her parents’ home in Tehran. This was partly because of coronavirus. The conditions of her house arrest included wearing an ankle tag and remaining within 300 metres of her parents’ home. In September 2020, it was announced that Nazanin was facing a new charge. A new trial commenced in November 2020, but it was adjourned. Nazanin’s original sentence ended in March 2021. She had her ankle tag removed. However, a week later, she had to attend court for a hearing on a new charge against her, relating to her attendance at a demonstration outside the Iranian embassy in London 12 years ago. She was sentenced to a further year in prison, to be followed by a one-year travel ban. In October 2021, she lost her appeal against this sentence. She now faces the prospect of being returned to prison at any time and of not seeing her husband and daughter until 2023.
It is now well over 2,000 days since Nazanin was first detained. This is an unimaginable ordeal for her and her family. Recent talks between the Government and the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister did not result in any progress. Nor has there been progress in the cases of other British nationals, including Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz. Both men are not in good health. Like Nazanin, they are being arbitrarily detained on spurious, fabricated charges. Anoosheh Ashoori has not been allowed out of prison. His family applied for diplomatic protection for him in April 2021. What consideration has been given to this request? What was the outcome? Morad Tahbaz was one of eight conservationists held by the Iranian authorities. Amnesty International has said that there was evidence that those eight had been tortured to obtain false confessions.
During the last debate on the detention of British nationals, noble Lords across the House raised the debt of £400 million which Britain owes Iran. The money was paid by Iran to the United Kingdom more than 40 years ago for 1,500 Chieftain tanks, which were never delivered. The Government have said that bank transfer transactions are not possible because of restrictions but, as we all know, if the Government had the will to settle the debt, one way or another, the payment would be made.
No one is suggesting that our Government should pay any sort of ransom. If the money is owed—and there is no question but that that is the case—the debt should be settled. When the Prime Minister was Foreign Secretary, he made a promise to Richard Ratcliffe that the debt would be paid. Significantly, in 2014, the current Defence Secretary described the unpaid debt as “a sorry story”. He said that the whole issue had been,
“marred by double dealing and obfuscation.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/3/14; col. 103WH.]
More recently, a number of distinguished former Foreign Secretaries—Conservative and Labour—have said that the debt should be paid. That is also the view of many international and legal commentators and it is the view of the Opposition as well. Jeremy Hunt, a former Foreign Secretary, said that it was not about paying a ransom; it was about the UK’s credibility and doing what is right.
In our last debate on this subject on 15 November 2021, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, insisted that
“it is not helpful in any way to connect wider bilateral issues with those arbitrarily detained in Iran.”—[Official Report, 15/11/21; col. 16.]
Does the Minister acknowledge that Nazanin and her family have been told on numerous occasions that payment of the £400 million IMS debt is key to her release? I hope he will respond to this.
On numerous occasions, we have been told by the Government, including the Minister, that they are doing their best, but, for more than five years, British Governments have tried and failed to secure the release of Nazanin and the other British nationals. If there was a government strategy during this time, it has clearly failed. Richard Ratcliffe puts it in a slightly different way, describing the Government’s policy as a “policy of waiting”. Now is surely the time to be vigorous and determined. Nazanin, Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz and all the British nationals—that is what they are—need to be brought back home. The time for discreet pressure and cautious words is long past.
I suspect that the question that is in the minds of most noble Lords today is: how is it that, in recent years, countries such as the United States, Australia, France and Germany have all successfully negotiated the release of their citizens arbitrarily detained in Iran? Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us what those countries have been doing right and what we have been doing wrong. All noble Lords want to hear from the Minister today that the Government have a strategy and a plan of action for bringing our people home.
I conclude with questions on what actions might be part of that plan. How will the Government use the political will behind the Canada-led Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations, which they joined in February this year, to challenge Iran’s systematic hostage-taking? Will the Government acknowledge that Nazanin and other British nationals arbitrarily detained in Iran, including Anoosheh Ashoori, are hostages in accordance with the Taking of Hostages Act 1982? Will the Government commit to finding international solutions to Iran’s systematic hostage-taking at the upcoming democracy summit, initiated by President Biden, on 9 and 10 December?
The Free Nazanin campaign submitted an evidence file identifying 10 perpetrators of Iran’s hostage-taking, requesting that they be subjected to asset freezes and travel bans, using the Magnitsky sanctions. I know how the Minister will reply: he will resist any questions on planned designations. But I hope today he will confirm that Magnitsky sanctions will form part of the plan of action.
I look forward to hearing not only the Minister’s response but the contributions of all noble Lords across the House this afternoon. In particular, I welcome the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, and I look forward to hearing her contribution. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I express gratitude to my noble friend Lord Collins for initiating the debate and laying out the arguments so clearly. Really, all we need is the Minister’s response to his speech, but the rest of us are here in support. I was talking to a Member of this House who has spoken on this subject on previous occasions but said that he was not disposed to speak again today. I said that I wanted to speak again today to show support for Richard Ratcliffe and Nazanin. We need to show that support.
When we had our debate on this recently, I said to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that we would keep on going—what other choice do we have? We feel that this is an abuse of human rights and the rights of the family, and that what has happened to Nazanin is totally illegal. We will just keep going. If that sounds repetitive, it is, because we have no other choice—what else can we do? If the Minister could suggest some other course of action to us, we would take it.
I will repeat one or two of the questions that my noble friend put in his opening speech. How is it that the United States has got its nationals released, as have Australia, France and Germany? What have they done that we cannot? What have they conceded? Have they done something that is wrong in principle? They have managed to get their nationals out; surely to goodness we should be looking at what they have done and at why we cannot do the same.
Many of us went to see Richard Ratcliffe when he was on hunger strike outside the Foreign Office. He is a brave man; he is committed; he is principled; he understands the issues—he has a better understanding of the politics of what is going on than most of us, I dare say. His level of commitment and faith that he will eventually get his wife back here is evident. It takes a lot of tenacity for an individual to keep going like that. He stayed on hunger strike a long time; he was very hungry and cold. Someone said he should stop, for the sake of his wife and daughter, because his health could be in danger. Some of his family are doctors and said the same thing, so I am glad that he stopped. But what an effort of principle it was on his part. Perhaps some of us should have joined him on his hunger strike—although that may have been asking too much of parliamentary colleagues. Richard certainly set an example of tenacity of purpose.
Jeremy Hunt, as Foreign Secretary, and the Defence Secretary both said that the money that we owed was not ransom, and an international court supported that. I do not understand two of the comments made by Ministers in earlier debates: that the issue of the money was complicated and that raising it was unhelpful. Will the Minister say what is meant by “complicated” and “unhelpful”? It is a straightforward commitment. The Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, said that we owed the money; everyone else says that we owe the money. What is unhelpful about saying that we as a country have a debt and we pay our debts? That is our principle. We support the rule of law. It is precisely because the Iranians are not supporting the rule of law that this terrible situation has arisen, and those of the other British nationals held there.
What, therefore, is complicated and unhelpful about raising this issue? If the £400 million is not a ransom, and the present Prime Minister promised that the debt would be paid, what is happening? Why cannot that debt be paid? Everyone who was at the hunger strike supporting Richard asked why the ransom was not being paid. Nobody can understand it. Somewhere in the depths of the Foreign Office there may be some explanation of it, but we have not heard it at all.
The Government used the status of diplomatic protection to try to give Nazanin some help. I wonder how we have used that diplomatic protection. When she was back in court recently and got a further sentence, the British Embassy, as I understand it, did not go to the court to support her. On another recent occasion, officials from the German Embassy went to the court. They were not allowed in to the trial of one of their nationals but they had a chance to talk to the judge—that surely was at least something. Why is our embassy not willing to go there and be supportive? When her daughter, Gabriella, sent presents, no embassy official delivered them—an embassy driver took them to where she was under house arrest. I do not understand why we are being so shabby. Why are we not doing more? Why are we not up front in our support for this wronged woman who has been treated so appallingly badly?
In February, I think, Canada led an initiative, which we backed, against the arbitrary detention of foreign nationals. What are our Government doing about that? If ever there was a case of arbitrary detention of foreign nationals, it is the British nationals in Iran, including Nazanin. Did not Dominic Raab, when he was Foreign Secretary, acknowledge that she was being tortured—that the way in which she was being detained was tantamount to torture? Torture is surely one of the worst things. Every international convention is against torture; as a Government we are totally against it. It is appalling and abhorrent. Why are we not saying more about that?
Lastly, in terms of action, my noble friend talked about Magnitsky sanctions. We have to do something. If the Government are not willing to act, we have to do something, and Magnitsky sanctions at least offer some way forward.
May I put a question to the Minister that I have asked him before? I believe that there is something else going on. I do not know what it is but there is some reason, in the depths of the Foreign Office, why we cannot move and pay the money. There is something holding us back. We cannot be afraid of US sanctions, because the Americans have breached their own sanctions, so what are we afraid of? What are we apprehensive about? How will our status in the world be undermined? Surely to goodness, we are entitled to know what the argument is. The Minister can play a very dead bat; he has a wide respect in the House for the person he is, and I know he is trying to be helpful. I do not blame him for this, but he is the only person we can shout at here, so I am shouting at him. There is some reason why this is not moving forward, and I would dearly like to know what it is. One day, in 30 years’ time, when the books are open, we will find out, but we would like to know now why this is not happening. I urge the Government to move quickly for the sake of a decent woman, a little girl and a husband who has been battling for her release.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I was introduced to the House barely a month ago, having recently taken up my post as Bishop of Chelmsford, that vast and wonderful diocese that covers the whole of Essex and east London. It is a privilege to serve this diocese, which is complex, diverse and full of opportunities and challenges. Today, I thank everyone here who has offered me the warmest of welcomes. I am immensely grateful, in particular, for the help and support that I have received from staff and officials.
I have a deep and personal interest in the subject of this debate. Not only have I met Richard Ratcliffe and followed the story of Nazanin over the years, but I myself originally come from Iran. Born and brought up there, I left as a teenager during the Islamic Revolution, following difficult and traumatic circumstances. I was born into a Christian household, my father having been a convert from Islam to Christianity, in a small village in the centre of Iran. We were part of the tiny Anglican Church in Iran, which, when I was growing up in the 1970s, was made up primarily of converts and second- and third-generation Christians.
Our small community was hit hard when the revolution ushered in a period of unrest and chaos, and the church experienced a season of intense persecution. Properties were confiscated, financial assets were frozen and one of our clergy was murdered in his study. My father, who was by then bishop of the church, was briefly imprisoned before an attack on his life, which he survived but in which my mother was injured. In May 1980, my 24 year-old brother had his car ambushed on his way home from work. Two men got in next to him, and after a brief conversation witnessed by passers-by, he was shot in the head and died instantly. No arrests were ever made, no court case was followed and no explanation was offered for his murder. It was soon after this that I found myself in this country, originally with refugee status and eventually as a British citizen.
I have experienced first-hand the sting of injustice—injustice born of being caught up in events that are bigger than we are and in the face of which we are powerless. I remember well the chilling experience of a hand hovering over my father’s as he went to pick up the phone while our home was being raided by the authorities. It was a hand that prevented him calling for assistance as he helplessly watched the house being ransacked and his belongings destroyed. None of this, however, has left me bitter or with ill will towards my homeland or my countryfolk—far from it. I retain a deep love for Iran and her people, and a desire to work for reconciliation with those of other faiths and across all the divides that we create as human beings.
All of this brings me to today’s debate and to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, her husband Richard, and their daughter and wider family. Resolving this situation, this great injustice, to reunite a family who are innocent pawns in power struggles that have nothing to do with them requires the best of both civilisations involved—Persian and British. Iran is a land with a rich culture. It has produced some of the greatest poets, architects, artists and scientists over its long and distinguished history. At the time of King Cyrus the Great, the Persian Empire arguably gave birth to the notion of religious tolerance. Cyrus was King of Persia in the sixth century BCE. Having conquered Babylon and liberated the Jews from captivity, he decreed that the Temple in Jerusalem be rebuilt, so that any Jews choosing to return could worship freely. Cyrus modelled a way for people of difference to live alongside one another in peace, and the Cyrus cylinder or charter still stands today as a testament to this ideal in the British Museum.
British civilisation is also built on principles of compassion, tolerance and justice. These are thoroughly British values from which I and many other refugees, immigrants and asylum seekers have benefited over the years. But, at their heart, compassion, justice and tolerance are more than words. To have their fullest meaning, they must be lived—demonstrated in deed as well as word. In the case of Nazanin, we must see these principles enacted now. We need meaningful action, which demands that both countries involved draw on the best of their traditions.
The British Government have acknowledged that this country owes a debt to Iran that is now 40 years overdue. As has already been said, this is not ransom money; it is a long-standing obligation. The payment of this debt would demonstrate something crucial about how Britain chooses to play her part in the world, with integrity and decency, honesty and trust- worthiness. If Britain fulfils her obligations, Iran too must act from the best of her traditions, which exemplify beauty, honour, truth and respect.
Finally, Nazanin and other British-Persian dual nationals, among them Anoosheh Ashoori and Morad Tahbaz, are embroiled in a great injustice not of their own making, in the face of which they are utterly powerless. There are, however, powers at play that can effect change and right this terrible wrong. I urge the Minister to use what authority he has to help unlock this intractable situation by paying the debt owed, so that we
“let justice roll down like waters and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream.”
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on her excellent maiden speech and to welcome her to this House. She brings an extraordinary array of talents, including, I am pleased to see, academic and musical distinction, and a unique set of experiences as a member of a persecuted church in Iran. We heard how she suffered huge family trauma at the time of the Iranian revolution, arrived in the UK as a refugee and then built a life of service in the Church here. As I am sure noble Lords agree, we will learn a lot from her contributions, and it is a privilege to follow her in today’s debate.
I start by paying tribute to Nazanin’s husband Richard. I have never met Richard, but I have learned a lot about tenacity, courage, honesty and devotion from watching him fight for the release of his wife—his daughter Gabriella’s mum. I send my very best wishes, as I am sure other noble Lords do, to Richard and Gabriella today.
I want to ask the Minister about one issue, which is that raised by all former speakers, of the debt of approximately £400 million. I realise this is sensitive, given the other things going on, but we know that this debt stems from a weapons deal with the Shah of Iran in the late 1970s, for which Iran paid £600 million and received only a fraction of the vehicles ordered. The culture of secrecy around this issue is extraordinary. To some extent, it is understandable but, beyond that, it is extraordinary.
We do know a number of things about this, however. First, the FCDO has been told on numerous occasions by Iran that the settlement of this debt is vital for securing the release of Nazanin. Secondly, in the course of 20 years of arbitration in the Hague, the UK lost both a claim against it by Iran for payment and its own counterclaim launched in 1996. It also lost a final appeal against these rulings in 2009. This debt is therefore clearly owed by us to Iran, and the law requires it to be paid, whatever our private views on the issue might be. Thirdly, as my noble friend Lord Collins eloquently set out, we know of many former Foreign Secretaries’ views, and we know in particular that Jeremy Hunt came to the view that this money was not an illegitimate demand or an attempt at extortion but an unpaid debt. Fourthly, we know that in September 2020, the UK Defence Minister Ben Wallace wrote to Richard Ratcliffe to say that the Government officially acknowledge that this is a debt that must be paid.
This is what we know. Beyond this, the Government tell us—and, more importantly, have told Richard Ratcliffe and his family and supporters—precious little. So, my main question for the Minister is: can he explain give us a very simple reason why this debt has not been paid? Jeremy Hunt said recently that the reason for holding back payment is now about practicalities, not principle. Can the Minister confirm that is true? If it is because of practicalities, could he explain which practicalities are most relevant? Is it because the Iranian Government were made a sanctioned entity in 2008 under EU law, for example? Though, of course, since Brexit, we have famously taken back control of our own sanctions policy. Irrespective of that, since 2008, a UK court has ruled that the debt should be paid, and Iran has asked for it to be repaid via the central bank of Iran, which is not a sanctioned entity. I understand that the UK has never formally responded to that request; can the Minister say why? Perhaps the practicality is that any UK bank involved in any financial transfer would be subject to US Treasury secondary sanctions, which would be a legitimately serious obstacle. Is that the practicality blocking resolution?
Or is it a more straightforward explanation—that UK Ministers just cannot abide the idea of handing over such a substantial sum to an Iranian Government, given their appalling domestic human rights records, their involvement in atrocities abroad and the complexity of issues around the JCPOA, for example? As my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Dubs said, other countries have successfully negotiated release. Similarly, various imaginative ideas have been proposed for circumventing some of the practical problems in the repayment of our debt—paying the debt in kind through medicines, for example, or insisting on explicit Iranian undertaking to use the money for certain agreed purposes. The Government have not engaged—or publicly acknowledged that they are privately engaged—with these ideas. Why not?
One response to this may be that we should not discuss this at all, as it will disturb the sensitivities around negotiations and disrupt the plan. But the problem is that those closest to this issue, the family and supporters of Nazanin, no longer believe there is any plan at all. That is the most concerning thing—that after so much unjustified suffering, the family of Nazanin not only do not know what the strategy is to end her detention but do not believe that there is anything resembling one. That is why Richard Ratcliffe said during his recent hunger strike of the current Government’s approach to his wife’s release:
“The policy is one of managed waiting, waiting for Iran to do the right thing, for a diplomatic solution. There is no strategy to get Naz home, which I said very bluntly to Liz Truss last week. That’s why I’m camping on the street, because after five and a half years that’s really clear.”
For the sake of Nazanin and her husband and daughter, more than any of us, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide at least some clarity about this issue today.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what a beautiful, beautiful, moving contribution that was from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. It is perhaps the finest I have heard in my 20 years as Member of the House.
Having read the 16 November Commons debate and the procedural opinion of the Commons authorities on sub judice, I have to say, surely, whether or not the High Court upholds, IMS’s liability to repay MODSAF should have no bearing whatever on what is essentially a moral argument—one of right or wrong. My comments do not relate to the legal position or the concern of the Commons authorities—only the moral argument.
What is obvious is that in recent months the view of the Commons has become clear and is well documented in Hansard. I cannot understand why the Commons authorities intervened in the way they did. No doubt, the Iranian embassy in London will be closely following events in Parliament. It will now, as we speak, be on live feed, listening to this debate. It will evaluate statements made by Ministers, including our Prime Minister, whose contribution to this debate has been less than helpful.
Let us be in no doubt that the louder the calls for a settlement, the more likely it is that the Iranians will hold out in the belief that a financial settlement is likely to come sooner rather than later. That is the Catch-22 position we are now in. Transparency will inevitably have its price. The louder Parliament shouts, the more resolute they will become. When caught in the headlamps of such a dilemma and in such contradictions, it is best to turn to the principle. To me, it is clear: we owe them money. The so-called niceties, norms, modalities and complexities of international diplomacy are obstacles, but they should be set aside. We have all been brought up to pay our debts, and so should the state. Arguments over the background to the debt are a hindrance, only exacerbating a position that is increasingly indefensible. We owe the money. It is their money. It is not our money. The response of the Government lacks all credibility. I say: pay up, and pay up now.
Perhaps I may say something more controversial. We should ignore our kith and kin in America who, at the moment, are suffering a worldwide-role identity crisis. Trump is a symptom of that. We need to begin a process of rapprochement with Iran and others. We need to rethink our approach to relationships with Islamic states and if, as we heard in the previous debate, we can talk to the Taliban, I am sure we can talk to the Iranians. As the world moves on from oil to renewables, the relationship between oil-dependent Islamic states and the advanced nations, particularly in the West, will change. It will be more problematic. Today’s differences of opinion could turn very ugly indeed, and therefore we should act with very great care.
Finally, the Minister today is bound by his brief and, despite his reputation for frankness, cannot say what he might believe, and I suspect he agrees far more with us than with the brief he has been given. The much respected mantra “We recognise the legal duty to repay the debt and will explore the legal options for doing so”, which we see repeated in all sorts of documents and speeches, is simply not good enough. I hope that the powers that stand behind the Minister are listening to this debate. They should think again and pay up. Parliament says pay up. We should pay up.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)
My Lords, the facts about the arrest of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in April 2016 and her subsequent imprisonment are well known to this House and have been expertly and movingly explained and expounded on by my noble friend Lord Collins and other participants in this debate, so suffice it to say her ordeal is continuing. Her husband, as he began his recent hunger strike outside the Foreign Office, said,
“The reason I’m camped here is that Nazanin has been held for five and a half years, the British Government has not done nearly enough and I have lost faith in their approach.”
Who can blame him for that? Certainly not the group of parliamentarians, including me, from both Houses and all parties who visited him during his hunger strike to show support. It is astonishing that our superb, experienced Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service and, indeed, HMG, have seemed so useless and clumsily inept in this case. I am not sure whether I am more angry or ashamed. In fact, I am probably both about what has happened here.
It has been clear from the start that this and other similar actions from Iran are linked to settlement of the payment of the debt owed by Britain to Iran—a debt confirmed in international arbitration and now accepted as valid by Her Majesty’s Government. Yes, it is reprehensible of Iran to use human beings as hostages and, yes, there are sanctions about transferring money to Iran, not least from the United States. However, the fact is that, although the UK has a correct policy not to pay ransom for kidnapped hostages, this is not a ransom, as other participants have said; it is an acknowledged legal debt to be repaid. As for US sanctions, in May 2016, President Obama paid a similar debt owed by the United States. This was paid in cash and delivered by plane, and therefore did not violate US sanctions in paying the debt back to Iran.
The Government need to get their act together and return Nazanin home to her husband and child, and to the country of which she is a citizen, where she has chosen to live, and whose Government have been letting her down so very badly.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury for bringing forward this opportunity to debate this scandal. He has been dogged in his determination in relation to Nazanin’s case and I know that all noble Lords intend to follow his lead.
I also add to the enormous congratulations to the right reverend Prelate that we have heard already. I have not been around as long as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, but that was certainly the most powerful maiden speech that I have heard or read in either House of Parliament in an adult life of paying close attention to such things.
I declare an interest as a member of 39 Essex Chambers, a status which I have the privilege of sharing with Edwin Glasgow QC, who, as noble Lords will appreciate, wrote a piece in the Times today. I associate myself with that “Thunderer” article and wish to repeat and expand on some of it. This is an occasion on which I will not apologise for an element of repetition because, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, we need keep repeating these arguments until the Government perform what is a fundamental duty of any Government.
It has been said, and let us say again, that this is not a transactional matter. We should pay our debts, which are clearly owing in law. These are debts that have been found owing by our own courts and international tribunals, and they are accepted by Her Majesty’s Government. However, it is not a transactional matter not to pay your debts and not to abide by the rule of law; that will inevitably toxify your relations with the country that feels wronged and make it far less possible to suggest that that country, whoever it is, also upholds international norms. The debt must be paid; every moment it is not, we continue to toxify relations when we should be offering a moral lead, as suggested by the right reverend Prelate, and obeying the rule of law.
That is all that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family have ever asked of their Government. It is a pretty modest request from not just a citizen but one who is supposed to have diplomatic protection. What is diplomatic protection from Her Majesty’s Government worth these days? That is a valid question for any British citizen to ask of the present Government.
We have heard that the Government have hidden behind EU sanctions despite Brexit, and even though they took the post-Brexit opportunity effectively to reinstate the nature of those sanctions. That is an excuse. My noble friend spoke of obfuscation and double-dealing in relation to words that the Government have used, such as “complicated” and “unhelpful”. Those of us on this and other sides of the House know what we believe to be unhelpful in relation to this poor woman’s case.
The United States has been mentioned, in particular by some of my noble friends, but the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, unequivocally confirmed on our much-loved BBC that this is a sovereign decision for the United Kingdom. As my noble friend said a few moments ago, the United States has discharged its own similar debt to Iran.
It is not a pleasant thing to have to say, but the Prime Minister also owes a personal debt of honour in this case. We all know about the gaffe that he made when he was the Foreign Secretary—a pretty tragic gaffe in relation to this poor woman’s case, but he made it. I suggest that that makes this a more personal debt of honour still. We know that he has promised that the debt should be paid. So a specific debt of honour is owed by this Government and this Prime Minister. There is also a wider duty to protect our nationals. I do not want to hear about dual nationality; we know where the Government stand on matters of that kind. This woman is a British national and has diplomatic protection, so the Government must pay their debt to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the Government of Iran. They must uphold the international rule of law.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too start by paying tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for her maiden speech. I appreciate her terrible loss. I was a student at Oxford with her brother, Bahram. I remember a Sunday lunch when we all gathered to wish him well before he went back to Iran after the revolution. We said that he must be careful, but he dismissed us. I can see him now. He said that it was his home and he would be fine. Soon after, we heard of his awful killing. I was astonished as the right reverend Prelate gave the most forgiving, humane speech, paying such tribute to her country of birth despite the pain that she has suffered. I also thank her for her support for Nazanin and her family.
How many times have we raised Nazanin’s case? How much more agony will this poor family, and those of the other British hostages in Iran, need to suffer? It tugs at me that Nazanin and her family have not only been put through hell; I also think of the long-term effect on them. I know that my own children could not be more important to me, and I know that the Minister feels the same about his. Nazanin will suffer because of the potential effect on Gabriella and all that both have lost, as she has grown from babyhood to going to primary school. There is also the fact that Gabriella may be an only child, taking from Nazanin and Richard the possibility that they might have wanted their family to grow.
I hope that we are not going backwards here. I note that, when Richard was bravely and desperately on hunger strike, few Tories came to visit him, with the notable exception of Jeremy Hunt. Of course it is the Iranians, or at least the Revolutionary Guard, who must be held to account here, but perhaps the Minister can take back to his colleagues that Nazanin’s case is cutting through to the public more than they might think. I was knocking up, as you do if you are a Lib Dem on election days, in the by-election in Amersham. A local builder said to me that he was about to vote for us because—this really surprised me—“that poor lady would not still be in prison in Iran” had the then Foreign Secretary not said what he did. This builder did not therefore rate him as Prime Minister.
Yet I pick up no real concern from that Prime Minister or the new Foreign Secretary—or the Middle East Minister, for that matter, unlike some of his predecessors. As others have noted, during Theresa May’s time, there were at least six visits to Iran by five different Ministers to try to resolve Nazanin’s case. Why has no Minister gone to Iran for this purpose under this Government? Despite Covid, Ministers have travelled, as the Minister recognises.
Why, therefore, are the Government failing to use the diplomatic protection granted to Nazanin? Do they recognise the dangers in undermining the credibility of such protections if we fail to follow through? Why do the Government refer to Nazanin and the other British hostages in Iran as “dual nationals” rather than “British citizens”, as other have mentioned? Is that to distance themselves? I am now a dual national of the United Kingdom and Ireland, which I sought, courtesy of my grandmother, post Brexit, so that I could still be an EU citizen. I am sure I am not the only dual citizen in your Lordships’ House. Am I, too, to be abandoned, if in difficulties somewhere around the world?
As we know, Nazanin has repeatedly been told by the Iranians that she is being held as collateral for the UK government debt to Iran, which the UK recognises and the courts have confirmed. I echo others’ questions on this: what exactly are the sanctions issues or legal problems preventing the Government settling this debt? Are we currying favour with the Americans? Have we delayed action at their request for geopolitical reasons?
Do the Government recognise Nazanin as a hostage under the terms of the Taking of Hostages Act 1982? Clearly, being held as a political hostage in this way is absolutely unacceptable, and the Iranian Government should be called out on that. But, in February 2021, as we have heard, the UK backed a Canada-led initiative against such states’ hostage-taking, so how will we now act on it? To echo the noble Lord, Lord Collins: will the Government consider Magnitsky sanctions against those who have already been identified as perpetrators of hostage-taking?
I look forward to the Minister’s response, but, even more than that, I look forward to the Government taking the urgent action that we know has the greatest potential to secure her immediate release, for her sake and for her family.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I join all those who have congratulated the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on a tremendous maiden speech, which moved everyone in the Chamber. We all look forward to her many future contributions, and I congratulate her.
Nazanin has been a prisoner of the Iranian regime for over five long years. Depressingly, there seems to be no end in sight. So far, successive Foreign Secretaries have failed in their efforts to secure her release, with one of them—the present Prime Minister—making a delicate situation rather worse by wrongly describing Nazanin as a journalist and apparently confirming one of the Iranian regime’s trumped-up charges. That moment of British carelessness is of course no excuse for the Iranian regime’s treatment of Nazanin, but it has been used to justify that treatment in the eyes of supporters of the Iranian regime, and it was a costly error.
As many others have said in this debate, another error has been the continued delay in paying Iran our debt of £400 million for the undelivered tanks. I am under no illusions about the nature of the Iranian Government, who remain very hostile to the West in a number of ways. They are under severe sanction for, inter alia, their alleged actions in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, but there is no question that we owe Iran the money, and we should urgently find a way to pay up, as others have done and as President Obama did in 2016, as others have said. We cannot keep hiding behind the need to observe sanctions, thereby conceding the moral high ground to Iran.
I am not naive; I can see why many would not like to provide a large amount of money to this Iranian regime. Nor do I assume that if we paid our debt, the Iranian regime would necessarily release Nazanin and the other UK nationals who are arbitrarily detained. The regime is always ready to invent some new pretext or other to extend the detentions, but while we do not pay our debt, we continue to find it particularly difficult to avoid being labelled by Iran and its allies as feckless. To pay up would not be responding to a ransom demand, as others have said; it would be discharging an obligation.
The UK Government have insisted that there is no link between Nazanin’s detention and the debt. It is certainly the case that if we were to discharge our debt and negotiate with Iran, there could be no guarantees about Nazanin and the other British hostages being released, but not paying the debt is a clear barrier, and other western nations have settled their debts with Tehran and secured the release of citizens. Linkages and trade-offs, by the way, will be central to the success or otherwise of the resumed talks in Austria at the moment between Iran and the western powers, including the UK, on nuclear non-proliferation issues. The Iranians are not strangers to these diplomatic processes, and every opportunity should be taken to negotiate a way forward for Nazanin and the others. So, I join just about everybody who has spoken today to ask the Minister: when will this debt be cleared? What diplomatic processes are under way to negotiate for Nazanin and others who want and deserve a long- overdue release?
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for, as other noble Lords have said, a remarkable and moving maiden speech—a quite extraordinary speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said, it was probably the best speech any of us has heard for a very long time. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for securing this important debate. He was completely right to say that it is not possible to imagine how badly Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe has suffered at the hands of the Iranian dictatorship: kidnapped, imprisoned and denied contact with her family, having done nothing wrong whatever.
It is not possible, either, to imagine the impact this is having on her family. I too was at the Magnitsky awards to see Gabriella receive the Courage Under Fire award on behalf of her mother. I have met her husband on several occasions, in his recent hunger strike outside the Foreign Office and in the previous one outside the Iranian embassy. I pay tribute to him for everything he has done to keep the regime’s treatment of his wife in the public eye and demand that this appalling, awful situation is resolved. I think responsibility for this has to be laid squarely with the Iranian dictatorship, which is not a legitimate, democratic Government elected freely by the Iranian people; it is a brutal, despotic dictatorship that bans opponents, steals elections, executes opponents in Iran and targets them abroad, denies women basic freedoms, kills people for having sex outside marriage and hangs gay men from cranes. This is not a democracy run by reasonable people with whom you can negotiate; it is a brutal regime, as we have heard, that kidnaps citizens of other countries—not just our citizens but citizens from several nations.
It is clearly not correct, in that context, to argue that this is the fault of British Governments over the last 40 years who have not been able to resolve this issue about the defence contract. We should think about what this regime would do with £400 million. It would not be used to help ordinary citizens in Iran, to strengthen the economy, to provide jobs or to improve public services. The regime is not in the least bit interested in the conditions of ordinary Iranians; it does not, after all, allow them the opportunity to vote it out of office. Even with its economy on its knees and people in Iran suffering, it spends billions causing carnage in Iraq and Syria, bankrolling terrorists in Gaza and Lebanon, where it has created chaos and destroyed the economy in that country as well, creating nuclear weapons which threaten to destroy Israel and creating an arms race across the Middle East. That, I am afraid, is what the £400 million would be used for.
I would like to ask the Minister some specific questions. As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, will the Government first acknowledge that Nazanin and the other British nationals arbitrarily detained in Iran are hostages in accordance with the Taking of Hostages Act 1982? Will they commit to finding international solutions to Iran’s systematic hostage taking at the upcoming democracy summit being hosted by the US this month?
Ministers have visited Iran, as we have heard, to try to solve this case in the past. Can the Minister assure the House that that will be happening in future? Will Ministers be visiting Iran to support her and press her case, especially as she has been given diplomatic protection?
What have the Government done with the evidence they received that Nazanin’s treatment amounted to torture, and why have they not raised the torture of Nazanin and other foreign nationals in Iran at the United Nations? Are the Government concerned that paying the regime this money could result in it kidnapping more citizens from other countries in future?
I agree with the noble Lord who said that there must be a plan. I am not asking for discreet pressure or cautious words; I want the Government to increase pressure on the regime to release Nazanin. For example, what assessment have the Government made of the case for much tougher sanctions on the regime, its Ministers and its officials? What assessment have they made for imposing Magnitsky sanctions on the people identified as being involved in the arrest and detention of British citizens? What assessment have they made of the case for the complete proscription of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard—the IRGC—which is responsible for much of the brutal rule of the poor citizens of Iran and the carnage this regime creates across the region more broadly?
Finally, given that other noble Lords have raised the separate issue of the JCPOA negotiations in Vienna, I conclude by urging the Government to adopt a robust approach in these negotiations so that everything possible can be done to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, when the history of this tragic and sad case comes to be written, great credit will be due to my noble friend Lord Collins for having instigated today’s debate which, if nothing else, is about keeping up the pressure which needs to be kept up after so many years. We should all be very grateful to my noble friend for doing that.
I turn to the right reverend Prelate’s maiden speech. It was a very moving personal story, and you could see the reaction of the House to it. It falls to me to congratulate her on her maiden speech, as it did earlier today to congratulate her colleague, who has now left his place, on his maiden speech. I made my maiden speech only seven weeks ago today and had the occasion on a subsequent day to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on his maiden speech, so I have now reached three maiden speeches. I do not know if there are any more Bishops due into the House —someone ought to let me know.
Returning to this case, I, like other noble Lords, walked over to see Richard Ratcliffe when he was on hunger strike outside the FCDO. I echo what was said by my noble friend. It was shameful to see a hunger strike outside our own Foreign Office. I had never met him before. He looked tired, wan, cold and hungry. I did not keep him long. I told him that I had been invited over by my noble friend Lord Dubs and his eyes lit up, I must say, when he heard his name. I did not want to detain him for very long. It was much more important that he talked to the “Today” programme, who were waiting to speak to him, and to “Newsnight” and Channel 4.
It was clear to me, in the very short conversation I had with him, that he does not understand what the Government’s position is on his case, and when I look back to the exchanges we had in this House on 15 November, most of the rest of the House do not understand. I almost feel, again in agreement with my noble friend Lord Dubs, that this is one of those debates where it might have been helpful if the Minister had spoken first. Then we could have examined what he had to tell us—and we are all looking forward to what he has to tell us—to see if we could understand more about the impasse that we face and is being faced now.
When I walked across there, incidentally, I thought of medieval history, because we have a statue of a hostage outside our Chamber, outside Peers’ Entrance. Richard I spent a year as a hostage, if I remember rightly.
I hope I am not being unduly unfair to the British Government, but I am beginning to wonder whether I am lobbying the wrong Government. I would like to explore the relationship between the British and American Governments. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said that, from the American point of view, it is a sovereign decision of a sovereign Government whether to pay the money, but I think everybody in this House today agrees that the money must be paid. Interestingly, I read in an internal briefing—it was not remotely secret in any way; it was just a regular internal briefing—from within the State Department that, on 5 September last year, the then foreign ministry spokesperson for the Iranian Government, Saeed Khatibzadeh, said:
“The payment of the UK debt has nothing to do with the release of the dual prisoners. The UK government definitely has a 40-year debt to Iran, and it makes no difference whether a British official has acknowledged the debt or not.”
I must admit that I have never heard it said that the Iranians do not think there is a link. I would be interested to hear in the Minister’s reply what type of connection and contacts there have been between the Foreign Office and the Iran desk in the State Department.
Regarding the JCPOA talks which began in Vienna, which other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Austin, mentioned, on 21 October this year Robert Malley, who was leading those negotiations as the President’s special envoy, said that he was there
“to have conversations with Iran to deal with regional issues and other issues.”
I would just like to explore whether those other issues might include anything related to the Nazanin case, because I think the House would like to know more about the relationship and the discussions between the British and American Governments. As has been pointed out already, former President Obama had no difficulty—I did not know it was flying cash over in a plane, or whatever it was—so there must be some mechanism by which this £400 million can be paid.
I will leave it there, but I think the Government owe the House, not to mention Richard Ratcliffe and his family, a better explanation and more effort than they have shown so far.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury for initiating this debate and Tulip Siddiq MP for her tireless campaigning. I also add my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford on her most moving maiden speech.
This is not an issue between the people of Iran or the people of the UK. It is between two Governments. I do not believe there was ever a golden era of British diplomacy; it has always been about power, money and leverage. Having said that, when the Foreign Office and Diplomatic Service were better staffed and we had more talented political leaders, I feel sure that this case would have been handled much better.
As it is, we are mired in a multi-level mud pile: a debt which an international court has said we owe, so we are breaking international law—no change there, then; a court case which no doubt has suited both sides to drag on for decades; the UK’s own legislation passed post Brexit, as my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti mentioned, which replaced the EU’s sanctions regime with its own, meaning that paying the acknowledged debt would contravene the UK’s own legislation; and, I suspect the main problem, relations with the USA, which could apply its own sanctions to UK entities and, more importantly, affect future trade agreements between the USA and the UK.
I believe the latter is dead in the water anyway until either Joe Biden or Boris Johnson goes. The Prime Minister’s active support for Mr Trump could hardly endear him to the current Administration. As has already been said, when asked whether the US would stand in the way of the UK meeting a payment to Iran, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that it was
“a sovereign decision for the United Kingdom.”
For heaven’s sake, what else was he going to say—“We have informed our 52nd state that we will not be buying so much as a pencil from them if they do not do as they are told”? I doubt it very much. As I said, there are multiple layers of mud.
The Government might be surprised to know that I agree that payment of the debt should not be linked to Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s release; nor should we be seen to give in to blackmail, as she and others are clearly political hostages. Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s current sentence is linked to her demonstrating outside the Iranian embassy in 2009. No doubt, this is a trumped-up charge but, before we start to feel superior, is not the legislation currently going through Parliament intended to curb the right to protest and demonstrate? Similarly, countries have the right to decide whether or not to recognise dual nationals. Remember Australia, where a few parliamentarians had to stand again for election because they were not born there. Iran has this right, no matter how inconvenient it might be.
We are left with the human story of an individual who is being used a political pawn. Her rights and freedoms have been denied. Her family has been subjected to untold mental suffering. When I chaired ACAS, I witnessed the most incredible staff coming up with solutions—so many were unlikely, but they worked. Sometimes it is about changing the agenda. Completed deals do not have to be good deals—they just have to be acceptable to both sides. If the UK and Iranian Governments would consent, I would willingly travel to Tehran at my own expense to collect Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and bring her home. I am sure others in this Chamber tonight would do the same. It would not be part of any deal. It would not be linked with anything. I would promise not to make any statements which would hinder future relations. I express my solidarity with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I suggest that the Government need to change their agenda.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I think the mood of the House is to want to hear answers from the Minister to the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, so clearly asked in introducing this debate. We are indebted to him for bringing this matter to us and for the way in which he introduced it. I will briefly comment on the categories into which those questions fall.
Before I do so, I also wish to remark on the gripping maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. Forgiveness is hard, in many respects, when it affects our families. Her speech was humbling and came from a very humble person. If she does not mind me saying so, her surname, Francis-Dehqani, itself suggests a duality. I ask her to forgive me if I have pronounced it incorrectly. It represents how people can come together and live together. As she indicated, this is not an issue between the British and Iranian peoples. It is a human tragedy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said. It clearly illustrates how Britain can be a shelter in the storm in times of trouble for individuals. It also means that our own culture and country are strengthened by them. We are grateful for the contribution of the right reverend Prelate.
My noble friend Lady Northover asked, rhetorically, how many times we have had to raise this case. This is the 21st time that she has raised it, and I give her credit, just as others, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, have raised it consistently in this place, and MPs including Tulip Siddiq, the local MP, have raised it on a cross-party basis. After a number of weeks of asking questions of the Minister and of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, I fear that our patience is wearing thin on specific questions that have been raised today and in recent weeks.
For example, my noble friend Lady Northover, in her previous contribution in June this year, asked about the attendance of British diplomats at court hearings for Nazanin. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others indicated, what is the value of providing diplomatic protection status to a British national for the first time since 1951 if there is no meaningful benefit from it being provided? If there is no meaningful benefit in this case, it undermines the whole concept of providing it to a British national, which is of deep concern.
Other noble Lords and I have been out and spoken to Richard Ratcliffe, and seen the sacrifices he has made and his dedication to his family. His questions, which are reasonable, are now receiving weaker answers. For example, the previous Foreign Secretary—and there have been five since the original detention of Nazanin—made a statement on torture. As has been indicated, the former Foreign Secretary said that the treatment of her was tantamount to torture, but the Government have then done nothing about it. I was told by Richard that British officials had previously raised this with Iranian officials, but then did nothing. This is not simply a concern to raise. The Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment has obligations on those party to it. If we believe that a British national, joint or otherwise, is subject to torture in breach of the convention, we have a formal duty to ask that it is investigated.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, whether we have formally requested that Iran investigate allegations of torture, under the convention. The noble Lord gave a sincere response, saying
“I hear what the noble Lord says. On my return from your Lordships’ House, I will make sure that this issue is raised specifically in the briefing that is prepared.”—[Official Report, 27/10/21; col. 798.]
That briefing was prepared in advance of when the Foreign Secretary met Richard Ratcliffe. I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House and me on the result of that discussion, because it is simply not good enough if, every time a British Foreign Secretary changes, the slate is wiped clean and a new Foreign Secretary starts with a new initiative. This is where some frustrations have been raised; the second area regards the allegations of being a hostage.
When we asked about the IMS and the £400 million, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, stated in the House that it was his view that providing millions of pounds to the Iranian Government would be seen as paying ransom money. He later clarified that in a letter that he had to write to us, stating that the Government believed that they were duty bound to provide those funds. But as the noble Lord, Lord Wood, asked clearly, what is the position of the Government and where are the blocks for releasing those funds? Is it, as has been mentioned, that the maximum-pressure approach under the Trump Administration, separate from the Obama Administration when it comes to the use of dollars in providing funds, is something that our Foreign Secretary is aligned with? Is it that we do not wish to have the issue of paying this money raised during the Vienna discussions in relation to the request from Iran to release all sanctions? If Iran has deferred the final formal requests for the process of payments to be made through non sanction-prohibited bodies, what is the Government’s understanding as to why that is the case? The position of the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, when he said
“We continue to explore options, as I said before, to resolve this case”—[Official Report, 15/11/21; col. 17.]
is simply not credible any more. We now need answers as to why that is not being provided.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wood, indicated, it seems as if there is no longer a strategy for that approach. We hear Governments say that they are doing all they can, but that is not communicated to Richard Ratcliffe or Parliament. Nor are international conventions activated or other opportunities taken when deciding whether this is defined as a hostage scenario under UK law. We continue to ask these questions and will do so repeatedly, patiently but persistently until we have answers—but fundamentally until Nazanin is returned home to her family.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and join in the appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in bringing this issue to the Chamber. As ever, I have listened carefully to all the comments and contributions.
However, it would be remiss of me not to join others in welcoming the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford to your Lordships’ House. As many noble Lords said, her contribution has illustrated that the House is so much richer for her presence. I am sure that we will see such talents very much on display in future debates. I was reminded that there are some experiences that put the whole issue into perspective, perhaps not just in the challenges and the incredibly moving story that the right reverend Prelate shared with us, for which I thank her. I am sure that I speak for every noble Lord in this House and those who will read Hansard.
I was thinking: the right reverend Prelate is a Christian born in a Muslim country and I am a Muslim born in a Christian country, yet our experiences are so different. On a lighter note, I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, at the start of this debate, thereby showing the combining of traditions, that my young son is in a nativity play this evening. I shall give my apologies to him later. Nevertheless, that brought great reflection on the incredible place that is our United Kingdom, though it is not without challenges. Therefore, having the right reverend Prelate’s contribution on this important issue, and indeed those of other noble Lords, not just causes us to listen but impacts on us to our core.
I mention on the record the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He said that we will keep going. I want him to keep going and it is right that he does, because it brings hope for the likes of Richard Ratcliffe and others. Most importantly, it brings hope for those British nationals in Iran that this matter will be brought to the British Parliament. I also join others in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, reminded us of the number of occasions that this issue has been raised. As the right reverend Prelate said in her moving speech, regarding compassion, I seek compassion as I fear I may not be able to satisfy noble Lords in every element of the answers that I give. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others who continually represent the interests of those who are in Iran, because it does bring hope. I welcome that.
Nazanin’s unfair detention—it is unfair—is cruel and intolerable. The ordeal that she has been subjected to by the Iranian authorities is completely unacceptable. I assure noble Lords that the Government have maintained a campaign of pressure on the Iranian Government throughout Nazanin’s detention, and we will not relent until she is released. I hope that that provides a degree—I emphasise that word—of hope to the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, because one should never give up hope. I certainly do not, and I know that other noble Lords share that sentiment, because debates such as this perhaps ultimately bring a faint glimmer of hope that this issue matters. I assure noble Lords that it matters to Her Majesty’s Government.
We are wholly committed to maintaining pressure on the Iranian authorities, until all UK nationals detained in Iran are reunited with their families, including not just Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe but Anoosheh Ashoori, Morad Tahbaz and others, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned. In the relationship that we have with the families of others, we respect the confidentiality of the conversations that we undertake.
I turn to Nazanin’s case. Since her arrest at Imam Khomeini Airport in 2016 and the family’s request for consular assistance, UK Ministers and officials have always carefully considered, pursued and, of course, acted on this. We have offered the best opportunities to ensure that we continue to secure her immediate release. As several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, mentioned, in 2019 the then-Foreign Secretary afforded diplomatic protection to Nazanin—a decision that formally raised her case to a state-to-state issue and certainly sent a clear diplomatic signal to the Iranian Government that their behaviour was, frankly, totally wrong.
Nazanin’s release from prison on furlough to live with her parents in Tehran, which I know all noble Lords welcomed last year, provided a degree—I emphasise that word again—of respite. Tragically and regrettably, though, the Iranian system has continued to put her through a very gruelling mental ordeal. In March this year, after Nazanin’s sentence was completed and her ankle tag was removed, Iran brought further baseless charges against her.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Campbell-Savours, and others rightly raised the UK’s position and our action to date. I assure noble Lords that we continue to raise our concerns about Nazanin’s detention and mistreatment throughout the process. When the second set of charges was formalised at a court hearing in April, we summoned the Iranian chargé d’affaires and demanded Nazanin’s immediate release. When her appeal was rejected in October, we objected in the strongest terms and demanded her release at the highest levels of the Iranian system.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others that it has certainly been the UK Government’s consistent approach to continue to engage with Iran, notwithstanding our close ally and friend the United States. Indeed, noble Lords mentioned the JCPOA and other discussions that we have. We work very closely with the United States and other partners, but equally—I know that this view is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and others—we continue to maintain that the JCPOA, notwithstanding its faults and challenges, still represents the best way of ensuring that Iran does not move towards developing nuclear weapons, about which other noble Lords have aired concerns, which I share.
I assure noble Lords that I can speak frankly about our ambassador, Simon Shercliff, who is doing a sterling job. I know him very well. He lobbies senior Iranians at every opportunity, as do our Ministers. In her discussions with the Iranian Foreign Minister in November, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, Liz Truss, once again demanded the full and permanent release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, as did my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Middle East, James Cleverly, during his conversation with the Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister, which also took place this month.
In all these discussions, we have been crystal clear that Nazanin should be allowed to return home immediately and that under no circumstances should she be returned to prison, which would represent a watershed moment in UK-Iranian bilateral relations. Despite this Government’s unwavering desire to see the full and permanent release of all those who are being detained in Iran, it remains within Iran’s gift to do the right thing and release them. Iran is responsible for putting them through an intolerable ordeal—and their families, as we have heard through the experience of Richard and Gabriella. It remains Tehran’s moral obligation to release them immediately so that they can be returned to their families. We continue to do what we can to support Nazanin’s family, since they requested assistance, and we have a consular team available to them 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken directly with both Richard Ratcliffe and Nazanin on a number of occasions and, while she has been living with her parents in Tehran, successive Foreign Secretaries have done so. Our ambassador in Tehran is in regular contact with her and has been able to visit her at her parents’ home. We will continue to offer that support until Nazanin has returned home.
The welfare of all those who are still detained in Iranian prisons remains a top priority. Both Anoosheh and Morad are exposed to heightened risk, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and it has been further heightened with the risk of Covid. We remain deeply concerned, as he said, about their health and urge Iran for their immediate release. Our ambassador in Tehran regularly insists on the humanitarian treatment of those detained by Iran and lobbies on specific health concerns we have and other issues raised by the families.
We have also raised our concerns in countless formal diplomatic correspondence and requested consular access, medical treatment, furloughs and details of judicial process but, as the noble Lord, Lord Austin, reminded us, this is unacceptable. It is Iran’s responsibility, and we continue to remind Iran of its responsibility as an international player on the global stage. I assure noble Lords that the Foreign Secretary has taken every opportunity to discuss this with relevant international partners—the noble Lords, Lord Wood and Lord Dubs, among others, raised this issue—and to collaborate on ways to bring an end to Iran’s unacceptable practice of detaining foreign nationals and dual nationals. Indeed, that is why we signed up to the Canadian initiative on arbitrary detention.
This Government and I—I cannot overstate this—have the utmost admiration for Richard Ratcliffe’s commitment to securing Nazanin’s release and support his family. I add my welcome to the noble Viscount. In what was a challenging and emotional debate, I was struck that perhaps there is something to his early experiences in your Lordships’ House and his spiritual introduction through the maiden speeches that he has heard. I met Richard during his recent hunger strike, as did my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, the Minister of State, Mr Cleverly, and senior officials. The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked who met Richard. It was difficult. Richard was sitting outside my place of work. I cannot speak for other Conservatives, but this Tory certainly went and met Richard. I have met Richard before. I met him in New York, and I certainly gave him both my personal assurance that I will do whatever I can. I appreciate noble Lords recognising that the Government have to work within parameters and discreet discussions take place. Nevertheless, I again assure all noble Lords that we offer Richard direct support—as have I and my colleagues—and stand firmly with his campaign and recognise the incredible effort and absolute devotion that he is showing to secure the release of Nazanin. We very much stand with him.
I turn to the issue of the IMS debt raised by the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Campbell-Savours, Lord Wood, Lord Monks and Lord Purvis—the list goes on. Checking back, I think that every noble Lord—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Chakrabarti—raised it. I can clarify one thing. I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, that yes, to be clear, the UK accepts that this is a legal debt and it has to be paid. That has been very clear in our communications. We owe it to Iran and want to see it resolved.
Next comes the question of when. Various discussions are currently under way in this respect and noble Lords will appreciate that I am limited in what I can say at this juncture. However, I can assure noble Lords that discussions and debates that take place in your Lordships’ House are noted; if I am not wrong, this is the third occasion in the last month on which we have had a debate or Question on this important issue and that underlines the commitment to it shown by your Lordships’ House. We recognise that this issue needs to be resolved at the earliest opportunity.
There is little more I can add on the IMS debt. The issue of diplomatic protection was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. There was a decision that formally raised Nazanin’s case to a state issue and that sent a clear diplomatic signal to the Iranian Government that their behaviour was totally wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised the treatment of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others during their detentions. As I have said already, it is certainly our view that Iran continues these cruel and intolerable ordeals. I assure the noble Lord that we continue to press on these issues in direct and bilateral discussions with the Iranians. Nazanin must be allowed to return permanently to her family in the UK and we will continue to press in this respect. The noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Austin, asked about this issue as well.
I believe I have answered on the issue of diplomatic leverage that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy. I was pleased, in listening to her speech very carefully, to note the part of her comments in which she recognised and shared the same belief as the Government that we will never accept any British national being used for diplomatic leverage.
The noble Lord, Lord Wood of Anfield, asked about human rights. The UK continues to take steps to address Iran’s human rights record. Iranian ambassadors are regularly summoned, and we continue to raise issues at the Human Rights Council and the UN. I have already talked about the arbitrary detention initiative of our Canadian partners. We are working with G7 partners to enhance mechanisms to uphold international law, tackle human rights abuses and stand up for our shared values.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, also spoke about the levers available to Her Majesty’s Government. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, is correct that I will not speculate on sanctions or future sanctions policy. However, I strongly believe that our support of the global human rights sanctions regime—a number of noble Lords alluded to their attendance at the Magnitsky awards—is a real recognition of the Government’s belief that human rights matter and that those who commit egregious abuses of human rights should be held to account.
Noble Lords consistently raised a number of issues, most notably those of the IMS debt and the continued detention of Nazanin and others. In concluding my remarks, I assure noble Lords that I recognise the strong sentiment here and will again emphasise this to colleagues in the FCDO. I have been at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as it was—now the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—for a while now and can assure the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that there is nothing I have said that we are seeking to hold back.
Negotiations are of course under way on the IMS debt. Like all who expressed their sentiments during this debate, we wish to resolve this at the earliest opportunity. I recognise and welcome that this may not be the last occasion on which I will appear in your Lordships’ House to discuss this issue—I wish it was. Indeed, I pray that it will be, but I fear it will not. It is important that we continue to lobby, represent, collaborate and raise the plight of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others in Iran, because this provides hope.
I will end, if I may, with the words of the right reverend Prelate, and I welcome her again to the House. She talked of compassion; her story demonstrably showed that compassion and humility are the best of us. Those are enduring qualities which we all seek and today we certainly heard those in action. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, once again for raising, and continuing to raise, this important matter.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. This has been an excellent and incredibly moving debate. I add my appreciation for the excellent maiden speech by the right reverend Prelate.
I do not dispute for one moment the effort that the Minister and other government Ministers have put into the campaign of pressure that he referred to but, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, said, we have had five Foreign Secretaries, each pursuing a new initiative, including diplomatic status. The fundamental question which, sadly, the Minister failed to answer is: why has this country failed when others have succeeded? I hope that when he goes back to the department, that will be uppermost in his mind.
Of course, one other point in relation to the five Foreign Secretaries is that there has been a continuity Minister, who is, of course, the noble Lord himself. He has successfully been a Minister of State in the Foreign Office under all those Foreign Secretaries, so I hope he can provide that continuity message to his superiors about the need not only to continue with the campaign of pressure but to understand better what is needed to resolve this issue—the plan of action that is so desperately needed.
The Minister said that it is in Iran’s gift to release the British nationals, including Nazanin, and he is absolutely right. He said that it is in Iran’s gift to do the right thing and that it is their moral obligation. Here, I come back to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford. In her maiden speech, she said that it is about upholding international law, setting an example of integrity and doing the right thing. I hope the Minister will take that message back clearly in terms of the debt that is recognised as owed by this country to Iran.
This has been an excellent debate. I am not going delay the House any more. I just hope those messages get through.
Storm Arwen
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
The Minister may have heard of a small village in Cumbria called Ullock. In Ullock, we were without power from Friday evening through to Tuesday afternoon, so I have an acute understanding of the impact of Storm Arwen and the extreme weather it brought, which has been so challenging for the district network operators to fix, but it now appears that we were fortunate in that we were off for only four nights. The severity of the storm and the difficulties in restoring electricity connection referred to in the Statement have highlighted a number of serious concerns that the Government need to address.
First, will the Minister tell us what consideration the Government have given specifically to the impact on rural communities that are not on the gas grid and not as accessible in poor weather? Without gas, communities rely much more heavily on electricity for heating, hot water and cooking a hot meal, and it has been really cold. The Government and power companies were warned about the storm, so why was more attention not paid and more preparations made to provide the support that the rural and more isolated communities would need?
Where I live, there are elderly residents in their 90s, who are not classified as clinically vulnerable, so they had no extra support, apart from neighbours—who were in the same position, with no heat, no light, no hot water and no hot food. Does the Minister agree that the very old should not be left in this position for days on end?
This brings me to my concerns, personally experienced, about the very poor quality of much communication. In the 21st century, we should surely be able to provide timely and accurate information to residents. Electricity North West told me that I was experiencing a “fault journey”. Unfortunately, I had no idea when or where that journey was likely to end. While I still had charge in my phone, I could go to the website to read the out-of-date and inaccurate information, which told me on a number of occasions that there was no fault in my postcode area. My husband called and was on hold for a long time, as were so many others. When he was finally put through, he was told that there was no information available and to keep up to date through the website. Of course, you cannot do this once your phone is flat.
Moving on to compensation, can the Minister categorically assure the House that there will be a prompt settlement of compensation claims and no attempt by any DNO to try to wriggle out of paying all claims in full? We should also remind ourselves that high levels of compensation are set by Ofgem to encourage DNOs to increase resilience. Will the Government ask Ofgem to increase the requirement on DNOs to improve domestic resilience, because if there is a lesson to be learned from Storm Arwen, it is that our long-term resilience against extreme weather is simply not good enough?
Yesterday, in the other place, Kwasi Kwarteng said that the Government would be
“trying actively to learn lessons”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/21; col. 929.]
He also said:
“We have to be prepared for similarly extreme difficult weather conditions in future and make sure that our system is resilient in that eventuality”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/12/21; col. 921.]
He is absolutely correct in that. We know that climate change will bring more extreme weather events and, as part of the efforts to tackle climate change, the Government are, quite rightly, phasing out fossil fuels. That includes petrol and diesel, gas and oil. There has been much discussion during the debate on the Statement about generators. What are the plans for generators once petrol and diesel have been phased out?
As we move away from oil and gas heating and towards electrical heating across all homes—because currently that is really the only option—how will the Government make the network resilient? Can the Government categorically say that it can be made completely resilient for the future in its current form? If we cannot rely on the resilience of the grid, we need to look at how we can make our homes resilient. What plans do the Government have for this? For example, what investment is being made into battery storage technologies? What work is being done to look at the future build of new homes to bring in this resilience? We could, for example, fit all new homes with solar panels with a battery storage back-up when that future technology is ready. We need long-term investment to make this happen.
Storm Arwen has been a warning to the Government and to the power companies that, with climate change and the likelihood of more frequent weather events, we cannot continue as we are. With the decarbonisation and electrification of domestic heating, there must be resilience built in for when the supply fails while the grid is being restored. What are the Government doing to get Ofgem to incentivise the DNOs to do this? How is Ofgem working with them to achieve this as quickly as possible? Will the Minister speak to the Government about reporting back to Parliament in six months on progress made in this area?
Finally, if the Minister is not taken by my suggestions on how we could make domestic properties more resilient outside of the grid network, can he inform your Lordships’ House how the Government are investing for the future so that we do not have to revisit the misery faced following Storm Arwen over and again?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself and these Benches with the points made so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, both now and at Questions earlier. Her frustration is representative of the many people who must declare an interest in this issue. When I came down from the Borders last Monday, I had no power in my house; when I arrived back there on Friday there were eight outages that evening and no power overnight on Saturday. However, I was one of the lucky ones because I had some power on Sunday.
I hope that the disproportionate effect on rural areas will be the key lesson in the post-incident review to which the Government have committed. For those living in Kincardine who still lack reliable power, there should be an equivalent test: how would this place treat it if it were Knightsbridge? We are asking people to do the same: to work from home, provide services and care for people. There should be no difference between a resident in Knightsbridge and a resident in Kincardine in the 21st century, especially during a pandemic when people want to be carers or to work from home.
I noticed in the Statement that the Minister had been in Berwick, so I declare my second interest. It is my hometown and where my mum and dad still live. I know that the Minister knows the north-east extremely well as he is a northerner; actually, he is a north-easterner. It is unsettling when you speak to elderly relatives who are genuinely scared about what is happening and are vulnerable due to what happens afterwards. The lack of support for vulnerable communities in rural areas has been shocking in this regard.
The question will be: who has the primary responsibility? I know that many local authorities and their staff have worked extremely hard over this time; I saw it for myself with the local authority for the Borders, and the farmers and others who cleared roads and supported people. Many people in these communities are also first responders and, during this situation, have been checking on vulnerable residents in local authorities. However, certainly in the Borders, local authorities have been extremely frustrated with the electricity companies due to their lack of communication with customers; this was outlined eloquently before.
I will say one thing to the Minister with regard to the Statement. Some people in the north-east of Scotland have had not only their power supply but their mobile phone masts go down. Many communities have now been passed over to voice through broadband phones, as in my house, but there has been no communication at all. Therefore, the Statement giving an indication that people should dial 105 from their landline or mobile when they have no mobile phone coverage is—how should I say this?—insensitive, to say the least. I do not know how the Minister will do it but one lesson that we must learn is how to have civil contingencies when so much now relies on mobile and electricity networks.
My other question relates to power lines. In a former life, before I was elected in the Borders, I worked for David Steel when he was an MP. I strongly remember the awful length of the power cuts then. I know about the modernisation of the network in the north of England and Scotland.
Do we stress test the local networks? We stress test banks and other institutions, but is there a lack of legislative power for the Government to insist that companies stress test their networks so we know that, when it comes to what could well be more frequent events, the networks have been graded on a stress-test basis? This has given a lot of people a lack of confidence in the network and many of the companies.
The final thing I would say is that we have seen through bitter experience—certainly in the Borders and other areas, and in the north-west of England—that there have been improvements in flood warning systems and the way communities are able to operate. These systems have been put in place so that, when flood alerts are indicated, the public bodies and the private sector are prepared. But it seems as though we are not learning from those experiences with floods when it comes to electricity outages. I would be grateful to know what the post-incident review scope is and, in particular, how customers, consumers and communities themselves can feed into it when they are back to having reliable energy supplies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their contributions. Let me state that I totally share their frustration and annoyance. Storm Arwen has brought severe weather to many parts of the north of our country, and those in the north of England and Scotland have suffered the most. Many have been without power for several days, and we totally understand their frustration, annoyance and indeed fury. I am not immune to that, as someone who comes from that part of the world as well. Let me reiterate that we are all working incredibly hard to ensure we can return to normality as soon as is humanly possible.
Yesterday, my Secretary of State stated in the Commons that restoring power across the entire country is a “grave concern” of ours, and a top priority and focus for the Government. Officials are in constant contact with the distribution network operators to understand their response, and operators have a mature and successful programme of sharing and deploying qualified resources to those areas most in need. My Secretary of State is having daily calls with local resilience forums, including the various chairmen in the north of England, to discuss the ongoing response. The Government continue to reinforce that, if additional support is needed by the industry, it needs only to escalate it to senior officials. Let me say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that the Government remain in constant regular communication with the distribution network operators, to ensure that communication—which, frankly, has been lamentable in many cases—is up to speed.
In the case of Northern Powergrid, I understand its phone lines are now operating properly; obviously there were problems with calls initially. Waits are now down from several hours to a few minutes, so people can now contact it.
The scale of the restoration effort that engineers are facing is enormous. The storm brought down trees and debris on to power lines, and wind speeds were exceptional. Since the storm hit, on Friday 26 November, over 4,000 engineers have been working round the clock to repair damage in very difficult conditions. Nearly 800 generators have been deployed to provide people with emergency power, and I am pleased to report to the House that, so far, over 98% of those affected by the storm—more than 964,000 customers—have had their power supply restored so far. I totally accept that that will be no compensation whatever to the few thousand who are still without power. As of 4 pm today, that was about 15,000 households, and that includes about 9,000 in the north-east, focused around the Wear Valley, Eastgate and north Northumberland; about 3,000 in the north-west, especially in the north Peak District and the south lakes areas; and a little under 3,000 across north Scotland, mostly in Aberdeenshire and Perthshire.
To confirm, all customers who have faced electricity distribution issues caused by Storm Arwen will have their power restored before Christmas—there was no truth in the rumours Members were referring to this morning. We expect to have the vast majority of those customers connected within one week. We know people are desperate to return to normality, and my department has been reassured that power will be restored, as I said, to the majority of customers by the end of this week, at the latest.
On the lessons learned, I thank the people who have borne with us during these difficult times and give a final reassurance that everyone involved is straining every sinew to ensure that they are reconnected as quickly as possible. We will ensure that all the appropriate lessons have been learned and, if such a storm happens again, that we are as resilient as we possibly can be.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, asked about compensation. Ofgem, the independent regulator, sets service levels that companies must meet, with rules on how quickly network operators must restore power. It also sets compensation payments for consumers if those standards are not met, as they clearly have not been in these circumstances. I will ensure that Ofgem puts maximum pressure on the companies for those compensation payments to be made as swiftly and speedily as possible.
Regarding vulnerable consumers, those who have reached state pension age can register as priority service customers with their network operator, and will then be prioritised in terms of support, including to rural communities. We are working with the network operators to reduce vulnerabilities in future and to ensure that the network is as resilient as possible to these disruptive events. We intend urgently to review the exercise with the network operators to stress test the appropriate systems and will be able to share the terms of reference for review once the incident is over. We can then finalise the appropriate scope. Ofgem will also consider whether there is need for any further regulatory investigation.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, made a very good point about people not being able to get in touch when mobiles are down. The priority service register means that when outages occur, operators will already be able to locate the most vulnerable affected people and help them. They set up strategic hubs in the disrupted areas to aid communication with other customers, but I totally accept that these are often sparsely populated areas, and often rural areas with poor transport and communication links. Many network operators did their best in difficult circumstances.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I fully agree with what has been said by other noble Lords so far. I have a house on the Northumberland coast, near Alnwick, which, as my noble friend will be aware, received the highest wind rating—98 mph—during this terrible storm, a storm which is very difficult to be ready for or predict.
My question is a little broader. My house sustained some damage, but that can be put right. Luckily, I did not lose any power there. What sort of audit will be carried out following the storm, not necessarily to learn lessons but to put things right? Thousands of trees in Kielder Forest, which my noble friend and I know well, have been destroyed. They will have to be replanted. All along the Northumberland coast, facilities of all kinds have been destroyed, such as golf courses on the links. These may not be a priority to some people right now, but nevertheless, they are important to some small business, such as cafés and restaurants. Agricultural equipment and facilities to store it have been destroyed. The insurance companies will no doubt be involved, and I hope that my noble friend will be asking them to be as speedy and sympathetic as possible in putting things right, but what audit will be carried out to look at the effects of this storm and how, perhaps, more aid can be given in a directed manner, to put things right as soon as possible for the communities that have suffered so much?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes some good points, and I am obviously pleased to hear that his property was not too badly affected. As he knows, I know the area well and I am pleased that his power managed to be left in place. He makes some very good points about the totality of the damage, not just to public infrastructure and essential services, but to local authorities’ premises and the property of private businesses; it will be immense. Our priority at the moment is to get everybody restored and back on to the network, but we will need to learn the lessons and look at what we can do to help the affected communities in future.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership and a landowner in Cumbria who was not directly affected by the power cuts. Can the Minister confirm that the capacity of the infrastructure to respond to events like this is equivalent in the various parts of England, in particular between the north and south?
Lord Callanan (Con)
Yes, I believe that it is. The network operators are as resilient and able in the north of England as they are in the south. But a fact of the geography and communication of this country is that many more people live in the south. Those of us in the north always complain that when there are severe snowstorms and snow events, in the north nobody notices, but if a little bit of snow falls in London it is a catastrophe and all over the national news—which is probably characteristic of how many of our national broadcasters and reporters are based in and around the capital. It is up to us from the north to make sure that this does not happen in future and that cataclysmic events such as this get the appropriate coverage and respect.