House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The DVLA has introduced more online services, recruited extra staff, is using overtime and has secured extra office space.
David Warburton
I appreciate the efforts being made by my right hon. Friend, and I understand the various union issues involved, but it is clear from numerous constituents who have got in touch having been unable to get through to the DLVA—this also applies to the MPs’ hotline—that the delays are having an impact on urgent and severe cases relating to other issues. I am sure that Members across the House are experiencing the same thing. What is the timeline for ensuring that the DVLA provides the service it is tasked to do, which we very much need it to do?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the dual problems of the impact of the pandemic and the strike action through the year, which I am pleased to say is now resolved, led to a backlog, particularly of occupational licences—that was at 55,000. I am pleased to report to the House that that has now been entirely cleared and those are being processed in five working days. The rest of the work is now being processed much more quickly as well, and we expect the service to return to normal next year.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Transport Committee has been raising concerns about the DVLA’s performance for well over a year and it does not seem to have approached the pandemic and its management of confidential and paper records as other Government agencies with similar challenges have been able to do during the pandemic. Does the Secretary of State not recognise that the delays that are still ongoing, particularly for heavy goods vehicle drivers and those who wish to be driving HGVs, are only adding to the crisis in the supply chain and in lorries delivering essential goods?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is right to be concerned about the backlogs that built up, but she is wrong to suggest that that still applies to HGV drivers. Those licences are now being turned around in five days for medical applications. There are considerably more applications than before the pandemic and that has led, alongside our 32-point plan, to more HGV drivers coming on to the road now. I have to stress that the unnecessary and lengthy strike at the DVLA came at the worst possible moment and it hurt vulnerable people. I am pleased to say that that strike has now collapsed, which is enabling the DVLA to get on top of the rest of the list.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I note what my right hon. Friend says, but my constituency is a major centre of the logistics industry and HGV drivers are certainly still experiencing problems. This problem has continued for years now. Can I urge him to redouble his efforts to ensure an improvement to the service?
Grant Shapps
As I mentioned, at its height, there were 56,000 applications. The last figure I saw last week showed that that was down to 9,000. There is a regular flow; it will never be zero because, of course, applications come and go. Medical applications are processed within five days and the only time that is not the case is when additional medical information is required. Those medical applications—the D4 forms—require checks from the DVLA to make sure that the information is correct, so the turnaround will never be faster than five days. If any Member has an issue with occupational DVLA applications, please let me know, because I will personally look into it.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Ministers and officials in the Department for Transport regularly meet officials from Transport for London and the Mayor’s office to discuss a range of issues around funding for Transport for London. Most recently, Baroness Vere met Heidi Alexander on 2 December.
Matthew Pennycook
The move to plan B this week has seen bus travel demand in our capital fall by 9% and tube travel demand by a staggering 29%, leaving both still well below pre-pandemic levels. TfL’s financial problems are a direct result of the national effort against coronavirus. The failure to agree a funding settlement will not only decimate services for Londoners, but put at risk the entire country’s economic recovery. I therefore impel the Secretary of State to put aside any vindictive party political considerations and, in a spirit of magnanimity, do what is necessary today to save TfL from collapse.
Grant Shapps
I am afraid that I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s description of the situation. It does not seem particularly vindictive to pay out £4.1 billion in support of TfL as it rightly battles its way through coronavirus. It is not entirely correct to say that all the problems are related to that; the £13 billion of debt that it has is considerably higher than when the Mayor took over. Putting that aside, I am keen to continue to support TfL. The House will be interested to know that I had to wait more than three weeks for the Mayor to come forward with measures that he was supposed to provide us with in the middle of November.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Yet again, the Government seem to be engaging in a blatant act of political sabotage of London’s vital transport networks. This week, Londoners have listened to Government advice, done the right thing and worked from home to keep our NHS and communities safe. As a result, passenger levels have dropped by over a quarter, which has had a further colossal impact on TfL’s revenue.
All the while, Ministers continue to force a cliff-edge negotiation on TfL finances in what can only be seen as a political attack that will punish hard-working Londoners for simply doing the right thing. As we saw in last week’s Evening Standard, from transport trade unions to square mile firms, London is totally united in its opposition to these disastrous political manoeuvres. Will the Secretary of State do his job and finally meet the Mayor of London? Can he get around the table today and sort it out?
Grant Shapps
It is interesting that the Front-Bench team have taken their briefing directly from the Mayor of London. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not catch what I just said: the letter that I received with the measures that the Mayor had to meet, which were outlined in an agreement, arrived on my desk three weeks late. Not unreasonably, on behalf of the taxpayer, I went back to him and asked him to clarify some of those points.
The hon. Gentleman accuses us, as other Opposition Members have, of playing politics with this issue, which is completely untrue. Yesterday, I received a long and—I am pleased to say—quite detailed letter to clarify some of those measures, but where did I receive that letter? It was in the Evening Standard, not even on my own desk.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
As the Rail Minister in 2018, long before covid, I remember that my negotiations with the Mayor of London resulted in a loan of more than £2 billion for TfL. I am aware of further loans and bail-outs since. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is simply wrong to say that TfL has not been supported by the Government?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend, a former Transport Minister, is absolutely right. There has been about £9.6 billion of waste in TfL finances since 2016. Crossrail is £5.2 billion over—it was on time and on budget when the Mayor took office; there is the pensions cost of £828 million; the failure to raise the fares while the rest of the network had to, which cost £640 million; and another £400 million of combined fare dodging. [Interruption.] The Opposition do not want to hear about the waste, but the Government have supported TfL and will continue to do so, but we will not support the incompetence of the Mayor.
Mr Speaker
There was a question about meeting the Mayor, and hopefully that can be resolved. I think the Secretary of State got distracted by a former Rail Minister, but we will not get into that.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
We will build Northern Powerhouse Rail, including 40 miles of new high-speed line and electrification of the TransPennine route between Manchester and Leeds.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for that response, but the reality is that the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities are refusing point blank to meet Transport for the North. The Secretary of State has claimed that the Government’s rail promises to the north are going to be fulfilled, so will he now commit to meet TfN to implement the plans contained in the northern transport charter?
Andrew Stephenson
I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is wrong. I meet Transport for the North regularly. I am happy to meet it again.
Andrew Stephenson
The Secretary of State meets northern leaders regularly. The Secretary of State established the Northern Transport Acceleration Council. I am sure he will continue to meet all northern stakeholders. But the most important thing here is that we are getting on with delivering for the north, with over £17 billion being invested in Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Afzal Khan
In the north, we have been waiting six years for the so-called Northern Powerhouse Rail to improve connectivity between our major cities, yet in the integrated rail plan the Government broke their promise and ditched the line between Manchester and Leeds in favour of tinkering upgrades to existing routes. Northern Powerhouse Rail’s chief architect, George Osborne, last month accused the Prime Minister of lacking ambition and said:
“Levelling up, at the moment, feels more like a slogan than a plan”.
Minister, why do this Government keep on failing the north?
Andrew Stephenson
It is simply not true. Since 2010, we have invested over £29 billion in northern transport. There comes a moment when you have to move away from big fancy plans to actually delivering. This plan is going to deliver benefits for the north: £17 billion being invested in Northern Powerhouse Rail, with early benefits happening soon; and over £2 billion already committed to the TransPennine route upgrade. We are getting on with delivering benefits to passengers across the north.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
After 18 years of Tory underfunding, privatising, fragmenting and running our railways into the ground, the priority of the last Labour Government was to invest billions of pounds to modernise our old, inefficient trains. Given the awareness around the climate crisis, the priority during the last decade should have been to electrify our railways, but it has been a lost decade. After abandoning Northern Powerhouse Rail, betraying our northern towns and cities, I was stunned to read reports that Government promises on electrification are being broken because the Treasury has decided to block the £30 billion needed to decarbonise our railways, even though it knows full well that over 10,000 km of rail must be electrified by 2050 to get to net zero. So can the Minister answer a simple question: how is he ever going to meet Government targets on electrification when the Chancellor is blocking the funding needed to get there?
Andrew Stephenson
Again, unfortunately, the Opposition are just getting this simply wrong. The integrated rail plan will kick off the electrification of more than 75% of the country’s rail network. If the hon. Member takes the TransPennine route through Church Fenton at the moment, he will see the overhead electrification cables being erected. The midland main line electrification will start before Christmas. I would just gently remind the Opposition spokesman that, in 13 years of Labour Government, they electrified only 63 miles. Over the past 11 years, we have already electrified 1,221 miles.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Good morning, Mr Speaker, and merry Christmas to you and your staff. [Interruption.] Well, someone has to do it.
Through our restoring your railway programme—a £500 million fund—we remain committed to reopening lines and stations, reconnecting communities across the country.
Danny Kruger
Mr Speaker, a merry Christmas from me, too, to everybody.
Devizes is of course the jewel of Wiltshire. It used to have, according to medieval chroniclers, the finest castle in Christendom, until Cromwell pulled it down. It also used to have a very fine train station. Beeching closed it. The Victorians rebuilt our castle. I hope the Government are going to rebuild our station. Can the Minister tell us when he is likely to announce the successful award of restoring your railway funding to Devizes?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Can I thank my hon. Friend for his question and congratulate him on obviously being a huge champion for his constituency? His knowledge of the history of the railways in his locality and beyond is second to none. As he will know, we have now received the business case for that particular scheme, and we will be considering the next steps for a tranche of projects, including Devizes gateway, in the new year.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Happy Christmas from the Opposition Benches to you and all your staff, Mr Speaker.
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), I am supporting the opening of the Barrow Hill line, which goes from Sheffield to Chesterfield through my constituency, hopefully with new stations at Beighton and Waverley. The real advantage will be if we can get people out of their cars on to the new line so that we avoid the congestion in Crystal Peaks and Handsworth in my constituency, and on the Sheffield Parkway. We have more chance of doing that if, rather than a heavy rail service going into Victoria that puts people in the middle of nowhere, we get a tram-train on the line going into the centre of Sheffield, which would have a much better chance of encouraging people out of their cars. Will the Minister seriously look at that option?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I actually know the project very well—I have participated in a deep dive on it—and I think he is completely right. There are now many more light rail and very light rail products out there, which would be very suitable for this scheme. The whole point of the restoring your railway scheme is to help people find the right product to deliver the right scheme for them in their locality. If he would like a meeting on this, I would happily meet him.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
As well as wishing you a merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, I thank you and all the staff in this place for everything you do for us. May I extend that to the ministerial team and say thanks for all the evidence they have given to the Transport Committee?
With regard to restoring our railways post the pandemic, it is essential that we give passengers the confidence to get back on board. I welcome the proposals announced this morning to allow compensation to be easily applied for. Will the Minister consider looking at automated and automatic compensation to allow the money to come straight back into bank accounts even if passengers do not even know they were late?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee and wish him a merry Christmas too. I know for a fact that he is very interested in this subject, because he introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on this very point a while back. He has been ahead of the curve, and certainly ahead of the industry, on this issue for quite some time. Great British Railways will almost certainly be doing this sort of thing. We are trying to make sure that we go faster, so what he will have seen in the story today is our direction of travel. We want people to have every confidence when they return to our railway that, should they be significantly delayed, it is a very simple process to claim their refund.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
The Government remain absolutely committed to supporting the roll-out of 4,000 zero-emission buses and achieving an all zero-emission bus fleet. This will support our climate ambitions, improve transport for local communities and support high-quality green jobs.
Liz Twist
Is the Minister aware that the north-east bus fleet is older than the UK average? Transport North East is preparing a bid for funding for 73 zero-emission buses. In this season of good will, will the Minister give her backing to that bid, to show that the Government’s commitment to levelling up transport is genuine? Will she also commit to expanding the roll-out of zero-emission buses across the north-east? People in Blaydon and the north-east need and deserve cleaner air and better buses.
Trudy Harrison
I can certainly give the hon. Member an assurance that I am across the detail of that bid. I am delighted that 49 of the buses would go to Go North East, 14 to Durham County Council and 10 to Northumberland. Those will be in addition to the nine electric buses that are already operating in the north-east at the moment. [Hon. Members: “Where?”] The answer is between Newcastle and Gateshead on Voltra routes 53 and 54. We will have a further nine buses later this year.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Will Ministers make time to visit Equipmake, a fast-growing specialised manufacturer of batteries for electric buses— which began as a start-up at the excellent Hethel innovation centre in my constituency, and having outgrown those premises, has moved to Wymondham, which was in my constituency but is now in that of the Science Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—so that the Science Minister and I can explain to them just how at the cutting edge Norfolk is technologically and how much more it can do with the right support?
Trudy Harrison
I would be delighted to accept that invitation. The UK has a wealth of bus and coach manufacturers. About 80% of the service buses are made in the UK and I look forward to the invitation.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
In February 2020, the Prime Minister and his Cabinet promised to deliver 4,000 zero-emission buses by 2025 as part of the Prime Minister’s “bus revolution”. After all, there can be no journey to net zero without green transport. Yet 18 months later, where are they? Is Santa going to deliver them? No major British manufacturer has even started production yet, nor have any orders even come in. The Department for Transport still seems unable to show how many are on order. Can the Secretary of State and Ministers confirm that the beginning of the release of funding for the ZEBRA—zero emission bus regional area scheme—contracts for building those buses will be given to British-based manufacturers? After speaking to them over the past few days I know that, given the unfolding omicron crisis and passenger levels again plummeting, they are desperate to have reassurances about their future and the future of tens of thousands of British jobs in their industry. Can the Minister enlighten us as to when, if ever, she expects the 4,000 zero-emission buses to be on the road? Exactly how many are in production now? How many are being procured right now?
Trudy Harrison
As I said, we already have nine in the north-east and 50 operating in the country at the moment. We have 500 zero-emission buses being supported through the ZEBRA scheme, with £120 million of investment. A further 300 zero-emission buses will be supported through the all-electric bus city scheme and over 100 zero-emission buses have been supported through the ultra-low emission bus scheme since February 2020. In addition, £355 million of new funding was made available for zero-emission buses at the autumn 2021 Budget.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I wish you, Mr Speaker, the staff and all Members of the House a merry and safe Christmas, and a good new year when it comes.
Despite that answer from the Minister, the Transport Secretary confirmed to the Transport Committee that only 121 zero-emission buses are actually on the road in England, less than half of them outside London, since the Prime Minister made his 4,000 bus pledge. The Scottish order book, in contrast, is full to bursting. Will the Minister confirm how many of those 4,000 buses are currently on order from bus manufacturers, such as Alexander Dennis? When will any of those buses be on the road? When will all 4,000 buses be on the road? When will this Government raise their ambitions and horizons from their current plans to replace only 10% of the English bus fleet?
Trudy Harrison
As I said, we already have 50 buses operating now and a number of schemes are being supported through the variety of funds I have just set out. As for the more detailed information the hon. Gentleman requests, I will endeavour to write to him.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
The Government are investing £1.2 billion of new funding to deliver better bus services in England, including across the north-east.
Chi Onwurah
Despite having lower average earnings, my constituents pay much more for their bus journey than Londoners. Yet the Secretary of State refuses to confirm funding for our bus service improvement plan or to confirm funding for the Metro throughout the covid crisis, which means there is less money for our buses, which he also will not support during the covid crisis. We have had our application to reopen the Leamside line refused. We have had the HS2 eastern leg abandoned, which means there is no hope of getting high-speed trains in Newcastle. We have had the manifesto promises on the Northern Rail Powerhouse refused and they will not even help to paint the Tyne bridge for its 100th birthday. Why are the Government such a scrooge for north-east transport?
Mr Speaker
I know it is the season of good will, but do not take advantage by doing a whole road map of the north-east. Minister, pick something from that please.
Trudy Harrison
We are working with Transport North East as it develops its business case under the zero emission bus regional area scheme to introduce 73 electric buses and the necessary charging infrastructure. It will submit its final business case at the end of January.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
National Highways continues to pursue legal action against individuals who breached its injunctions. Thanks to those injunctions, which I asked National Highways to pursue, 11 people have been prosecuted and will be spending this Christmas at Her Majesty’s pleasure.
Marco Longhi
Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who stop ambulances from reaching emergencies, those who block children from seeing their dying parents one last time and those who block vital goods from reaching their destination should face the full force of the law?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is unacceptable for people to disrupt other people’s lives by gluing themselves to roads. It is dangerous both for them and other users of those major roads; it is irresponsible; and it does not help with climate change, because all those cars are sitting there not moving, blasting out all the greenhouse gases that we are trying to avoid. That is why I instructed National Highways to take out a nationwide injunction, which they received. Two further cases, after the nine who were originally sent to prison, were committed to prison yesterday and there are further cases in the works. I very much hope that the message has been sent and received that this action simply does not work. I note that it has ceased to take place since the beginning of November as a result.
Tom Hunt
I welcome very much the national injunction on motorways and key strategic road networks. However, I understand that it is temporary. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could confirm that he is considering making it permanent. I also welcome the prison sentences that we have been handing out to many individuals. However, in most cases, it is because they have broken a High Court ruling. Does he agree that sometimes, actually, those sorts of fast punishments should be considered immediately, even if it is a first-time offence?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is right to spot a gap in the law here, which is why the Home Secretary is introducing, in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, legislation that would make the actual activity criminal. Instead, we have had to resort essentially to civil law. Through those injunctions, 130 activists have been served with 475 sets of injunction papers. We are seeing the fruits of that when they reoffend and the courts take offence to the fact that they have ignored the court injunction and continue to persist. Prison and unlimited fines are the upshot of that, but a proper law to cover this is coming and I invite the Opposition to support it.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Roads across this country are blocked every single day not by protesters, but by traffic congestion, at a huge cost to health, the environment and business. This problem will only get worse unless the alternatives to rising car use—walking, cycling and public transport—are safer, more convenient and affordable. Will the Secretary of State reverse his plans to raise rail fares by an eye-watering 3.8% next March?
Grant Shapps
I do not want to try your patience by switching to a rail discussion, Mr Speaker, but I will say to the hon. Lady, who knows a great deal about this subject, that Opposition Front Benchers do not want to build or maintain any roads in this country. Whether it is a bicycle or an electric bus—to go back to the previous conversation—they all require roads to drive along, so I suggest that she has a word with her Front Benchers and supports our plan for £24 billion for road maintenance and development.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment to legislation that will effectively stop people delaying, inconveniencing and obstructing people going to their work and elsewhere. There is a fine balance to be met between the right to protest and not obstructing or delaying people by what is happening. Will he confirm that the right to protest can still exist but not to the detriment of road users?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the right to protest is absolutely central to the way that we go about our democracy, but that does not provide people with the right to stop people getting to urgent hospital appointments, getting their kids to school and going about their lawful business. That is where we draw the line. It is why these injunctions have been used and, as has been discussed, we intend to put this into proper law as a criminal offence, rather than having to use the civil route.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
Government guidance to local authorities on developing bus improvement plans includes advice on park-and-ride services, as set out in the national bus strategy.
Theresa Villiers
In London, suburban tube station car parks are important park-and-ride facilities, encouraging people to get on the public transport network, so will the Government exercise their powers under section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to prevent the Mayor from shutting down these facilities in Cockfosters and High Barnet and to ensure that these station car parks remain available for people to use?
Robert Courts
The Secretary of State has indeed received a number of applications submitted by Transport for London under section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 to dispose of operational land at London underground stations. These are considered carefully on a case-by-case basis, but my right hon. Friend’s views have been heard very clearly.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government have taken decisive action to address the acute HGV driver shortage, with 32 specific measures that have been taken. As Logistics UK, the main industry haulier body has said, this has reduced the crisis as we have started to see more HGV drivers on the road.
Richard Thomson
The Government may have taken decisive action in their own eyes, but it does not seem to be having the desired effect, because the temporary visas issued by the Government in the latter part of this year have failed to attract even 10% of the open visa spaces. Given that the rest of Europe also has an HGV driver shortage, will the Secretary of State accept that the UK Government need to make our visa package for HGV drivers more attractive to EU drivers in order to help quell the domestic driver shortage?
Grant Shapps
I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman actually highlights the problem, which is that the rest of Europe—indeed, the rest of the world—has a very significant HGV driver shortage. Simply trying to take from another part of the market that is already massively restricted is not the answer. We do not think that issuing visas is the right way forward. I know that the Leader of the Opposition called for 100,000 visas to be issued for HGV drivers. That is not our approach. These 32 measures are seeing vastly more people coming into HGV driving, with more than 1,350 more tests each week compared with pre-pandemic levels.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I have to say that we on the Labour Benches are not feeling the Christmas love from the Secretary of State today. Neither have we been invited to his last couple of Christmas parties, but we will wait to hear more on that. Perhaps, after the Sunday Times article, he should spend a little less time defending the rights of private airstrips where he can land his plane and a little more time sorting out the estimated 90,000 shortage of HGV drivers, which is holding our economy back. So here is some helpful advice: will he finally act to back Labour’s plans to appoint a Minister for the supply chain crisis, boost driver recruitment and retention, and secure agreement with the EU, particularly after the news on France today, to prevent future import controls at ports worsening the situation?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman attacks aviation, but Labour does not understand: the Department for Transport is about all forms of transport. We support all the different forms of transport, no matter what they are. He makes reference to the HGV crisis, not understanding that freight both by rail and by air is all part of that, and he does not seem to understand how cargo moves around the world. In relation to his point on the supply chain, which is a very serious one, I can confirm that I have spoken to my French opposite number, Jean-Baptiste Djebbari, who has confirmed that although France is bringing in additional controls on movement to France, it will not include hauliers in those measures.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
As announced in October’s spending review, during this Parliament the Government are investing over £5 billion in highways maintenance—enough to fill in millions of potholes a year, repair dozens of bridges, and resurface roads up and down the country.
Mr Baker
I am grateful for that reassuring answer, but I am sorry to report that in High Wycombe there are all too many jarring potholes, and a number of our surfaces on important junctions are now breaking down to the point that they are dangerous to motorcycles. Is it not absolutely vital that councils are properly funded and equipped to keep our roads safe?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is quite right. Potholes are a menace to all road users, particularly motorcyclists. That is why the Government are working tirelessly to remove them from our roads. The Government’s decision to provide local highway authorities with a three-year highway maintenance funding settlement will enable them, in line with good asset management planning, to proactively plan their maintenance and pothole repair programme more effectively. I am sure that that will bring results in Wycombe.
Giles Watling
I thank the Minister for his answer. It takes an hour and a half by train to do the under 70 miles to Clacton, and we rely on our roads to prosper. We in Clacton often feel overlooked. I would like the Minister to come down to our sunshine coast, where he will see that we need better roads. Does he believe that transport links, particularly in coastal communities, should be the focus when it comes to levelling up?
Robert Courts
Coastal communities such as Clacton are part of this nation’s soul, and this Government are committed to such coastal communities and to levelling up across our Union. I can assure my hon. Friend that this Department works closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to ensure that coastal communities recover from covid-19 and to help them to level up. Of course, that includes transport links.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The road across Hammersmith bridge has been completely closed since April, causing congestion, chaos, pollution and danger across Putney. Can the Minister confirm whether there will be funding in the Transport for London settlement for the repair and renewal of Hammersmith bridge, whether there will be funding for Hammersmith and Fulham Council and whether the Government will provide the additional funding to reopen Hammersmith bridge?
Robert Courts
That bridge is of course owned by the local Labour authority. The Transport Department has been stepping in to help, but I would urge the hon. Member to continue engage with her local authority to ensure that the repairs take place.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Government are committed to supporting and delivering a mass transit system in Leeds and West Yorkshire, and we will provide funding for the West Yorkshire Combined Authority to progress its plans.
Fabian Hamilton
As Leeds remains the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system, or indeed any kind of rail-based system, surely the Secretary of State should stop pouring money into feasibility studies when they have already been carried out and instead give my constituents in Leeds North East some clarity by telling the House just how much of the £100 million from the integrated rail plan will be spent on a mass transit system for Leeds and west Yorkshire. And will he tell us who will make the decisions on how that money is spent?
Andrew Stephenson
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about Leeds being the largest city without a mass transit system. The integrated rail plan committed £100 million to start work on the mass transit system and to look at the most effective way to get HS2 trains to Leeds. However, it is worth noting that in addition to that, £830 million was allocated to the West Yorkshire Combined Authority through the city regional sustainable transport settlement in the autumn Budget, of which we expect £200 million to take forward the mass transit system based on the current proposals.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Government recognise the importance of the strategic road network in supporting local growth. National Highways has reviewed earlier work on a potential junction 10A on the A14 so that the project can be considered for the next road investment strategy. The review’s findings will be available in the new year.
Mr Hollobone
Residents in Kettering, Barton Seagrave and Burton Latimer desperately needed this junction in RIS3 from 2025; otherwise, Kettering will simply grind to a halt. Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to secure for me a meeting with the noble Baroness Vere, the roads Minister, and North Northamptonshire Council, so that we can finally get this scheme included in the road investment strategy?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend continues to make a powerful case for this scheme. I know that he has met my noble Friend the Baroness Vere before, but I am sure she will be delighted to meet him again to talk about this important scheme for his constituency.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
Our world-leading transport decarbonisation plan sets out the Government’s commitments and the actions needed to decarbonise transport, putting the sector on the pathway to net zero.
Deidre Brock
A merry Christmas to you and your team, Mr. Speaker. Considerable Scottish Government investment is going into electrification and new rail lines, but hundreds of millions of pounds are leaving the Scottish rail system every year to pay Network Rail access charges. Does the Minister agree that one of the top priorities for the new Great British Railways must be a review of the system in which Scotland’s railways pay a massive premium simply to run services?
Trudy Harrison
Access charging will remain with GBR, but we can certainly arrange a meeting if that might be helpful.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Northern Powerhouse Rail project will deliver real benefits for passengers and communities, enhancing journeys and levelling up for a growing population.
Kevin Hollinrake
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The integrated rail plan contains many good things, but a significant improvement would be an improved direct connection between Bradford and Manchester. There are ways to do it without significantly increasing the overall £96 billion budget. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss the opportunities?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend is a brilliant champion for his constituents, his region and the whole north of England. The integrated rail plan was designed to deliver improvements to Bradford sooner, but I am of course happy to meet him to discuss possible future investment.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
The Department for Transport has had several meetings with Midland Metro Ltd to discuss the suspension of tram services and the impact that has had in the west midlands.
Steve McCabe
When a similar problem occurred in Sydney with the same type of trams, built by the same company, CAF, the trams were off the tracks for 18 months. With the Commonwealth games due to begin on 28 July next year—I am sure we all hope they will be a huge success—the west midlands obviously needs a full and efficient public transport service. Will the Minister keep tabs on this issue and offer whatever assistance he can to ensure that the problem does not adversely affect the games?
Chris Heaton-Harris
We have been monitoring the situation since Midland Metro Ltd first informed us of the problem back in June. MML then informed the Office of Rail and Road of the failure and the intended repair method. At that point, the cracks, and the risk they posed to long-term service disruption, were highlighted as minor, but as things have gone on, the situation has obviously become more serious. MML is reviewing the condition of its trams and reopened a reduced service yesterday. I guarantee the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to engage with MML and ensure that people can get to the Commonwealth games and celebrate the fun that everyone can have.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The Government recognise the key importance of the A1 as a strategic north-south link across the country. Further improvements to the route, beyond those completed in 2009, will be considered as part of the National Highways route strategy process.
Alicia Kearns
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker! I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for recognising the importance of the A1, but it shuts down at least once a week in my Rutland and Melton constituency patch because of accidents. It is a core artery for our nation and for goods, not least our Christmas stilton. Will the Minister please meet the A1 working group of MPs, so that we can explain why it is so important to upgrade the A1 to full motorway standard?
Andrew Stephenson
I appreciate my hon. Friend’s enthusiasm for this issue, and I am delighted to offer her a meeting with my noble Friend the Minister with responsibility for roads, who would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and her colleagues.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I wish you and your staff a merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, along with the Opposition Front-Bench team, who will recall that I announced the integrated rail plan last month. Since then—last Thursday—Hitachi and Alston have been chosen for a £2 billion contract to produce trains in the midlands and the north; that will bring 2,500 jobs. Last Monday saw the introduction of a brand-new train service from Middlesbrough to London—the first in more than three decades. We are already delivering on the integrated rail plan.
Kevin Hollinrake
The dualling of the A64 was first mooted in The Yorkshire Post in 1905, since when it has been promised and cancelled several times, despite being much needed. Its delivery would massively reduce the journey time between York, Malton, Pickering, Scarborough and Filey. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on plans to dual the A64?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend has been a long-term advocate of dualling the A64 north-east of York. I can confirm that it will be one of my Department’s options for consideration in the enhancements programme under the road investment strategy from 2025.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
I wish you and your team a very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.
Ahead of a tough Christmas, people across this country are paying the price of Tory inflation. In Dewsbury, for example, since the Conservative party came to power, the price of the commute into Leeds has risen more than three times faster than pay. Does the Secretary of State think that that is reasonable? If he does not—he failed to answer this point earlier—will he rule out the brutal 3.8% hike in rail fares rumoured for millions of passengers next year?
Grant Shapps
I am pleased that the hon. Lady mentions Dewsbury, because it gives me the opportunity to mention that it benefits much more from the integrated rail plan than the original High Speed 2 plan. She is right about inflation, but it is a global post-pandemic issue, rather than specific to this country. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a series of measures, including a big uplift in the living wage of 6.6%, which outclasses even inflation.
Louise Haigh
Rail passengers across the country will have heard that reply, and will know that the Secretary of State will not rule out the massive hike next year. It is not just rail fares that this Government are refusing to tackle. They have been told by the Competition and Markets Authority to tackle the scandalous PCR market, given that the Secretary of State requires hundreds of thousands of people travelling home this Christmas to take a test. Ministers claimed that many of those tests are available at £20, but the truth is that just 0.4% of those advertised on the gov.uk website are available at that price. Why has he refused to take the action that regulators have demanded, clean up this racket, and help families with the huge cost of travel this Christmas?
Grant Shapps
I agree that it is very important that private sector providers stick to the prices that they are advertising; like the hon. Lady, I have checked the site and have been disappointed when that has not happened. The site is operated by the Department of Health and Social Care; I will pass her comments on to that Department. I did, though, check the site last night, and found that I could buy PCR tests for the prices being advertised.
Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
Of course I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I thank her for raising the topic.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Following the Chancellor’s U-turn on sector-specific support, the sector hardest hit by covid is aviation, with the UK sector’s uneven recovery being the slowest in Europe. Understandably, omicron may now wipe out Christmas travel, so does the Secretary of State agree that the sector needs support now, whether it through furlough, grants, or route development funds? We need to see that the Government understand the urgency of the situation, including by their extending the terms of the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme so that it covers aviation and travel businesses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the aviation sector has benefited from approximately £8 billion of support from the Government’s cross-economy measures. We are just about to announce the third iteration of the airport and ground handlers business rates support scheme to help with fixed costs. We will continue to listen to the sector to understand how best it may be supported.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
Chris Heaton-Harris
I wish my hon. Friend a happy birthday, and look forward to sharing his birthday cake later and discussing these matters. He is a persistent campaigner for better rail services for his constituents. The constructive manner in which he goes about his business on behalf of his constituency will pay dividends for him. Future services will depend on demand, but of course I will continue to work with him on how we can get the best out of our rail plans, including the £96 billion integrated rail plan, for Burnley.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Will the Secretary of State assure the House that when he meets and gets into discussions with Transport for London, hopefully today or tomorrow, he will take into consideration the effects of rising fares, reduced services and possible closure of lines on the environment, job opportunities and air quality for the people of London? Will he also consider the effects on the mobility of young and older people who have campaigned for years for the ability to travel around their city, which has a higher use of public transport than many other places around the world because of progressive transport policies?
Grant Shapps
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we want to see this resolved, and we are in constant contact with TfL and the Mayor’s office. He is right to say that we want to ensure that TfL’s rail service, bus service and all the rest of it are there for Londoners, and those who travel into London, to use. We are well on the case, and I look forward to a resolution.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I know how tirelessly he works for his constituents impacted by HS2. In this case, the Planning Inspectorate found that Buckinghamshire Council had been supplied with adequate information, and of course it is important that these decisions are not held up indefinitely, but I will of course continue to work with him and local residents in affected communities to ensure that we get the right approach.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The bus recovery grant expires in mid-March, and with notice to traffic commissioners required for any potential withdrawal of services, that leaves operators in Cambridgeshire and across the rest of the country facing a really difficult cliff edge on 19 January. Notice periods are important, but given the exceptional circumstances, can the Secretary of State Minister give us any assurance that action will be taken to avoid those difficult decisions and protect vital services?
Grant Shapps
It is absolutely true that the bus sector has required enormous support throughout the pandemic, and this Government have stood by it so far. We are of course seeing how omicron is affecting it, and will return to the House to provide additional information to operators.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Andrew Stephenson
I congratulate my hon. Friend on standing up for his constituents. One of the benefits of the integrated rail plan, of course, is that it will benefit many smaller places across the midlands and north, rather than just the big cities. On the issue of safeguarding, though, I must ask him for patience. We have committed £100 million to working on the best way to get HS2 trains to Leeds, and we must wait for the outcome of that work before lifting any safeguarding.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York has not had a local plan for 67 years and has not had an upgrade of its local transport plan for over 10 years. I hear that the Liberal Democrat-Green council is now kicking proposals into the long grass. York Civic Trust is now grasping the nettle, but wants to know when the new instructions on local plans will be coming out, and what focus there will be on decarbonisation.
Chris Heaton-Harris
The hon. Lady will have to forgive me, because I do not know the answer to that question, but I will happily write to her with it.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
Absolutely, and my hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Rutland and Melton. I know that she has been instrumental in brokering this agreement. It means that after 40 years, the people of Melton are much closer to getting the bypass that they want. The Government are showing support for the bypass through the housing infrastructure fund and the local authorities major schemes fund, and we look forward to receiving the final business case, so that we can conclude the approval phase and allow construction to begin.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The aviation sector has renewed its calls for Government support, as it remains one of the hardest-hit sectors and will continue to be one of the first industries impacted by travel rule changes—especially airports, which, as physical structures, have high overheads. Has the Secretary of State had any recent discussions with the Chancellor about what extra support could be offered?
Grant Shapps
I am pleased to report to the hon. Lady that we have indeed provided additional support—starting now—for those airport operators and ground handlers, who, in most cases, will have their business rates paid. I know that she sits independently, but as a Scottish Member of Parliament she might want to approach the Scottish Government. According to Scottish airports including Edinburgh airport, the approach taken in Scotland, where the Cabinet Secretary and Ministers in Scotland have refused to meet them, has been in “stark contrast” to the approach taken by the UK Government, where engagement has been “proactive”.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Like everyone else, Mr Speaker, I wish you and your team a merry Christmas.
Do Ministers agree with me that the proposed Beeching reversals could be transformational for some of our communities? Ferryhill station is an obvious example. The Stillington line could connect communities on Teesside with jobs and days out on the coast, but also with the newly introduced Middlesbrough to London service. That could not only stimulate economic growth but, more important, give hope to our young people. When will it be given final approval?
Chris Heaton-Harris
In the traditional way, I could “refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago”—to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger)—but we are assessing all the schemes in the new year, and there will be answers then.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
A merry Christmas to you and your staff, Mr Speaker, and a ho ho ho.
The integrated rail plan was fantastic news for the people of Ashfield. Not only did it scrap the eastern leg of HS2—which created havoc and devastation in my constituency—but it allows for the investment of £12.8 billion in the east midlands. However, my priority now is the Maid Marian line, which will bring rail services to Selston for the first time in 60 years. Will the Minister meet me to see what a good case I can put for the return of that service?
Andrew Stephenson
Ho ho ho, Mr Speaker. I should be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, who is an incredible champion for his constituency.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I am delighted that the Government have accepted my ten-minute rule Bill as part of the transport decarbonisation plan. The plan has mandated that all new homes and office buildings that were due to have car parking spaces should have electric vehicle chargers, and I think that that makes a great deal of sense. Can my hon. Friend update the House on the timing of the likely legislation?
Trudy Harrison
I thank my hon. Friend for the work that she has put in, especially while preparing her Bill. The Government have taken this on board and regulations will be laid early next year, which will contribute to the additional infrastructure available for the transition from fossil fuel vehicles to the zero emission vehicles of the future.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
The Christmas and new year periods typically see significant work on our rail network. Will my hon. Friend tell us what is happening this year, perhaps with particular reference to the east coast main line?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, a former Rail Minister, for his question. It gives me an opportunity to thank all the rail workers who will be out over the Christmas period delivering £131 million-worth of value with more than 370 projects, including—because we need to get ready for the trans-Pennine upgrade—nine days of major work in Leeds and a number of days’ work at Manchester Victoria, as well as renewal work at Skelton, near my hon. Friend’s constituency. So a huge amount is being done.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am more than pleased to ask a question. It relates to delays at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. I know the Secretary of State has indicated that giant steps have been taken to address the issue, but what discussions has he had with the Northern Ireland Minister for Infrastructure to address the 1.4 million applications in Northern Ireland that have been affected by backlogs which have also affected the UK mainland?
Grant Shapps
I am delighted to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. We are, of course, in touch to make sure that the backlogs which have, understandably, built up during the coronavirus outbreak are being dealt with as quickly as possible. One of the best ways of doing that is digitising the services to ensure that more transactions take place electronically, online, and do not require pieces of paper to be sent around.
Mr Speaker
I thank everyone who has taken part in the questions session. Please have a good Christmas and a peaceful new year.
Covid-19: Government Support for Business
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on economic support for business.
I want to begin by extending my best wishes to my hon. Friend—
Mr Speaker
The Minister will answer the question, and then you can say your piece.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
It is clear that omicron is much more transmissible than other coronavirus variants, which is why, as the Prime Minister announced on Sunday, we are offering every eligible adult a booster dose before the end of the year. To get more jabs in arms, we have taken the proportionate and responsible step of moving to plan B in England to slow the spread of covid-19.
The rapid spread of omicron means this is a challenging time for a number of sectors, including hospitality. The Chancellor will be speaking to UK hospitality representatives this afternoon to understand their concerns. The Government continue to offer considerable support to businesses that might require extra assistance into next spring, as part of the £400 billion of direct economic help that we have provided during the pandemic.
For instance, we have reduced the VAT rate for hospitality and tourism businesses to 12.5% until March. Eligible retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England are also benefiting from 66% business rates relief until March. And at the recent autumn Budget the Chancellor introduced a further 50% business rates relief for eligible businesses into the 2022-23 tax year.
Businesses can continue to apply for the additional restrictions grant until March 2022, as part of more than £2 billion of discretionary business grant funding during the pandemic. Businesses can benefit from our extension to the recovery loan scheme, which helps small and medium-sized enterprises to build back from the crisis by providing guarantees to lenders on finance of up to £10 million. Firms are also protected from eviction until March 2022 if they fall behind on their rent.
Firms in the arts and culture sector, meanwhile, can access the £2 billion culture recovery fund, the sports recovery package and the film and television production restart scheme until the end of April 2022. And our £800 million live events reinsurance scheme is giving event organisers confidence to plan ahead. Furthermore, the devolved Administrations have received an extra £12.6 billion this year, including an additional £1.3 billion in the autumn Budget.
This Government are helping businesses in every region and nation of the UK during these difficult times. We are speaking to the most affected sectors, and we will continue to respond proportionately to the virus’s changing path to support jobs, businesses and individuals, just as we have since the start of this pandemic.
Mr McFadden
Forgive me for my Christmas eagerness, Mr Speaker.
I extend my best wishes to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), the shadow Chancellor, as she recovers from covid at home. We know where she is, but where is the Chancellor? Why did he decide to proceed with a trip to California on Tuesday, when it was already clear that UK businesses were struggling to cope with what the Prime Minister himself has called a “tidal wave” of omicron?
Even if the Chancellor is abroad, California is not exactly a communications desert. They have television, and I have even heard that they have the internet, but it is still radio silence from the Chancellor. There is tumbleweed rolling through the Treasury, which says he is in communication with officials, but what about some communication with businesses that are losing bookings by the hour and watching their December profits vanish into thin air? Last night the chief medical officer advised the public to deprioritise social contact. Adherence to that advice will have a clear and direct impact on the hospitality industry, live music, theatre and other public events across the country.
The Government documents for plan B say that the decision on economic support will be made
“based on the data at the time.”
That time is now, so let me ask the Minister this: what measures will the Government take to ensure that those who have to isolate at home have proper sick pay that enables them to follow the rules? What will the Government do to help hospitality businesses affected by the chief medical officer’s advice to deprioritise social contact? Will any support also apply to live music, theatre and other events?
What are the Government doing to maintain supply chains, should they be affected by staff absences in the coming weeks? What is the Government’s response to the hospitality industry’s call to maintain the value added tax rates for that sector at 12.5%? Will the Government also allow local authorities to release any unused funds they may have from previous covid aid packages to support businesses right now?
The principle here should be that the level of support should match the economic restrictions in place. It is not about a blank cheque; there has already been enough wasteful spending from the Government in the past two years. Any package should be timely, proportionate and properly targeted and must guard against fraud. That is why it needs the full and focused application of Treasury Ministers and officials.
We are not in lockdown, but it would be totally disingenuous to pretend that businesses can trade normally when the Prime Minister has used a special national broadcast to warn the nation of a “tidal wave” of covid infections and the chief medical officer has told us to cut back on social contact. The Government cannot pretend that nothing has changed. This is not the time to abandon businesses, so will the Minister commit to announcing a package of support by the end of today—I mean UK time, not California time—that matches the situation that British businesses and workers now face?
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions. The Chancellor has been deeply engaged with business representatives throughout this pandemic and he will continue to be so. He was on a long-planned business trip to the United States, conducting Government business, and he will continue to engage today with other Ministers, with representatives of the hospitality sector and others, to hear their concerns about what further support should be required.
However, I will not be taking lessons from the right hon. Gentleman on some of these measures. Last year, when we put in place the bounce back loans, it was the shadow Chancellor at the time, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), who specifically engaged constructively with the Chancellor to agree the basis for those loans. We have continued to work constructively throughout on a range of interventions for multiple sectors. We put in a package of measures at the Budget offering additional support and as of yesterday the covid additional relief fund will provide £1.5 billion for those in the supply chain to deal with some of the additional challenges. Of course the Government recognise the additional pressures that these measures and this strain of the virus bring, and of course we will engage carefully and listen carefully to those business representatives this afternoon.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Minister has talked about some of the costs that will be reduced. The problem with the reduction of Christmas cheer, especially in the hospitality and entertainment industries, is revenues.
If I listen to my publicans, restaurateurs and hoteliers, I know they will want to hear after the meeting this afternoon how their revenues can be lifted, how they can treat their staff properly and how the loss of revenue from those events that cannot be postponed will in some way be made up to them. That is what matters most in most constituencies, including mine.
John Glen
I thank the Father of the House for his comments, and point out that there is £250 million of funds still to be given to businesses through the additional restrictions grants. Three out of four local authorities have between 5% and 40% of their funds unallocated. However, I recognise that this is a distinct new challenge, and that is why I and the Chancellor will be having meetings with representatives from the affected sectors this afternoon to see what more needs to be done.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The omicron variant is now present in all Scottish health boards, so I am sure the Minister will congratulate Scotland on being the first nation in the UK to vaccinate 50% of the eligible population with the booster jab.
On Tuesday, during the First Minister’s address to the Scottish Parliament, the Treasury sent out a press release indicating that more covid support was coming, but it later backtracked and pulled it. In response to those erroneous claims, the Scottish Finance Secretary has written to the Chancellor seeking clarification. When should the Scottish Finance Secretary expect a reply? Do we have to wait for the Chancellor to return from California? Does the Minister not believe that the Government’s flip-flopping and flippancy of the last few days has undermined the devolved Administrations and that assurances of funding must be provided right now?
John Glen
Of course, the devolved authorities will secure £77.6 billion next year, which is £12.6 billion more than this year. Just yesterday, £430 million of additional money was agreed with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The hon. Member should contact the Finance Secretary in Scotland to clarify what he is talking about, because that money was allocated yesterday by the Chief Secretary.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Government policy has been clear that people can proceed with their Christmas socialising plans as expected. However, yesterday the chief medical officer said that people should limit social contact, which will clearly have a devastating effect on hospitality businesses. Can we have clarity about how people should plan their social contacts for Christmas?
John Glen
The advice is clear: one should get the booster as quickly as possible—I did so on Saturday—take lateral flow tests and act responsibly. On Monday, I shall take my Salisbury team out for lunch.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Public health messages need to be clear and consistent, but last night the Prime Minister’s press conference was confusing and sowed turmoil in the hospitality sector. Another sector that is already hurting is small coach and bus operators, such as Stanley Travel in my constituency, who rely on Christmas and the new year for income to tide them over the fallow period of January and February. When the Chancellor comes back from his winter sun trip to California, will the Minister ensure that he does not forget the sector as we look at support in the coming months?
John Glen
The right hon. Gentleman legitimately raises a point about the whole range of businesses affected. That is why the Government’s priority was to give local authorities maximum discretion in how to allocate funds. As the Chancellor has done yesterday, today and every day, he will continue to focus on the needs of the economy and businesses up and down the country.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am reassured that my hon. Friend the Minister will take out his team on Monday. Like him, I took a lateral flow test this morning. However, is it not the case that when officials give advice, it has a massive capacity to herd the public into particular behaviours? Therefore, while the Government have formally allowed hospitality businesses in particular to stay open, the reality in my constituency is that fantastic businesses such as The Old Queens Head in Penn and Tylers Green have seen massive cancellations. What reassurance can he give me that when officials speak—particularly from podiums at press conferences—they stay within the bounds of the policy decided by Ministers, and that what Ministers have decided takes into account the broad spectrum of collateral harms that follow from, for example, encouraging people not to mix together?
John Glen
It is really important that we follow the best advice to get jabbed, take those lateral flow tests and wear masks. However, where we possibly can, we should also continue to engage with our local communities and support our businesses at this difficult time. Of course, that means that judgments have to be made, and people must take responsibility for their decisions in the light of that guidance.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Small and medium-sized enterprises make up a significant proportion of the UK hospitality sector, and in recent days they have seen their footfall decline by as much as 40%, with one business I know of having had 79 cancellations in three hours. This comes at a time when businesses also continue to face high energy costs, supply chain disruptions and dropping consumer confidence. If we know this, it beggars belief that it is not clear to the Government. We have been meeting hospitality businesses since last week. Why is this meeting happening only today, and are the Government going to commit to come forward with a package of support that will give confidence for Christmas and the months ahead by the end of today?
John Glen
As I have said, the Government are meeting a dozen representatives from the sector this afternoon to assess the latest situation and see what more can be done.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I sympathise with my hon. Friend and good neighbour in having to deal with data that is changing extremely rapidly. We know from South Africa and southern Africa that things may be changing, perhaps for the better, but we cannot rely on that, so the cautious words of Ministers and officials and the measures that we passed earlier this week are absolutely appropriate. Does my hon. Friend agree that, at a time of change such as now, it is important that the House is convened to debate the issues and that we should seek an opportunity next week and the week after for us to meet again so that Ministers can update the House on the current situation and change what is required one way or the other, if that is necessary? The public expect that level of leadership.
John Glen
I thank my right hon. Friend and neighbour for his question. As I think he will appreciate from his time in government, some of those decisions come from those above me. It is critical that we are clear about what we are doing and why we are doing it, and the basis for the decisions that we are making.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is pretty obvious that during this crisis many workers have lost a lot of income, wages have gone down and living standards have gone down. For those who have to self-isolate or are sick and have to rely on statutory sick pay, SSP is wholly inadequate. Will he, in his consideration of business support, include an immediate substantial increase in SSP so that living standards can at least be maintained?
John Glen
The Government will always look at such matters. We have maintained the self-isolation £500 payment, means-tested through local authorities, but we will obviously keep all matters under review.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Boosted this morning, Mr Speaker.
Listening last night to the Prime Minister’s Downing Street conference, I could see why there was no statement to the House. No new Government policy was announced. Then Professor Chris Whitty answered a question from the BBC, and at a stroke, the chief medical officer changed Government policy and put this country—certainly hospitality, and Winchester’s hospitality bears this out from what I am hearing—into effective lockdown. May I ask—yes or no—whether what Professor Whitty said last night is now the policy of the Government, namely, that we should socialise carefully? What in practical legal terms does that mean?
On support, because advisers are now running the show—I bet none of them run businesses facing complete ruin as a result of what was said last night—the Treasury is going to have to do more. Otherwise, we risk wasting the amazing support that Her Majesty’s Treasury gave last year. We are going to have to do more, whether or not we want to be here and whether or not I think we should be here, or businesses will face ruin and thousands of people are going to lose their jobs.
John Glen
I have been very clear that we should get boosted, encourage our constituents to get boosted, take the lateral flow tests, wear masks and engage in normal activity as far as we can. There will not be a legal definition of what every individual should do on an individual basis, but most people will use common sense, and that is really important. I recognise the core point that my hon. Friend makes. The sector will need engagement from Government, and that is why Ministers—not advisers— will be engaging with that sector this afternoon.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As the Father of the House said, we will all be receiving emails from businesses in our constituencies. One has written to me saying:
“As with most businesses, a hospitality business is not run from one day to the next. Plans are in place for staff, events and orders.”
These are businesses that were struggling already with accrued debt and a staffing recruitment crisis before omicron hit. Does the Minister agree that, if businesses are facing the same set of circumstances they faced when they received support from the Government, it is reasonable for them to expect the same level of support again?
John Glen
We have put in a range of interventions, be that through loans, the furlough scheme, support through grants or support through reliefs from VAT and business rates. We will continue to look at what specific sectors are facing in these coming days and weeks, and we will act appropriately in light of those changed circumstances.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Clearly we are all going to have to live with covid for a long time to come. Businesses in my constituency report a double whammy: people cancelling bookings for hospitality and shortages of staff as a result of people testing positive for covid, doing the responsible thing and not coming in. Can my hon. Friend look at ways we can promote business and encourage people to take on short-term roles in the hospitality industry to cover these gaps? We need to provide incentives for business to continue.
John Glen
As ever, my hon. Friend makes sensible points, and I will certainly look carefully at what he has said, and we will look at in light of the representations we receive this afternoon.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) is right: the Government are trying to sing two different songs at the same time, and the result is a cacophony of mixed messages in everyone’s ears. This afternoon, the Chancellor needs not just to listen, but to act, because the taxes we are talking about are supposed to be taxes on business activity, not business inactivity caused by misfortune and Government mixed messaging. Will the Minister tell the Chancellor this afternoon when he meets him, albeit from California, that action is what is required now, not just listening?
John Glen
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s points. I have constant contact with the Chancellor, and I will make sure he is very aware of the range and strength of opinion in the House today.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s commitment to the meetings this afternoon, but a common theme has developed on both sides of the House of reports, including in my constituency, of pubs losing 50% to 60% of their bookings. Like the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), I have a local coach operator that reported losing £40,000-worth of bookings yesterday alone. While advisers press the panic button way beyond what this House voted for a couple of days ago, can my hon. Friend give me an absolute assurance that there will be a decision by Ministers after his meetings this afternoon that will give businesses the clarity they need on the support they will get in this effective lockdown?
John Glen
What we will do is listen carefully and act appropriately. Just yesterday, we secured this covid additional relief fund to support the supply chain and city centre economies, but I fully recognise that we are in a very difficult and rapidly changing set of circumstances, and it is important that Ministers act and make decisions on the basis of that data and the evidence that is presented to this House.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
While it is important that we have a swift health response, it is equally important that we have a swift financial response to support that health response in tackling the impact of covid. What steps are being taken to ensure that these decisions are taken quickly? It is not good enough simply to wait until the Chancellor can wake up, whenever that is, in California. When will the Government finally ever do anything to support those who have been excluded from any support at any time throughout this entire pandemic?
John Glen
Clearly we have worked hard throughout to bring customised support to different sectors, with a range of grants, reliefs and direct support through furlough. The Chancellor was very clear from his earliest statements last spring that it would be impossible to protect every single job, but just this week we have seen unemployment at 4.2%, which is obviously considerably better than was anticipated. There is no complacency on behalf of the Treasury or the Chancellor, who is fully engaged in looking at what interventions are appropriate in addition to the comprehensive winter plan, which was laid out in advance to give reassurance over the coming six months. As I have said, circumstances have now changed, and we will need to look very carefully at the implications of that.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), I have had a coach operator on to me this morning, so may I urge the Government to look at the wider impact of what is happening? It is welcome that the Chancellor and his team are meeting the hospitality sector, but the closure or limited closure of that sector has a massive knock-on effect, for example, on coach operators and taxi drivers. Sadly, this is going to mean more online sales and another hit to the high street, so may I urge the Minister to ensure that the wider aspects of what is taking place are considered in the meeting later?
John Glen
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to the wider impact across related businesses, which is why Ministers will this afternoon meet a range of representatives, to ensure that the full understanding of the Government is grasped.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I simply say to the Minister that unless he acts today to help hospitality businesses they will not be there next year to be helped—that is the simple reality. People choosing not to go to hospitality events, following guidance not to go to the office, is having a big impact on the revenues of public transport operators—bus, coach and Supertram operators in Sheffield. Will he have urgent conversations with the Transport Secretary about extra help for those operators—already we have seen massive cuts to services—and give the money to the transport authorities so that it can be best spent in the interests of passengers?
John Glen
Of course discussions will take place across government. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the transport sector, where of course significant support has been given. However, I take on board his point.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Chancellor are meeting those in the hospitality sector this afternoon. There is no doubt that they are suffering because of some of the mixed messages we have heard in the past few days. The obvious places to help them would be by looking at VAT again, potentially reducing it back to the 5% rate until the end of March, and at the recovery loan scheme. As the Minister knows, the original schemes—bounce back loans and the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme—did not require a forward viability test, whereas the recovery loan scheme does. It is very difficult for those in hospitality at the moment to demonstrate forward-looking viability for their businesses, so will the Minister look again at the scheme and look to reform it so that businesses can access this vital financial support?
John Glen
As ever, my hon. Friend brings sensible and credible points to the Chamber on these matters. He is very familiar with the different aspects of small and medium-sized enterprise financing. The recovery loan scheme, operational until June next year, gives a 70% guarantee to lenders, but of course we will look at all those measures in the round, and I look forward to our meeting later today on other matters.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I am acutely aware, having a constituency on the edge of the west end, of the impact that the pandemic has had not only on hospitality and tourism, but on the culture, arts and live performance sector. Last night, it was reported that 12 west end shows were unable to go ahead because of illness among the cast, many of whom are self-employed. Will the Minister confirm that he or fellow Ministers will be meeting representatives of the theatre and live performance sector to discuss the impact of this latest wave of the crisis on their finances?
John Glen
We will continue to engage with the sector. I just draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the £2 billion culture recovery fund; the emergency resources support fund, which gives up to £3 million of support to charities and £1 million to commercial entities in that sector; and the £800 million to the live events reinsurance scheme. However, we will continue to engage across different sectors of the economy.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Newcastle has a fantastic night-time economy and the Chancellor should visit, as it is a lot closer than California. Those businesses will be seeing a real reduction in footfall and trade, as will their suppliers directly, because of the omicron variant. What support is the Minister offering to them directly as a result of the omicron variant?
John Glen
As I mentioned, there is outstanding support from the local additional restrictions grant, which local authorities have available. I would be happy to hear from the hon. Lady where Newcastle’s local authority is on the disbursal of that grant. As I said, we are meeting representatives from across the economy this afternoon and we will look carefully at what can be done.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, to you and the excellent House staff.
It should have been a very busy Christmas period, but hospitality, entertainment and linked businesses in my constituency, on top of trying to contend with soaring energy costs, are being hard hit. They are losing bookings and events after the Prime Minister announced his recent plan. Where is the Chancellor? Why did he not announce a corresponding support package plan for those affected? What support package can businesses in my constituency apply for to help them in these difficult times?
John Glen
I have already set out a number of support measures that we have taken, which are ongoing through to next March, such as business rates relief, grants from local authorities, grants that we have already given and a concession on the lower VAT rate. Of course, I recognise the reality of behaviour at the moment. We have to assess that, look at the data and look at what the appropriate measure is. It is really clear: we have not shut anything down. What we have done is set out new conditions which people are finding it difficult to come to terms with. I understand that, which is why we have to work carefully with the sector to look at what sort of support we can bring in.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Sacha Lord, Greater Manchester’s night-time economy adviser, just said:
“100,000’s staff hours are being slashed up and down the UK, due to cancellations. A large proportion”—
of those staff—
“are on a living wage.”
He says that the silence from the Chancellor is “deafening” and it is, “Unforgivable and Unforgettable.” Does the Minister agree?
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I just asked the Secretary of State for Transport about support for aviation and was given the Department for Transport’s greatest hits. The truth is that the aviation sector was hardest hit. Its recovery has been uneven and the weakest in Europe. It will need support. Measures already brought in, such as the coronavirus large business interruption loan scheme, will have to be extended for some sectors, in the same manner as CBILS. Thousands of jobs have gone in my constituency. Does the Treasury actually understand how serious the situation is?
John Glen
Yes, we do, and that is why we have given £12 billion of loan guarantees through the covid corporate financing facility for the aviation sector. At the Budget, we put in the airport and ground operations support scheme to help with fixed costs over the next six months. Of course I recognise that the situation is having a significant impact on the sector and the Government will remain engaged to support where we possibly can.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
A number of different things have happened this week in the Government’s messaging, but one significant thing was when the Prime Minister made his television statement on Sunday and told people to work from home if they can. Reinforcing that message has meant that, this week, an awful lot of people are not in the places that they expected to be, which has resulted in cancellations of bookings for hotels and restaurants. Rightly, reinforcing that message has had an impact that the Treasury needs to react to.
John Glen
I recognise that, which is why I have set out today the engagement that we are having to try to determine exactly what we need to do.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
For more than a week, hospitality businesses and workers in Nottingham have been contacting me desperately worried about falling custom at what should be their busiest time of year. I have also heard from hair and beauty salons in my constituency that are facing cancellations and wondering how on earth they will get by on a reduced income when they are already struggling to pay back the loans that they took out to survive lockdown. Why do the Government not seem to understand the urgency of the situation and what will the Minister now do to help?
John Glen
What I will do is ensure that the hon. Lady’s point is passed to the Chancellor. I will also ensure that the engagement is as broad as possible across Treasury Ministers, so that the full impact of the evolving circumstances is reflected in our response.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
A few weekends ago, on Small Business Saturday, I was happy to host the first inaugural Ilford business awards. With about 1,500 nominations, it spotlighted the best businesses in Ilford. Recent research from the TUC, however, shows that 647,000 workers in hospitality, retail and entertainment do not currently qualify for statutory sick pay and many will be incredibly anxious about what that means, especially given the contradictory advice from Government scientists and the Prime Minister in the past few days. Why have the Government let down the industry so badly? What will the Minister commit to do to help to support those industries today?
John Glen
Today we are having meetings to discern exactly what the data is showing and what interventions we need to make going forward.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
I think I am now the sixth Member to mention the coach sector, and I hope the Treasury is listening to hon. and right hon. Members in that regard. Robert Black’s of Brechin has contacted me to say that bookings have been disappearing like snow off a dyke since the omicron situation developed. I have also been contacted by The Townhouse in Arbroath, The Stag in Forfar and many others, and I am not taking my staff out on Friday because I am following advice. There are booking cancellations right across the board. It is an omicron support package that we need—where is it coming from?
John Glen
As I have said repeatedly, the Government are engaging across sectors. I recognise the depth and breadth of the impact of this variant, and we will look very carefully at what we need to do.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Despite the Treasury spin, last night’s Cobra meetings only confirmed that of course there is no money coming to Scotland; the money announced by the Treasury on Tuesday was pre-announced money. The Scottish Government have already acted to deliver £100 million of funding to support businesses disrupted by health advice in Scotland. They want to give more, but they cannot, due to the restrictions in place on devolved borrowing. Does the Minister accept that this aspect of the devolution settlement is hampering the ability of devolved Governments to act as necessary?
John Glen
I am sorry, but I cannot accept that. The Government have given an additional £12 billion to the devolved Administrations, which also benefit from the reduced VAT, the recovery loans and the other UK-wide measures, and the additional £430 million that was agreed this week.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, on a very frosty north-east morning, I met small businesses at my business forum. They told me of their concerns about what might happen over the Christmas period with covid-19. They included beauty businesses and businesses such as the Railway Tavern in Rowlands Gill in my constituency. Will the Minister please urgently address the need to support our hospitality and personal care businesses throughout this situation?
John Glen
The hon. Lady makes a very reasonable case about businesses in her constituency. As I have said, we will be engaging with the sector to come forward with appropriate interventions based on the data and the experience across the economy.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
One thing is clear: we can trust the word of the chief medical officer more than that of the Prime Minister, as the Government sleepwalk into another covid crisis. In York, we have a significant hospitality sector. It is really struggling, as are many other businesses. What steps is the Minister taking with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, as the tax year comes to an end, to ensure greater flexibility for businesses so that they can have longer to repay money to the Treasury?
John Glen
As ever, the hon. Lady makes a reasonable point. We have to look at the range of interventions and ways that we could support the economy at this time. She raises an interesting area for us to focus on, and I am sure that will be a substantive area of considerations with the Chancellor.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The music industry has been hit hard. The industry trade body LIVE—Live music Industry Venues and Entertainment—has concerns that while venues can technically stay open, they are haemorrhaging money and that will lead to permanent closures. Will the Chancellor maintain the current rate of VAT beyond March 2022? In addition to support packages, will the Government fix the insurance scheme for cancelled events to include pandemic-related cancellations?
John Glen
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The Government worked very closely with the sector in the determination of the parameters of the live events reinsurance scheme—I was involved in it myself—over late summer. That £800 million scheme will give events across the country confidence, but I obviously recognise that that needs to be kept under constant review, as all the measures do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers to the questions and, clearly, for the commitment to financial support to help businesses, but may I ask him a question on behalf of travel agents and tour operators, which are again taking a very specific hit, not simply from cancellations but from frightened people being afraid to book for the future? Will he explore urgently a financial aid scheme alongside the one that is so clearly needed for the hospitality industry as a whole?
John Glen
Throughout this pandemic, we have received representations from many sectors, we have introduced a range of interventions to deal with the challenges, and we will continue to engage with sectors across the economy, including travel operators, which have been reflected a number of times in the concerns of Members across the House this morning.
FCDO Staffing
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary, or rather the Minister in his place, about staffing cuts in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I thank my hon. and gallant Friend for the question. Let me start off by saying that the Foreign Secretary has made it clear—and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also made this clear at questions yesterday—that there will not be a 10% staff cut to the FCDO.
Internal work has taken place that has not been signed off by Ministers, but I remind the House that we are still investing massively in our overseas aid. At £10 billion this year, the UK remains one of the largest ODA spenders in the world, as well as being well above the OECD average. The FCDO must continue to promote a positive, confident, outward-looking global Britain, deploying its diplomacy and development expertise to advance freedom, democracy and sustainable enterprise around the world.
We remain a highly ambitious Department, supporting the integrated review and the aspirations set out within it. To do this, the Department needs to ensure its resources—both its funding and its most valuable resource, its people—are aligned to its priorities. Over the next three years, some areas of the Department will see staffing resources of course increase, reflecting the need to align our people to the nation’s priorities. The FCDO will continue to retain one of the largest overseas diplomatic networks of any nation, while also ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. There will not be a 10% staff cut and Ministers will make the final decisions on workforce changes in the spring.
Tom Tugendhat
May I first pay enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done in his own part of the world as a Foreign Office Minister? The bilateral relationships that he has helped to build, along with his impressive command of Arabic, have transformed some of the relationships and moved them to a whole new footing, and that is enormously welcome. In that work, what he has seen is some fantastic envoys of this country representing what is best about us and achieving what we really need to see, which is a transformational attitude following the revolution that Brexit put into our foreign policy. That is enormously welcome. I am sure the Minister will agree with me that, looking around the world and trying to find staff cuts—even if not 10%, even if only a few—is still going to be challenging, because the reality is that we need more people now, not fewer.
We have found that the policy we had before 2016 of over-centralising on international institutions such as the European Union or others around the world that have caused such challenge has not always served Britain’s interests best, and we have decided—quite correctly, in my view—to invest very hard in the bilateral relationships that matter. This is indeed the policy of the integrated review that the Minister has so rightly cited. It is also the policy of the Foreign Secretary, who has spoken about BII—British international investment—to challenge China’s belt and road and to secure more opportunities for British trade around the world. But that means more staff in Kenya, more staff in Nigeria, more staff in capitals around the European Union—not in Brussels—and more staff around his own network in the middle east that he has done so much to transform. This is not just a question about a 10% cut. This is a question about what investment is going to be made in staff numbers in high commissions and embassies around the world to achieve the aim, interests and ambitions of the British people and the stated aim of this Government. Surely that is not fake news.
James Cleverly
To respond to my hon. Friend’s kind words about my command of the Arabic language, shukran jazeelan. Actually, I will accept his compliment on behalf of the members of the FCDO across the network in my region and beyond, who are of course the primary means by which we deliver both diplomacy and development. He is absolutely right that the Government’s foreign policy, as set out in the integrated review, remains highly ambitious. Diplomacy and development are delivered primarily through people. While we are very proud of being a top tier ODA-donating country, with the commitment to go back up to 0.7% set out in the spending review announcements, the integrated review does mean we will need to ensure that our posture globally reinforces that. So changes are inevitable. I absolutely take the point he makes about the value of the people as part of that. When Ministers make the ultimate decisions about this, we will absolutely take the points he makes, with which we very much agree, into consideration.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for securing this important urgent question.
In the last year, we have seen just how vital Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office staff are to the UK’s operations abroad. While the previous Foreign Secretary relaxed on a beach as Kabul fell to the Taliban, Foreign Office staff were absolutely integral to the evacuation of British citizens and Afghans from Afghanistan. But no one could have heard last week’s devastating whistleblower testimony about a Department that was overstretched, under-resourced and badly led by Ministers, and concluded that the remedy was to actually cut our diplomatic staff. The truth is that the Government have overseen a series of damaging blows to our international influence. The Government have slashed development aid, cut the armed forces and overseen the closure of British Council offices. Many international development staff have left, taking with them their expertise and experience. Now, the Government plan to cut our diplomacy.
Does the Minister recognise that the Government are overseeing a downgraded role for Britain nationally? These cuts could not have come at a worse time. Alongside the pandemic, we face challenges from an aggressive Russia and a more assertive China. We see persistent poverty and conflict, as well as climate change running out of control. We need a properly funded diplomatic and development Department to take on those challenges.
When the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee asked the Prime Minister about the cuts, he called them fake news. I would like to ask the Minister whether he believes that is because it is not a 10% cut, but actually a 20% cut. Did the Prime Minister mislead the House? If so, will the Prime Minister come back to this House to correct the record? Can the Minister also tell the House which regions of the world will be most affected by these cuts and how he believes they will impact on the world’s most vulnerable people, such as the women and girls of Afghanistan, who now face the most appalling and serious oppression from the Taliban?
With major cuts like this there will inevitably be consequences for the efficacy and the performance of the Department. Does the Minister agree with the former British ambassador to Germany, Sir Paul Lever, who has said that the planned cuts would affect Britain’s “presence and performance” on the international stage? So much for global Britain. The reality is cuts, downgrades and a diminished international role. It is a disgrace.
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a huge degree of respect for him. However, his questions are predicated on a starting point which I have just said at the Dispatch Box is not the case. He starts throwing around figures like 20% in terms of staff reductions in a clear attempt to generate scaremongering. I have said, and the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both said, that there will not be 10% cuts, as has been brought up—[Interruption.] There will not be. Therefore, his whole line of questioning is predicated on a statement that is incorrect.
The hon. Gentleman said that we have had to spend less on ODA this year and, of course, that is the case. I remind the House that that is because we have experienced the largest economic contraction in three centuries as a direct result of the pandemic. Nevertheless, we still remain one of the largest ODA-donating countries in the world. We maintain one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world. The Foreign Secretary hosted G7 Foreign Ministers in Liverpool, showing global leadership on a range of issues, including girls’ education and humanitarian issues. At COP26, we saw the UK demonstrate global leadership on the existential crisis of our generation—climate change. We will remain a top-tier diplomatic powerhouse.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Can we just remind ourselves that the UK diplomatic service is in fact part of our vital capability to maintain the competitive stance of this country around the world? The cost of the diplomatic service is a minute pinprick in the overall scheme of public expenditure, well within the margin for error of many other Government Departments’ expenditures. Why would we want to squeeze this capability when it is so vital for our global future? Can we also think about what the diplomatic service is for? We value real subject knowledge and expertise, and country knowledge and the ability to speak the local languages more than perhaps we have recently. We value our history and understanding of our place in the world and the intelligence that those in the service gather and feed back to the centre. It is the centre that has to value that if our diplomatic service is to produce value for money.
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important and accurate point about the value that our diplomatic network and our diplomats around that network provide. We are all incredibly proud of the level of expertise of the FCDO staff, and I know the Foreign Secretary has said this to them directly. Our diplomats are an absolutely top-tier team. We retain a high ambition for our international relations, as set out in the integrated review. We will continue investing in our people, including in language skills and other skills, to ensure that we retain that position. He is right that they are the primary means by which we exercise soft power around the world, and they will continue to be very much at the forefront of our thinking when it comes to planning for the future.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It should come as no surprise that there are reports that the FCDO is facing job cuts of up to 20%, although I have not yet heard from the Minister what those cuts will actually be. Over the past two years, the Prime Minister has frequently talked about global Britain, but the reality is that it has been nothing but a nasty little Britain. For example, we have seen the merger of the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office—a merger that has yet even to integrate the IT and email systems—the ideological death sentence cuts imposed by reducing the aid budget and breaking the 0.7% manifesto commitment and the chaotic response to the Afghanistan crisis in the summer. People there will be facing the consequences this winter. This UK Government have routinely reneged on their commitments, and this staff cut, whatever the percentage will be—I look forward to hearing it—will further erode the UK’s diplomatic and development capabilities. Given the huge cuts to aid, and now the direct hit to the number of diplomats carrying forward the Government’s incoherent vision for the UK abroad, is it not the case that the global Britain slogan has been laid bare as simply a fig leaf covering up the UK’s retreating and ever-diminishing role in the world? Can the Minister confirm the actual percentage of the cuts as staff face Christmas with job insecurities?
James Cleverly
Once again the hon. Gentleman throws around the figure of 20% staff cuts. I can tell him that it is nonsense. The UK remains a top-tier global diplomatic powerhouse. I pay particular tribute to the FCDO staff based in Abercrombie House, whose invaluable work adds to the huge diplomatic output of the FCDO. Were his party to fulfil its dream of isolationism, I cannot believe that those jobs at Abercrombie House would be maintained. We support the fantastic work that Scots do within the UK’s global posture. We intend to make sure that they are supported and retained and their work enhanced.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the assurances that the Minister has given, but speaking as one of the Prime Minister’s trade envoys, may I emphasise the important work that the FCDO contributes to the work of envoys not just through the briefings that it gives here in London, but in our embassies? I urge the Minister to give a reassurance that that aspect of the work of FCDO staff will be taken into account in any structural changes.
James Cleverly
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. When I visit our posts around the world—around my region—I am incredibly pleased to see the seamless integration of various Departments that are represented on those platforms. Trade is an incredibly important part of our global posture. He is absolutely right that maintaining the FCDO’s ability to support the foreign-facing work of other Departments will remain a top priority for us.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I have a great many constituents with family members trapped in Afghanistan who are living in hiding and fearing for their lives. One family member writes:
“It’s such a struggle to be here, we have no idea what to do…we are literally running out of everything and it’s getting cold”.
Surely this is not the time to be considering cutting resources when we desperately need more action to help those left behind in Afghanistan and increasingly desperate when we know that the country faces a humanitarian crisis.
James Cleverly
The situation in Afghanistan remains terrible, which is why we have doubled our financial support to it, for the very reasons that the hon. Lady highlighted. We will continue to work through diplomatic channels both internationally in support of stability and improvement in Afghanistan and with the countries immediately neighbouring it. Our commitment to Afghanistan remains undiminished, notwithstanding the fact that we no longer have a military presence there, and we will encourage the Taliban to do the right thing to abide by the commitments they have made with regard to such things as girls’ education, women’s freedom and not being a home for terrorism. We will judge them on their actions, not their words.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing his urgent question and thank the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa—my successor—for the reassurances that he has given. There can be little doubt, however, that over time, the FCDO has been diminished, although it remains formidable. Given that the talent base has been reduced over time, what thought has the Minister given to widening the net from which senior appointments overseas are drawn, noting particularly the need to promote trade and commerce as part of our international effort and the actions and appointments of countries with which we can reasonably be compared, such as France and Germany?
James Cleverly
I thank my right hon. Friend and predecessor for that point. Diplomacy and the nature of international relations are changing. We have to invest in future-facing resources, which means things like IT, most obviously, as well as ensuring that we have a network of experts across a wide range of fields, including commerce. In response to his former point, we already see a very close integration in London and around our overseas network of trade, development, aid and diplomacy. I can only assume that that will continue to be the case when it comes to our people.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for securing this urgent question. It is more than a year since my urgent question when the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development was announced. Despite what the Minister says about this being seamless, we are hearing lots of reports that it is not going well at all, and surely that must create a degree of inefficiencies. Although we have maintained the International Development Committee, we have seen further cuts to aid. In my urgent question last year, I sought an assurance that there would be no forced redundancies. The Minister may not be willing to give us a number or a percentage of cuts, but can he assure us that the review in the spring will not involve compulsory redundancies?
James Cleverly
As I have said a number of times, the decisions about the future structure, prioritisation and orientation of the Department will be made by Ministers in due course and the details will come out in the new year.
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Lady’s point about the merger: some of the most successful ODA-donating countries have merged Foreign and Development Offices. Prior to the merger of the Departments, I was a Minister across both of them, and I have found it easier to work with one set of civil servants in one Department than I did working across two sets of civil servants across two Departments. Our commitment is to retain our standing as a top-tier donor country, in respect of not just the scale of what we give but the sophistication of how we do it, and that will be enhanced through the merged process.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
At a time when we see an increasingly aggressive China, a resurgent Russia and the United States’ strategic withdrawal from the world platform, it is important that we continue to project global Britain and our soft power around the world. When we restore our overseas aid budget to its previous level, we will need people to monitor that spending to make sure we get good value for money for taxpayers. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is the worst time to reduce staff because we will want them in place when we go back to providing the aid?
James Cleverly
My hon. Friend makes the important case that we need to ensure our aid is spent effectively. That is why we value so much the experience of our professionals not only in King Charles Street but around the globe. I assure my hon. Friend that the effective deployment of aid—ensuring that it does not fall into inappropriate hands and gets to the people who need it most—will remain a core priority for the UK. That commitment will remain undiminished and I assure my hon. Friend that I will take his comments to heart as we go through the process of ensuring that the FCDO is oriented to support the integrated review priorities.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
If, as the Minister has said several times, we are a top-tier diplomatic nation, why is a family in my Cardiff West constituency facing yet another Christmas at which their relative, my constituent Luke Symons, remains held captive in Sana’a by the Houthis, when other nations, including America, have succeeded in getting their citizens out of that same situation and that same prison? My constituent Bob Cummings, Luke’s grandfather, recently met some of the Minister’s officials and was confused by their account of what is going on. Will the Minister now commit to a meeting with the Foreign Secretary, as soon as possible, to get some real traction and attention on to this case?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman has raised the case of Luke Symons previously, and directly with me, and I commend him for his work in support of his constituent and his constituent’s family. He will know that the situation in Yemen is incredibly difficult and it is hard to maintain anything like normal diplomatic relations at the best of times. Indeed, it is incredibly difficult to interact with the Houthis, who are responsible for Luke’s ongoing detention. This case remains a priority not just for the Department but for me personally. I raised it on my most recent trip to Oman, which is geographically one of the closest countries to Yemen, but even Oman is limited in the influence it can exert. Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will continue to prioritise this terrible case.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Having just returned from a trade visit to Brazil, I can confirm that our staff in country are absolutely first class. Will Ministers and the Secretary of State consider further prioritising our efforts in a country that is the size of Europe, that dwarfs all other South American economies, that produces 25% of the planet’s food, and that was one of the first to show us a hand of friendship post the Brexit referendum and is therefore well placed as a strategic ally?
James Cleverly
I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised his recent trip to Brazil. He is right to say that that country plays an important role commercially, agriculturally and environmentally, and I have no doubt that we will continue to make the most not only of our bilateral relationship with Brazil but of his language skills and experience in that incredibly important country.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
FCDO staff need only to look at the experiences of the staff at the British Council, a departmental agency, where there have been massive cuts and job losses. Will the Minister tell us what is being done to minimise redundancies at the British Council? Also, why was the decision taken to outsource the Turing scheme, which will undermine the jobs, skills and experience of the British Council staff?
James Cleverly
I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have gone through an unprecedented financial contraction because of covid. The British Council, which derives a significant proportion of its income from tuition, has been hit because of the difficulty in providing tuition in the era of covid, but it has done genuinely fantastic work using technology to continue to provide those services. The Foreign Secretary and I recently had a meeting with the senior leadership of the British Council to discuss what we could do to protect the things that we value highly in terms of its delivery of soft power, to ensure that it not only survives but thrives, once we are able to get past this covid situation.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this urgent question. I am not reassured at all by the Minister’s statement. I have seen the email to the FCDO staff. It says, “We are planning on the basis of just under 10% reduction in our overall workforce size by March 2025”. So is that actually a 9.9% reduction, or something else slightly different from 10%? The Minister was careful to say that there would be no 10% reduction, but will it be a figure that is close to 10%, but not 10%? The aid cuts are a disgrace, and it is easy to spend that money on big multilateral programmes, on the World Bank and on the United Nations, but not on those local projects on the ground that the former DFID staff are so good at supporting and that result in real poverty reduction and real peace building on the ground. Can the Minister reassure the House that the cut will not be anywhere near 10%, and that local staff who know the projects on the ground and who can really effect poverty reduction will not be cut?
James Cleverly
I remind the hon. Lady and the House that there is a difference between the figure that is used internally by officials for planning purposes and decisions that are made by Ministers. The decision around these issues will be made by Ministers. The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and I have made it clear that that figure is not a ministerial figure. With regard to the balance between multilateral and bilateral, the hon. Lady makes an important point. We very much value the work that is done bilaterally in the sometimes small but incredibly highly effective projects that are delivered by the British Government underneath the British flag to some of the most poor and dispossessed people in the world, and that will remain a priority for this Government.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Cuts have consequences, and it is really clear that there will be serious consequences as a result of these cuts. It seems that this has been Treasury-driven, rather than looking at our strategic aims. Can the Minister confirm exactly where these cuts are going to fall and tell us what impact they are going to have?
James Cleverly
I repeat my point that these decisions will be made by Ministers in the new year in line with the timetable set out in the spending review.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Members were taking bets here on the Back Bench as to who would be called first—me or the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). I am not sure who won. I want to put on record my praise and thanks to the ministerial team at the Department, who I have found to be extremely courteous and helpful at all times. I want to put that on record because that is something that I have experienced in my contact with the Department in the last period of time. Covid has shown the sheer magnitude of the pressure on FCDO staff, with consular staff being asked to cover many areas and in some cases many countries. No matter how good and capable the staff are, there simply are not enough of them. Will the Minister consider a graduate scheme to make use of young and intelligent people who wish to experience life abroad? Would he be happy to commit to providing a five-year contract or five-year stint, and can he tell us what incentives could be provided to entice those graduates in?
James Cleverly
The hon. Gentleman invites me to make spending commitments at the Dispatch Box, and sadly I am not able to. He raises an important and interesting point. I will pass on his thanks to the ministerial team and to our team of civil servants, both here in the UK and around the network. He is right that they have gone through an unprecedented period of pressure. The repatriation of British nationals around the globe when covid hit, the evacuation from Afghanistan, and a number of other, less high-profile things have put huge pressure on them. I commend their work, and I thank him on their behalf for his kind comments.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
The UK has world-class civil servants who are not often given due respect as public servants. Their pensions have been cut, and their salaries have risen below inflation. Morale is already low in the Foreign Office after the merger with the Department for International Development due to substantial pay discrepancies. Fewer staff means more work for those who are left, and even less incentive. As that will inevitably lead to rising stress levels, how will the Minister support staff?
James Cleverly
The integrated review sets out our priorities. The Government will ensure that our diplomatic teams and our civil servants, both in the FCDO and in other forward-facing parts of Government, are aligned to support the integrated review, which will give direction, purpose, structure and parameters. That is how we will ensure that the workflow of our civil servants is managed.
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about our civil servants, both in our Department and more broadly. They are excellent and world-class, and we value them very highly.
Business of the House
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 3 January will include:
Monday 3 January—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 4 January—The House will not be sitting.
Wednesday 5 January—Second Reading of the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill [Lords].
Thursday 6 January—General debate on Russian grand strategy. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 10 January will include:
Monday 10 January—Remaining stages of the Nuclear Energy (Financing) Bill.
Tuesday 11 January—Opposition day (10th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
We will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of business today, and I would like to offer my best wishes to all Members and staff for a peaceful, safe and merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year. The thanks of the whole House, and of the Chamber, go to the staff of the House, including our magnificent Doorkeepers. Before the Division on Tuesday, I opened the windows in the Division Lobbies, and one of the Doorkeepers offered me his coat on the basis that I was doing his job for him. They even put up with the Leader of the House interfering in their business, and they do so with enormous grace and kindliness.
I also thank the cleaners, who have been here throughout. Not a day has gone by during the whole pandemic when the cleaners have not been in, doing their job.
I thank the Clerks, who know everything. There is no knowledge in this universe that is not in a clerkly head. Clerkly heads may no longer be kept warm by a wig, but they none the less contain all the wisdom the world has ever found.
I had the opportunity to thank many of our catering, police and security staff this morning.
The small broadcasting team has done a truly fabulous job during covid. The magnificent Hansard Reporters take my gobbledegook and turn it into fine prose, for which I am eternally grateful.
I thank our constituency staff and civil servants who work so tremendously hard, and those in the Box are first class. I am not meant to mention people in the Box, am I, Mr Speaker? If I were allowed, I would say the lady in the Box has provided me with all the answers I will give later, and she does a magnificent and glorious job. We should be proud of the contribution of our civil servants. I also thank the lady who gives them such great leadership, Marianne Cwynarski, who has done a brilliant job throughout the pandemic and continues to do so.
And, of course, I thank you, Mr Speaker. Without your leadership, guidance and kindly wisdom, this House would not be the great place that it is. So, ho, ho, ho, merry Christmas and a happy new year!
Thangam Debbonaire
Oh, Mr Speaker, that “Ho, ho, ho!” will go into my memoirs.
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business. On behalf of the official Opposition, I join him in wishing all staff who work for Parliament and for MPs—he made a fantastic and comprehensive list—a peaceful, safe and joyful Christmas. I look forward to seeing everyone in the new year.
I pay great tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and his fantastic staff, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and her staff, welcoming them to my small but perfectly formed shadow Leader of the House team. I thank the team of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton for their wonderful contribution.
It is astonishing that this week, we voted to place sensible limits on crowded indoor events with hundreds of people by having a crowded—whatever window-opening the Leader of the House did—indoor event with hundreds of people. We could have had proxy voting, or any of the voting that we had last year. It was not necessary, and it was reckless when we know that we have more cases of covid on the parliamentary estate every day. That is gone, but will the Leader of the House please commit to preparing for a return to covid-safe practices in Parliament, if necessary, so that we can do our democratic duty without risking the health of the staff to whom he has just so warmly paid tribute?
Four years ago, the Government promised a draft Bill to establish a public register of beneficial ownership of overseas legal entities. That is an important anti-corruption and anti-tax avoidance measure on which the Government have delayed and delayed. The fourth anniversary of that promise came and went last Friday, despite the Prime Minister’s recent words. When will we see that important Bill?
That is not the only Government commitment missing in action—I have a Christmas list. In October, the Prime Minister said that the draft Online Safety Bill would have completed all stages by Christmas; then it was just Second Reading; and then it was just some vague commitment that the Bill would be presented at some point. I welcome the statement later by the prelegislative scrutiny Committee, but will the Leader of the House please give us the early Christmas present of just an indication of a date?
Secondly, Ministers seem to have developed an unacceptable habit of prioritising pressers over Parliament. Despite the Leader of the House’s efforts, answers to written parliamentary questions and ministerial correspondence are still too often inadequate, delayed, or frankly just missing. Will he please ask his Cabinet colleagues once more for a new year’s resolution to do better?
Thirdly, after rail betrayal, we have still not heard from the Secretary of State for Transport, despite a commitment to update us before the end of the year on the cost-benefit ratio analysis for the revised High Speed 2 line. I know he is here, because there were Transport questions this morning. How will he keep that promise before the end of today?
Fourthly, as the urgent question just now reminded us, it seems from a leaked email that there will be a 10% cut to Foreign Office staff. This morning, the i newspaper provided some evidence for that, in what appeared to be a copy of that email to staff. The Prime Minister yesterday seems to have confused staffing with aid, but the Minister who has just left his place, the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, seemed to deny that it was a 10% cut without saying that there was no cut. A yes-or-no question to the Leader of the House: will there be a cut? Does he or anyone else know how much that cut will be, because the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa did not say that there would not be a cut?
This week, we learned of the all-too-predictable humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan, yet the Government chose to row back even further on their promised, but again missing-in-action, Afghan resettlement scheme. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to come to the House to give a statement in the new year on what action the Government will take?
Finally, a Christmas Brucie bonus question round. First, on rule-breaking parties in No. 10, this is a second chance for the Leader of the House to tell us exactly who assured the Prime Minister that no rules had been broken, and when they said that. Secondly, on the ministerial code, why did the Prime Minister say that he did not know who paid for the Downing Street refurbishment when the Electoral Commission found messages to Lord Brownlow that seemed to show that not only did the Prime Minister know, but he was the one apparently asking for the donations? If the Prime Minister is found to have inadvertently misled the House or Lord Geidt, what actions does the Leader of the House think he should take?
On the cost of living, does the Leader of the House understand the struggles that working people face this Christmas with Tory tax rises, risks to jobs in hospitality and other industries, and everything costing more? I am sorry to end like a Grinch, but this is a Government who ignore the rules, break their promises and have lost their grip. It is working people who are paying the price, and if I have to be the Grinch, I am afraid it is the Leader of the House and his colleagues whom I hold responsible—but merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I wondered how long our Christmas cheer would last. I see the hon. Lady, in the absence of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who has generously and kindly sent me his apologies for missing this session, has had to model herself on him and become as grumpy as he sometimes is. Let me try to answer her multiplicity of questions, though the ones that really relate to the Foreign Office were answered in the previous half hour, and the hon. Lady was here, so may I suggest she listens, when she is sitting in the Chamber, to the brilliant answers given by the Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, who answered everything she could possibly have wanted an answer to and more?
Let us go back to why we have to be here. Being here, in a democracy, is important. The work we do in Parliament is crucial. Holding the Government to account and ensuring that people can express their views is fundamental. The House authorities have been brilliant in running a covid-safe environment. There are tests available, and people have been testing themselves like billy-o, as is their responsibility, in order to try to keep us all safe. The idea that we should run away from- our democratic duty is for the birds. We should be here, we should be proud to be here, and we should not want to run off home; I think that would be most unsatisfactory.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) asks about the online harms Bill. When Bills do not have prelegislative scrutiny, she says, “Well, why haven’t they had prelegislative scrutiny?”, and when they do, she says, “Why is the Bill taking so long?” That is trying to have her cake and eat it, which we know is a difficult thing to do in terms of physics. I am delighted to see here my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), who chaired the Committee with such distinction; the online harms Bill is much improved, and will be much improved after consideration of the work he has done. I am sure it will be brought before Parliament at the appropriate time for us to debate it.
Then the hon. Member for Bristol West then mentioned railways. For the past couple of weeks, we have thought she was a reformed character—indeed, we thought she might be becoming a Tory, because she kept on referring to taxpayers’ money. It made the Government side of the House really excited—joyful even; Christmas spirit was arising—that there might be someone coming over to us. But alas, this week it is back to socialism, and £96 billion of taxpayers’ money is pooh-poohed—pooh-poohed, Mr Speaker!—when in fact it is an enormous amount of money, and will be the largest amount of expenditure on the railways in real terms since the Victorian era, that era that we look back to with fondness and admiration for the great things that were done.
Let me go on to all this stuff about what may or may not have gone on in Downing Street last year. That is being looked into by the Cabinet Secretary. I ask the hon. Lady to have a little patience, and to wait and see what comes from the Cabinet Secretary.
On the cost of living questions, yes, inflation has risen by 5.1%. I have a feeling that the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee will meet, or announce its decision, at midday, so we are moments away from the witching hour when we will know what the Bank thinks it necessary to do. The hon. Lady may have forgotten that her socialist friend, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, gave the Bank of England independence on monetary policy in 1997.
Finally, let me conclude on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are lucky to have such charismatic, incisive and thoughtful leadership; we are led by one of our truly great leaders. I am proud of the fact that he is leading us, and I see that the hon. Lady looks pretty proud too, though that is hidden behind her mask.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
If the Leader of the House had been in our Lobby on Tuesday, he would not have had to open the window; we were much more socially distanced. In my experience, crowded Lobbies full of Labour and Conservative MPs are seldom a very good thing—I am talking about not covid, but political damage. May I give the Leader of the House this early Christmas present? I am trying to be helpful. If we have another vote on a measure that is inimical to civil liberties, and that the Conservative party in its heart profoundly opposes, can it be a free vote? Then only one in 10 Tory MPs will vote for it, and nine out of 10 Labour MPs will vote for it, and the Government might get the same result. My next question to him is important: will he guarantee that if the Government decide to impose any further restriction on civil liberties, even over the Christmas period, Parliament will be recalled?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, I note my right hon. Friend’s helpful advice. Of course, whipping is not a matter for me as Leader of the House, but I would argue that the Government are given leadership by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is one of the most civil libertarian leaders that the country has had in well over 100 years. He really believes in the liberties of the people of the United Kingdom and that people make better choices for themselves than the state makes for them. It is this leader who has felt obliged, in the face of a health crisis, to make the decisions that he has. How pleased we should be about that. Just think: we could have had a socialist leader joyfully taking away our liberties and loving locking us down. The Opposition would have kept us in complete lockdown forever and ever—in saecula saeculorum, as my right hon. Friend will quote regularly. This leader—our Prime Minister—has always restored freedoms as quickly as possible and taken them away with reluctance. We should be pleased about that.
As regards recall, Parliament is always recalled when there is a really serious matter to discuss. Sometimes, when we go away on a Thursday, the matter that leads us to be recalled is not what we were discussing when we went away but events that overtake what we were discussing at the moment of our departure. The Government will always listen to calls for recall if the issue is serious enough.
Mr Speaker
Before I bring in the SNP spokesperson, may I also wish everybody all the best for Christmas and a peaceful new year? I thank all the staff of the House for the tremendous job that they have done. Without them, the House would not work, so it really is appreciated. I must also put on record a big thank you to my team in Speaker’s House. I hope that the Speaker’s secretary is soon fit and well and back at my side, but I have certainly got good cover at the moment. Just to gently tease the Leader of the House—I have a very good working relationship with him—he is absolutely right that this House matters, so let us make sure that Ministers come here to be held to account.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I join the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House in sending Christmas wishes to all staff of the House, all Members and, in particular, my team in Midlothian and the SNP Whips Office, who have done a remarkable job over the past year. It has been a difficult time for many, and we are lucky to have so many willing staff really looking to go that extra mile to support all of us in everything that we do. So many in this place and beyond—I think of all the public services and local government—have done so much over the period. With that, I wish everyone a happy Christmas and a guid new year.
On how this place works, though, I agree with the shadow Leader of the House that we must look at how we can take account of the current covid situation. I know the Leader of the House’s views about the need for us to be here, but we must look very closely at how we work, because having so many Members in one place at decision time while trying to maintain the highest possible level of safety for Members is challenging. Beyond that, with the rise in cases of the new covid-19 variant, a number of Members will have to be isolating because of either contact or having tested positive. This week alone, a significant number of Members have had to withdraw questions—three SNP Members had to withdraw questions from Prime Minister’s questions—so an extraordinary number of Members will be affected. Apart from my personal thought that it would be far better if we were much more flexible anyway, we need to look closely at that, given that Members will have to isolate and the significant impact that that will have on how the business of the House can be conducted, even with testing in place.
The earlier Treasury statement seems to have caused a wee bit of confusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) asked about the questions sent by the Scottish Finance Secretary Kate Forbes to the Chancellor to get clarity about Scottish Government funding, and he did not receive a sensible answer, if I can put it that way. If the Leader of the House can do anything to encourage a response from the Chancellor to Kate Forbes, that would be very much appreciated.
Finally, let me take advantage of the season’s goodwill to make a pitch for my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). Come on! He should be the right hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. Can we please do what we can about that? With that, I wish the Leader of the House all the very best in the inevitable leadership contest that is upcoming.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. What he is asking for for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is not within my gift, but may I wish him particularly a very happy Christmas. He is a great sparring partner in this Chamber, even if somewhat grumpy at times. He is also very good company privately. I hope that he is in good health.
The key issue that the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) asks about is funding for Scotland. It is worth pointing out that there is: a £4.6 billion per year average funding boost to Scotland through the Barnett formula; the announcement of a more than £170 million levelling-up fund for eight Scottish projects; £42 million for Scottish fisheries; £1.9 billion for farmers and land managers over the next three years; £1.5 billion for 12 city and growth deals, including more than £500 million for Glasgow, £300 million for Edinburgh, £125 million for Aberdeen, and £53 million for Inverness and the highlands; and new funding for the British Business Bank to establish a £150 million fund for Scotland. This is really important in showing the strength of the United Kingdom together and the amount of money that, as a United Kingdom, we have been able to afford, which is in addition to the £1.7 billion that the Scottish economy has benefited from, dealing with 620,000 self-employment scheme claims and 910,000 jobs that have been on the furlough scheme. This country is better and stronger together. Working together, having the strength of the UK taxpayer, has been essential to the benefit of Scotland, but also to Wales, Northern Ireland and England. We all benefit through our United Kingdom.
As regards issues around the workings in this House, every effort is made to ensure that this House is working safely. We are in the same place as the nation at large. We are people who need to come to work, so we are therefore right to come to work. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, at the very beginning of the pandemic, when there was a total lockdown, we did things differently, but I do not think that that is the current situation.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Yesterday, we heard the sad news that Linda Whetstone had passed away. Linda dedicated her life to spreading the ideas and values of freedom and classical liberal economics around the world. She was not in frontline politics, but, through the Atlas Network, the Institute of Economic Affairs and Mont Pelerin Society, undoubtedly had a huge impact. As the director-general of the IEA said yesterday:
“We may not see her again, but we can be grateful for the incredible legacy she leaves us.”
Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House join me in sending condolences to Linda’s family and friends, particularly her brother, Mike Fisher, and pay tribute to this champion of freedom?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yes, of course, I pass the condolences of the House and my own condolences via my hon. Friend to Mike Fisher. It is indeed with great sadness that we mark the passing of Linda Whetstone. She was chairman of the Atlas Network, an international association of free market think-tanks, and of the Network for a Free Society. She was the daughter of Sir Anthony Fisher, co-founder of the Institute of Economic Affairs, which has to be said is one of the finest think-tanks that there is and an absolute bastion of good sense and thoughtfulness. She followed his legacy as a dear friend of the IEA and member of its board of trustees. She has also served as a board member and president of the Mont Pelerin Society. My hon. Friend quoted what Mark Littlewood said about her, and that shows how greatly she was admired by an important institution in this country, and we pray for the repose of her soul.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
As always, I am very grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I wish you, all Members across the House and all staff in the House, a very happy Christmas, a very peaceful and restful Christmas, and a very happy new year in 2022? We all deserve a better year.
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and let him know that we already have pre-allocations for every Thursday in January if we are awarded the time, but that includes, as he has already announced, that important debate on 6 January on Russian grand strategy and a very heavily subscribed set of applications to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day on Thursday 27 January. They are in, and we have pre-allocated that if we are given the time.
I could not help noticing that when we return on Wednesday 5 January, the sitting in the Chamber will begin at 2.30 pm, as it does on Mondays, but the Westminster Hall sitting will begin at 9.30 am, which will make life extremely difficult for those travelling from further afield. Could the Leader of the House look at that as a matter of urgency? I am sure it is just an oversight, but I am thinking particularly of our colleagues in Scotland—members of all parties—who will find it difficult to travel given that 4 January is a bank holiday in Scotland.
Since the inception of the hotel quarantine policy, I have received a number of complaints from my constituents who have been forced to pay significant sums, often at short notice, to return home via hotel quarantine. I readily accept that on public health grounds, but I had hoped that 10 months after the introduction of these measures, the Government would have taken steps to ensure that all hotel quarantine stays were fit for purpose. Many of those constituents who have had no choice but to pay those significant amounts of money have been given very poor provision in return. I was incredibly disappointed to learn just this week that a number of my constituents staying at different hotels around the country have paid thousands of pounds for the privilege, and are still being left without adequate food, access to exercise and fresh air, a laundry service, or even fresh bed linen. One couple paid £3,500 for 10 nights, and had to put up with that sort of provision. May we have a statement so that a Minister can come to the House to explain just what the Government will do to rectify this dire situation? Our constituents are being ripped off and neglected.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I had a feeling, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were getting a bit nervous about the over rate. I am worried that we will be fined our total match fee if the over rate becomes too slow, so I shall try to be quick, but I thought Members might like to know that the bank rate has risen from 0.1% to 0.25%, although they have all probably heard it already on their Sky News alerts.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) for his thanks for the business that has been provided. I very much noted his request for a Back Bench debate on 27 January, Holocaust Memorial Day; I heard that loud and clear. I know that the debate will be well subscribed, so I will do my best to prevent statements, as I did last year, but I cannot guarantee that, because sometimes there is a strong demand for a particular statement.
On the hotel quarantine policy—which, as the hon. Gentleman fairly pointed out, was necessary on public health grounds—I would say to him that if he has particular issues involving individual constituents, I will happily help, and will take them up for him through my office.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I, in passing, thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the debate on Russia’s grand strategy? A proper debate on the subject is long overdue, along with a fuller understanding as we respond to the Ukraine crisis and the other crises that the Russians are provoking.
May I issue a plea not for more or fewer restrictions in the House, but for the Leader of the House and the House of Commons Commission to use as their lodestar the question of consistency? Public confidence in whatever measures the Government are recommending rests on consistency between what people see their leaders doing and what they are being asked to do. If we have to introduce further measures—whether or not Parliament is recalled—we should ensure that our practices here are consistent with what we are asking other people to do.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The fundamental point that we must always bear in mind is the absolute, unequivocal constitutional right of Members to attend Parliament. Whatever rules there may be—we saw this at the height of the pandemic, when people were saying that they were not allowed to travel under restrictions in certain parts of the United Kingdom—there is no law, unless we were to legislate for it specifically, that could ever change the fundamental right of a Member of Parliament to come to Parliament. It is essential to our constitution. Whatever laws there are, that right must be retained.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
On 23 September, following an urgent question on the energy crisis, the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy offered to meet me to discuss a particularly complex constituency case. The meeting was scheduled for 16 November, only to be cancelled at the last minute. The rescheduling was pushed to another Minister, who has still not found time in his diary. I would be grateful if the Leader of the House could make a statement to remind his colleagues of their responsibilities and to encourage them to keep commitments made in the Chamber.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will take that up immediately after. A meeting with a Minister that was asked for on 23 September and that was agreed to ought certainly to happen well before Christmas. I can only apologise to the hon. Lady. It is quite easy for people who want to come and see me—my office is very nearby and they can just bang on the door, which sometimes short-circuits cumbersome interlocutors who get in the way of arranging meetings.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Knaresborough is a thriving market town in my constituency, but nevertheless all its bank branches have closed. Next year, however, it will be one of five locations in the country where a shared banking hub will open. That new initiative will be funded by the major banks and will be open for personal and business customers. As banking changes, it is good that the financial services sector is working with other top companies such as LINK on what the next generation of service provision will look like. Can we please have a debate about local banking services to enable us to explore that new initiative and perhaps give some publicity to that positive news?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I heard about that initiative on the news. It is really important, because the Government recognise that access to cash remains important to millions across the United Kingdom. I think that the report I heard, although I would not swear to it, said that 5 million people still depend almost entirely on cash. The UK has committed to legislating to protect access to cash, but it is impressive that the banks are doing it for themselves. It is a private sector initiative, prior to any legislation being brought forward, that will help people have access to cash. My hon. Friend is right to try to give it further publicity so people know that it will happen. I encourage him to apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a further debate on the subject, because I think it will command the interest of many hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s appointment of Baroness Hallett to chair the inquiry into covid-19, and the Prime Minister meeting his own deadline for a change. Much remains unknown about the inquiry, however, so can the Leader of the House tell me when we can expect the terms of reference to be published, when the inquiry will formally begin and when the Government will begin to meaningfully engage with the bereaved families?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the appointment of Baroness Hallett. I looked her up yesterday and I believe that it is her birthday today, so I take the opportunity of wishing her many happy returns.
The inquiry is set to begin its work in spring 2022. It will be established under the Inquiries Act 2005 with full powers, including the power to compel the production of documents and summon witnesses to give evidence on oath. Additional panel members will be appointed in the new year to ensure that the inquiry has access to the full range of expertise needed to complete its important work.
The inquiry will play a key role in examining the UK’s pandemic response and in ensuring that we understand what happened in the past so that we can do it better in future. The Prime Minister will now consult Baroness Hallett and Ministers from the devolved Administrations on the precise terms of reference for the inquiry and will publish them in draft in the new year.
Those most affected by the pandemic, including those who have sadly lost members of their family and their friends, must have an opportunity to play their proper role in the process. Once the terms of reference have been published in draft, Baroness Hallett will take forward a process of public engagement and consultation, including with bereaved families and other affected groups, before the terms of reference are finalised. The hon. Gentleman is so right to ask that their concerns are taken into consideration, and I am glad to be able to confirm that they will be.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
Rural crime should be treated as serious organised crime. I am proud that Rutland and Melton is home to more than 400 farmers, but they are suffering from livestock theft, trespassing, hare coursing equipment theft, and even vegan militias that go on to dairy farms and carry out crimes against dairy farmers. That is why Leicestershire needs a rural crime strategy and why 101 operators should have training on rural crime issues. Can we please have a debate in Government time to show how much it matters to the Government to tackle rural crime and how seriously they take it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
As I also represent a rural constituency, I know how serious these matters are and the effect they have on people’s livelihoods and wellbeing. My hon. Friend is lucky, as am I, to live in an area represented by a Conservative police and crime commissioner, who will be able to set the priorities of policing for the people of Leicestershire. This is something that we should be doing more about, but we are doing more about it. Police forces are recruiting. We have another 11,000 new officers, and Leicestershire is leading the way: it has 13% more officers than it had in the year ending March 2021. Things are going the right way, and more police are going to be on the beat, but it will really be up to crime commissioners to set the tone for their forces and to emphasise the importance of tackling rural crime.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
First, I thank the Leader of the House for his correspondence in relation to my question last week, although I am disappointed to report that there is still no statement forthcoming from the Department for Education on the future contract for the Turing scheme.
The Leader of the House will be aware of this morning’s urgent question on business support, when the Economic Secretary to the Treasury indicated that the Chancellor is meeting with business groups this afternoon. The variant is putting businesses everywhere at risk, and the House needs to be prepared to give support. How can we tell our own local hospitality businesses that we broke up as they went under? The Government can choose to recall Parliament if they want, so will the Leader of the House therefore advise whether he will use all the measures available to him, including virtual participation, to recall Parliament to pass the right emergency measures to support our hospitality businesses?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is inevitably difficult for hospitality under the current circumstances. It is worth reminding people of what has been done already, with £400 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on dealing with covid and helping businesses with rate relief and a lower VAT rate. Obviously the Government are aware of what is happening. There was a statement made earlier and the Chancellor has said he will have meetings. As regards recalling Parliament, I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Parliament is always recalled when there is a matter of sufficient seriousness to recall it, but forecasting what that will be is not always a successful effort.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am delighted to be able to wish a very merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone here. However, there are some people who will not be celebrating quite as much this Christmas as many of us would hope: taxi drivers. Those who are driving for Castle Cars in Tonbridge or Relyon in Edenbridge have already seen a dip in trade over the past few days, and I know that many of those running cab firms have also seen an impact on the wider use of their business. This is not just a matter for some incredibly hard-working small businesses; this is actually a very important matter, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree, for those of us with rural communities, because those taxis provide a much-needed service for getting many people to hospitals and to visit family and for keeping the community together. Could he look for time in the Government’s agenda to have a debate on this matter, because we not only have that pressure, but the pressure of the rise in interest rates, which he announced to the House? That will put an increased impetus on many to seek an income that will be chasing a higher cost of living.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think Disraeli called London taxi drivers “the gondoliers of London”, and I certainly take that view myself. They are fantastically hard-working and entrepreneurial, as are taxi drivers up and down the country. They are almost all individual small businesses. They work the hours that are required of them and they provide, as my hon. Friend says, a service that is absolutely essential. I encourage hon. and right hon. Members to support the taxi trade as far as they can. While I am at it, I encourage the Mayor of London to be nicer to London taxi drivers and not spend his whole time trying to make their lives more difficult by closing roads to them.
There are obviously difficulties at the moment with people cancelling things because of the pandemic, but I am confident that taxi drivers will be able to get through this. They have got back to work, and trade did pick up prior to the omicron variant coming through. We should thank them for what they do. As regards a debate, I think that will be more in the bailiwick of the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The covid pandemic has shown us the importance of our parks, green spaces and country parks everywhere in getting us out in the fresh air and for recreation. The public health benefits cannot be ignored. So I wish to congratulate my constituents who have formed the Save Our Derwent Walk Country Park campaign group, a non-partisan group seeking to protect the Derwent Walk Country Park in the face of a “Restoring Your Railways” bid. So may we have a debate in Government time about the importance of green spaces and parks to public health?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady continues a noble tradition in this House; I believe it was William Pitt the Elder, known as “the Great Commoner” for his devotion to this House, who called the London parks the “lungs of London”. That was right then and it is right now; open spaces are so important. What the hon. Lady says about the Derwent Walk Country Park support group is really important; people really mind about their country parks. I suggest that in the first instance this is a matter for an Adjournment debate, but I congratulate those in her constituency who, on a cross-party basis, are working for the health and wellbeing of all her constituents.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Over the summer, we had a spate of thefts of catalytic converters in my constituency. That is bad enough for constituents, but just recently this has turned into an even more ugly situation, with gangs of thugs arriving with baseball bats and forcing residents to give up their cars and catalytic converters on pain of severe bodily harm. May we have a statement in Government time on what action the Government can take to prevent the sale of precious metals from catalytic converters for cash? If they are registered, it is much more challenging for these thugs to carry on their evil practice.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and this was an issue with scrap metal some years ago. Her Majesty’s Government are committed to tackling the theft of catalytic converters. We are working closely with the police and motor manufacturers, through the national vehicle crime working group, which was established by the National Police Chiefs’ Council and is overseen by the Government’s Crime and Justice Taskforce, to see what more can be done. In December 2017, the Home Office published a review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013, which I happen to remember because it started as a private Member’s Bill that was given very widespread support. How that Act is enforced is key to tackling this crime.
I can give my hon. Friend some good news: the British Transport police, through the national infrastructure crime reduction partnership, has conducted two national weeks of action, which resulted in 64 arrests, 1,400 stopped vehicles, and 1,000 catalytic converters and other items of stolen property being recovered. However, these threats of violence are appalling and I encourage people who see anything like that happening to dial 999 as a matter of urgency.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May I echo what the Leader of the House said in praise of the staff of this House and, in particular, the cleaners? When I was first elected to public office in 1991, on Cardiff City Council, I took my mother Beryl, who is now 92 and who was a cleaner, to Cardiff city hall to see its opulent marble splendour. Her reaction to that was to say, “Imagine having to clean this.” We should all bear that in mind in politics. So may we have a debate on the vital work that cleaners do, often in the wee hours of the morning, to clean our hospitals, shops and offices, and even to clean up after No. 10 Christmas parties, and on the need not just to praise them, but to pay them decent pay so that they are the ones who do not have to go in search of second jobs?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I pay a warm tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s mother, Beryl, for ensuring that her son is always so well turned out, among other things? Clearly, he is calling to mind the fact that cleanliness is next to godliness. I am so grateful that he has picked up on this point, as I was really impressed, and to some extent felt rather guilty, that the people working throughout the pandemic in this House every day were the cleaners, who are probably among the lowest-paid in this House. We should be grateful to them. I can also reassure him that by raising the national living wage to £9.50 next year, and giving nearly 2 million families an extra £1,000 a year through our cut to the universal credit taper and the increase to work allowances, exactly the sort of people we are trying to help will be helped.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Building safety is very important to me and my constituents. I have been shocked and dismayed by some of the revelations coming out of the building products industry, and since March I have been calling for a tax on that industry to pay partly for cladding remediation. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the timing of the Building Safety Bill, and does he agree that we need to find a solution for leaseholders?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and note very carefully her concerns about this important Bill; I will make sure that they are passed on to the Secretary of State. The Building Safety Bill remains a clear priority for the Government. It will deliver a world-class building safety regime and help drive up standards across the industry, built on the principles of safety and proportionality. We will proceed with the remaining stages of the Bill as soon as practical. I appreciate that this issue is of great concern to many Members, who have pressed it in the House on multiple occasions.
While we legislate to bring forward important reforms, homes are being made safer. The Government are delivering the building safety fund, providing an unprecedented £5.1 billion of taxpayers’ money to remove unsafe cladding from high-rise buildings, and delivering the waking watch relief fund, which helps reduce the use of costly interim measures. As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State is looking at our work in this area to ensure that we are doing everything we can to protect and support leaseholders, and he will set out his proposals in due course. However, as I said, I will make sure that her comments are brought to his attention.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Yesterday, I met Ali Mushaima on day 21 of his hunger strike outside the Bahraini embassy to raise the cases of his father, imprisoned opposition leader Hassan Mushaima, and Bahraini academic Dr Abduljalil al-Singace. These cases have received unanimous international support from bodies such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, but this Government remain silent. Can we have a debate on political freedom and human rights in Bahrain? Given the UK’s close relationship with Bahrain, when will Ministers meet Ali and issue a statement urging their allies to unconditionally release Hassan Mushaima and Dr al-Singace?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this case and Ali Mushaima’s hunger strike. The Government attach great importance to freedom of religion or belief and view it as a fundamental human right. Her Majesty’s Government remain deeply concerned about the severity and scale of violations and abuses of freedom of religion or belief in many parts of the world. We remain committed to the global effort to support the most vulnerable members of society, irrespective of race, religion and ethnicity. I am not informed about the individual case, and I do not think the hon. Gentleman would expect me to be, but I will certainly ensure that it is passed on to the Foreign Office shortly after business questions, and will ask that a detailed response be sent to him.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
May I extend a happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the team who so ably support you?
Today, the average price at the pumps in Dudley and elsewhere is about £1.48 a litre. That is about 29p a litre higher than in 2015, since when crude oil has been at today’s price. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is an unjustifiably high price to pay for ordinary hard-working working-class people, the self-employed and businesses? Does he also agree that oil giants should stop taking advantage of everyone in this way, and will he please agree to a debate on the matter?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is the great fiddle of litres, is it not? That works out at not far short of £8 a gallon. When we put it like that it sounds even more shockingly expensive than in metric measures that make it sound unduly low compared with the real cost. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to be concerned about this. The price has risen very significantly over the past year, and we have seen the latest inflation figures. It is important and fair to motorists that, when the price of crude oil falls, it is passed through the system as quickly and as fairly as possible. It is worth pointing out that the freeze on petrol duty has had a very significant benefit for people in this country—I think it saves them on average £15 every time they fill up with fuel—although saying it could be much worse is not necessarily a great comfort to people when they fill up at the pumps.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
A happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all Members and staff of the House.
I know that the Leader of the House will agree with me about the importance of the local high street, especially in these uncertain times. At the beginning of December, I visited the owners of Steve’s Cycles on Chanterlands Avenue and Macs Tools on Newland Avenue in Hull, both of whom have really gone above and beyond in the service they have provided to their local community while also dealing with the effects of the pandemic on themselves and their families. Could we have an urgent statement from a Minister about the support that will be available to small family businesses while we are under plan B?
Mr Rees-Mogg
First, I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her election yesterday as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, which shows how widely respected she is on all sides of the House.
I agree with the right hon. Lady about the importance of local high streets, and may I pay tribute to those at Steve’s Cycles and Macs Tools? I obviously do not know them individually, but I know what she means because, across our constituencies and across our high streets, we all have businesses like those that are doing their extra bit for their communities, and they deserve thanks and praise. There was an urgent question earlier today about the support that is being made available. There are funds available to help high streets and to help regenerate high streets, which councils have been bidding for, so there is a great deal of activity in this area. However, if the right hon. Lady wants an Adjournment debate on the specifics of her own high street, I suggest she refer that to Mr Speaker.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the staff here.
Friends of mine in business are saying that the ability of the Information Commissioner to levy large fines is having some unintended consequences, in that cyber-gangs are stealing businesses’ data and threatening to publish it if a ransom is not paid. That ransom is almost always less than the potential fine they might get from the Information Commissioner, so to save both money and embarrassment, they are quietly paying it. I appreciate that there is no easy answer, because data breaches are serious, but can we have a debate on the regulation in this area, because none of us wants to see more money going to criminal gangs?
Mr Rees-Mogg
No, indeed. My hon. Friend is right to raise this, and he poses an interesting question. The Information Commissioner’s Office has published guidance on responding to a cyber-security incident. It uses information on reported data breaches to identify data security incident trends, and it will share information with the National Cyber Security Centre and other law enforcement or cyber-crime agencies, as well as with other regulators, such as the National Crime Agency or the Financial Conduct Authority. Personal data, as my hon. Friend says, has to be processed securely, but if somebody is having to pay money to a criminal gang to avoid a sanction, and thereby avoids a sanction that would be higher than the bribe to the criminal gang, that just has the effect of encouraging criminality. As he says, the solution is not a simple one.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I recently raised the case of my constituent, Mr Lafferty, involving Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs maladministration that led to an unexpected tax liability, and I am grateful to the Leader of the House for his intervention on Mr Lafferty’s behalf. Jim Harra, the permanent secretary, has written to me describing the case in detail and defending the ongoing imposition of interest, but failing to mention that it was HMRC’s fault in the first place. Can the Leader of the House please arrange for his previous letter to be forwarded to the Financial Secretary, as the person who should deal with it, so that we can at least look at removing the interest from the amount due?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has at least received a reply from Mr Harra of HMRC. I view my role as trying to get replies for hon. Members, rather than necessarily being able to get them the replies their constituents want—that is not always within my capabilities—but I will of course pass on the correspondence to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all House staff and people on the estate a merry Christmas.
I listened earlier to the urgent question on Government support for business. After Tuesday’s vote and the characteristically confusing messaging from the Prime Minister, untold damage is being caused to our entertainment, hospitality and taxi industries. It is clear that neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor understands the urgency of this situation. Throughout the pandemic this Government have consistently introduced restrictions without publishing clear guidance for the industries affected and have provided support only after desperate pleas. Will the Leader of the House use the Christmas break to reflect on and discuss with his colleagues how a good Government should operate so that they come back in the new year ready to govern responsibly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady entirely mischaracterises what the Government have done. There has been over £400 billion-worth of support for businesses, including the furlough scheme and the recovery loan scheme. There has been a terrific amount of support to businesses. There has also been the reduction of VAT initially to a 5% rate to help businesses, the suspension of business rates, and business rates then going to a discounted level. This has been fundamental support for employment and businesses, which is why we now have more people in payroll employment than we did before the pandemic began. The other point she makes shows a fundamental difference between the socialists and the Conservatives. The Government make rules, laws are passed that people have to obey, and then people make decisions for themselves. Conservatives believe that people are capable of making better decisions for themselves than they are by being lectured and nannied directly by the state. The socialists always want to control every aspect of people’s lives, and that is not a good way to operate.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Merry Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.
On 7 September, the UK Government announced the new national insurance levy to fund social care. Following this, on 8 September, HMRC issued an email to my constituent Robert Millar saying positively that the draft legislation would have this effect or that effect, even though it was not approved by this Parliament until 14 September. Can we have a debate on whether it is normal for Government Departments to jump the gun on parliamentary debate and voting in this way, and, if it is, whether that practice shows sufficient regard and respect for parliamentary process?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am very intrigued by the hon. Gentleman’s question, because it would be improper for a public body to take a vote in Parliament for granted. On the other hand, it would not be improper to use the word “if”. Without seeing the precise details of the correspondence, I would be very reluctant to criticise anybody, but I would say very clearly that no public body should pre-empt Parliament.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Happy Christmas, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The covid bereaved families across the country will not be having a happy Christmas; it will be a really difficult time. I welcome the appointment of the covid-19 inquiry, just in time before Christmas. I listened carefully to the Leader of the House’s outlining of the process going forward and welcome the fact that in January there will be an appointment of panel members and the terms of reference will be drawn up. The bereaved families community is very interested in those terms of reference, understandably. Can I have an assurance that there will be engagement with the bereaved families community before the drawing up and publication of the terms of reference, and on how that will happen, particularly with the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Let me make this as clear as I possibly can. Those most affected by the pandemic, including those who have sadly lost friends and family, must also have an opportunity to play their proper role in the process. Once the terms of reference have been published in draft, Baroness Hallett will take forward a process of public engagement and consultation, including with bereaved families and other affected groups, before the terms of reference are finalised. I hope that gives the hon. Lady the assurance she is looking for.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Happy Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all the House staff.
Christmas should be an exciting and fun time of year, but for too many children it simply is not. Since my question in the House last week, we have heard of another tragedy involving a child. I therefore ask the Leader of the House not if, but when, will we have a debate in this House about the safety of children, the overloaded casework of social workers, and the revolving door of leaders of children’s services, which also adds to the risks?
Mr Rees-Mogg
There is so little that I can add to what I said last week to the hon. Lady. I am grateful to her for raising these just tragic, tragic cases. I read in the newspapers about this little baby, and it is unbelievable that fellow human beings can behave in this way. I am sympathetic to her request for a debate. She knows that I cannot promise debates like this in Government time. They are essentially matters for the Backbench Business Committee, but it is a matter of importance to us all and anyone who has any emotion within them when these terrible things happen to those who are so entirely unable to defend themselves. When the state fails to defend the defenceless, it is perhaps the greatest failing of the state.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I, too, wish you and all Members of the House as well as the staff a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
This Saturday 18 December marks International Migrants Day. While asylum law in the United Kingdom makes provision for persons fleeing persecution because of their religion or belief, the sad reality is that many of those who are in desperate need of refuge simply cannot access these pathways. For example, Pakistani Christian Sawan Masih is in hiding with his family in Pakistan after being accused of blasphemy. As we approach Christmas, will the Leader of the House issue a statement of support for those Christians around the world who cannot celebrate without fear of persecution and join me in sending a petition to grant Sawan Masih and his family safe asylum in the United Kingdom?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As always, he brings the most important issues to the attention of the House. I understand that the International Migrants Day theme this year is harnessing the potential of human mobility. This country has a long tradition of welcoming those in need of sanctuary, and this will continue. Since 2015, we have resettled more than 25,000 people seeking refuge from persecution across the world. As I said earlier, freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right. No one should feel unable to celebrate Christmas or any other holiday for fear of being persecuted. It is clear that many Christians have faced awful persecution in Pakistan, suffering spurious accusations of blasphemy. At Christmas it is vital that we try to ease their plight. I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
On the specific case that he raises, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot give commitments in individual cases, but I am always willing to help right hon. and hon. Members get answers from the relevant Departments.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Leader of the House for that statement, and I add my best wishes to right hon. and hon. Members and House staff.
Point of Order
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I gave best wishes to Mr Speaker earlier, and I pass them on to you as well, for the coming season.
This is a time of year when many of us expect and think about the presents that we might get at Christmas. It is also a time when local councils up and down the country wait with concern to find out how much the Government intend to give them in revenue support and other grants for next year. It is an even more important time this year due to the covid pressures on councils, on top of an already difficult financial situation.
We would normally have an oral statement in the House today about local government finance for next year. We did not have one in 2019, for particular reasons associated with EU legislation going through, but every other year we have had an oral statement. This year, we are supposed to be getting a written statement, although it was still not in the Vote Office when I checked. Can it be anything to do with the fact that a story appeared in the Local Government Chronicle the other day that said:
“The Government is thought to be in ‘active discussion’ with between 20 and 30 councils about offering extra financial support to help them avoid effective bankruptcy”?
That is a serious situation. Very clearly, the Secretary of State ought to be before the House today explaining his financial proposals for next year and allowing Members to question him about them. As that is not the case, once we have had a briefing from the scrutiny unit, the Local Government Association and others, I hope there may be an opportunity after the recess to find a way to get the Secretary of State to come to the House to answer questions about this important matter.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. The Government have not informed the Chair of any intention to make an oral statement on the local government financial settlement. He is correct to say that, in recent years, there has normally been an oral statement on the matter. The Leader of the House has heard that point and I am sure that he will take that back and that we will return to this, perhaps as the hon. Gentleman said, in the new year.
Mr Betts
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can write to Mr Speaker as well to see whether he can help in finding a way to get the Secretary of State back after the recess.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of all the routes that may be pursued through Mr Speaker to address some of the points that he has made.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The media today is full of stories relating to interest rates. Has there been any indication that an oral statement on this issue will come from the Chancellor or Ministers at his Department? I am ever mindful of the food price increase in my constituency of 20% and the energy price increase of 30%. The cost of living has increased by 5.1%, so these things will have a great impact on each and every one of us across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Perhaps I am wrong to think this, but given the importance of this issue, I thought that the Chancellor’s Department would make a statement today. Has there been any indication of that?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I understand that interest rates have been increased. Again, the Leader of the House will have heard that point. The hon. Gentleman just asked a question to him, so he might have chosen to ask him that at that point. The hon. Gentleman has now had two bites of the cherry and the Leader of the House will have heard his comment.
Online Safety Bill
Joint Committee on the Draft Online Safety Bill
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We now come to the Select Committee statement. Damian Collins will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call him to respond to those in turn. Front Benchers may take part in questioning as well. I call the Chair of the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all Members of the House and all members of House staff a very merry Christmas?
Following the publication of the Joint Committee’s report on the draft Online Safety Bill on Tuesday, I want to take this opportunity to inform the House of its publication and the key themes that we have addressed. The Joint Committee was formed as a pre-legislative scrutiny Committee by order of this House and the House of Lords on the last sitting day before the summer recess. Anyone who has been involved in a Joint Committee of this nature knows that, because it has a clear deadline to hit, it is inevitably a race against time. Although we had the summer recess to plan and prepare for our hearings in September, we effectively had around 11 to 12 sitting weeks, including some of the conference recess, to produce our report. The report was concluded on the last day of the Joint Committee’s existence last Friday and then published on Tuesday this week.
Before addressing the report, I thank the members of the Joint Committee, who worked so hard throughout the inquiry and produced a unanimous report. It was genuinely a very collaborative process to which all members of the Joint Committee contributed. To have completed that and produced a unanimous report without division among the members shows the strength of feeling and the importance and strength of working closely together through that.
I also thank the staff of the Joint Committee, particularly the Commons Clerk, David Slater, who led a very impressive team of Clerks and advisers. Without their herculean efforts, we would not have completed the project within the timeframe that we were given by the Government. The Joint Committee held oral evidence sessions with 50 witnesses, received 200 written evidence submissions and produced a report of 192 pages, totalling around 60,000 words, so it was a huge effort to produce what I think is an important report.
The draft Bill has been of considerable interest to Members of the House. We organised a roundtable to enable Members to contribute directly to the work of the Joint Committee, as well as other roundtables working with the University of Cambridge and the London School of Economics. The high number of written evidence submissions also demonstrates the high level of interest in this issue. For those of us who have been following the debate closely over a number of years, the Bill feels like it has been a long time coming. I think that is because it is anticipated and wanted, but we should still remember that this Parliament will be the first in the world to introduce such a comprehensive piece of legislation to create regulation for the online world. Other Parliaments in the world are discussing that and the European Union is discussing it, but we have gone further. When the Bill is introduced before the end of this Session, as I believe the Government intend, it will be the first such comprehensive Bill in the world to seek parliamentary approval.
In addition to my thanks to the members and the staff of the Joint Committee, I thank the ministerial team and the Secretary of State at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, as well as the Bill team officials, with whom we had a very constructive and open dialogue throughout the inquiry. It was good to see them stand by the commitments Ministers made that they wanted the scrutiny process to be open and genuine. The Bill was by no means locked down when it was given to us and the Secretary of State herself has gone on the record to say that she expects the Bill to change as a consequence of the work of the Joint Committee. That is good to hear and important.
The reason the Bill has been so anticipated is because the online world has become central to our lives. It is where we work. It is where we stay in touch with our family and friends. It is where people play games. It is where people get their news and information. It has become our public square. But people are rightly asking, “What kind of place is that public square?” It is increasingly an environment where, for too many people, it is the forum in which they are abused. It is the forum in which their vulnerabilities are targeted and exploited. It is the forum through which hate speech has become normalised. We are seeing a disturbing trend of that affecting offline behaviour, too. People are more likely to be subject to attacks because of their race, sexual orientation or gender. People are more likely to become victims of scams and frauds through the internet. People are more likely to receive egregious disinformation that could damage public health, or interfere and undermine the integrity of elections. We see that taking place around the world, but we experience it at home as well. As Members of Parliament, we are often subject to abuse. We often have constituents who come to us who have been the victims of abuse. They say, “What can be done about this? What can the social media companies do?”
There is a presumption that the law applies equally in all areas, but I think we all know that the law being applied online has become a very difficult place. It is difficult to get social media companies to take responsibility for the systems they have created and the activity of the users on their platforms. We have to recognise that the Bill does not just address content moderation. We are not just looking at harmful and abusive content that has no place on the internet; we are looking at the systems that create an audience for that content, too. The bigger area of harm is done by the amplification of content on these platforms. If abuse was being directed by someone shouting in the street, ultimately that person would probably be arrested and moved on, but it is difficult to control it when that voice of abuse is being amplified to millions of people. That is what the systems of social media companies do and they should be accountable for those systems. They have designed and built those systems to hold the engagement of users, because the more often they visit the site, the longer they are on it and the more engaged they are, the more valuable they are to the platforms and the more advertising they can sell.
Too often, the platforms work on the assumption that all engagement is good, that engagement in itself is a positive metric, because people would not go on the platforms if they were not enjoying it. But we all know the nature of addiction is that people return to things they know are harmful and damaging to them. It was interesting to hear Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower who gave evidence to the Joint Committee, cite research from within Facebook showing how vulnerable teenage girls were suffering heightened anxiety and depression as a consequence of their experience of using Instagram, but felt, at the same time, that they could not not use the platform because all their friends were on it and they could not miss out. It is disturbing not just to see those problems discussed in cold research documents, but to know that the companies themselves know that and are still not doing enough to act on it.
That is why we now have to move to a regulatory regime for social media companies, big search engines and other big online firms, where it is the laws passed in this Parliament that apply and terms of service written in silicon valley are not the guiding principle for regulation. The Joint Committee’s central recommendation for the online safety Bill is that Ofcom, as the independent regulator, should set mandatory codes of practice, based on existing laws in this country, that will deal with the worst kinds of illegal content, such as child abuse and content that promotes and glamorises terrorism. We should also bring into force the equalities legislation—people expect to be respected and not to be abused because of their race, sexual orientation or gender, and that should apply online as well. The regulator’s job should be to set the standards for the companies and explain to them what they are expected to do.
We greatly welcome the work of the Law Commission in suggesting specific new offences, particularly in respect of knowingly sharing false information on social media platforms with the intention of causing physical harm or severe psychological harm to other users. The commission suggests making the promotion of self-harm, which is a particular problem with vulnerable younger users of social media platforms, a specific new offence. We also should create new offences around cyber-flashing. The law needs to keep up to speed with new technology, and people who use new technology to abuse others should know that the law will come for them.
The report also addresses the issue of anonymity, about which many Members have spoken. Anonymity can play an important role in helping victims of abuse and people who speak out against oppressive regimes to speak truth to power when they might be fearful of doing so in their own name, but it is also used by some as a shield to abuse others, in the belief that anonymity will protect them and allow them to commit acts for which they would otherwise be charged and face prosecution. The Committee believes that in such circumstances people should be traceable: we should be able to identify people who abuse others and a request from law enforcement to get that information readily and speedily should be complied with. There should be traceability and people should know that, even if they do not post in their own name, they can be traced if they abuse others and break the law.
Age assurance is another important issue that the Committee considered. We are particularly concerned that children can be vulnerable and can access content—particularly adult content—to which they should not have access all too easily on the internet. Companies are not doing enough to address that, so we say that they should have effective age-assurance policies in place.
Finally, the key principle that underpins the Bill as it stands and that we think is very important is that the regulator has the power to inspect and audit the companies. We will not be reliant on self-declared information and reports from those companies but will have the ability to get for ourselves information that is too often supplied to the outside world only by brave whistleblowers and investigators who speak out about it. We should have access to that information and know on what basis the companies make decisions, and the companies should be liable for big fines if they do not comply with the legislation. We agree with the Secretary of State that individual named directors should also have liability if the companies are in flagrant breach, and there should be redress for individual users.
I encourage all Members to add the report to their Christmas reading list.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
First, as a member of the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill, I thank my hon. Friend for his words.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill will have a profound impact on real people—especially vulnerable people and young children—like Zach Eagling? He has cerebral palsy and epilepsy and was targeted with cruel flashing images, as many people have been on social media to trigger seizures, cause harm to their lives and potentially even risk death. The Bill will, in its own small way, not only help those people but make sure that people like Zach are supported through our support of the proposed Zach’s law. It will also make sure that tech firms are held to account for the harm that they may do.
Damian Collins
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has spoken out strongly on the targeting of people with epilepsy both in Committee and elsewhere. That is a clear example of how some people can be badly abused: people who are known to have epilepsy are deliberately targeted with flashing images that the sender knows will trigger a seizure and cause them physical harm. This practice should have no place on the internet and the companies should be working to stop it and close it down, and they should make sure that action is taken against the accounts that do it. That is one of the clear recommendations in our report and I completely agree with my hon. Friend on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Just a little reminder: Members should ask questions.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the report, along with all who served on the Committee. I will certainly add it to my reading list for the Christmas recess.
I have a specific question on whether the Committee was able to look at the issue of pimping websites, on which individuals, often trafficked, are advertised for sex. They make large amounts of money for websites such as Vivastreet. Did the Committee feel able to make any recommendation about how that should be covered in the draft Online Safety Bill?
Damian Collins
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady, and I congratulate her on her election as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.
The Joint Committee received evidence on this important issue, and we discussed this and other issues with Interpol. We believe that the general principle behind the online safety regime should be that illegality should not exist in these online spaces and communities. If links to such sites are being shared by special interest groups on broader social media platforms, the companies should have a responsibility to address that. The basic principle is that encouraging illegality should not have a place on social media.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and his Committee for their work on this issue. Does he agree that, as big tech companies can analyse our search histories to suggest purchases and can even read our messages to suggest a reply, it is ludicrous for them to say that the sorts of things we want them to do to keep people safer are too difficult?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These companies are engaging in mass surveillance and data gathering to target their users with ads. The same technology and data they use to target people with ads and other information, such as recommending content through recommendation tools, could be used to stop bad things happening. We discussed this throughout the inquiry and in the report. He is right that it is not that it cannot be done; it is that there has not been a requirement in law for it to be done, and that there has been no regulator with proper investigatory powers checking whether the companies are actually doing it.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
I welcome the Committee’s work. I am not a member of the Committee, but I have followed its work closely. I know how important it is, and I will certainly make this report my Christmas reading. I am glad the Committee looked into age assurance, but how convinced is it that the social media platforms can put age assurance measures in place? How much will it have to be enforced? Is it possible to stop the appalling increase in the amount of porn being seen by such young children?
Damian Collins
I agree with the hon. Lady. We address this issue in the report, which goes further than the Bill currently does by saying that the companies do not seem to have an effective policy. They have to deliver on this, and there are various technologies they can use. The Bill does not mandate a particular technology, but it says there should be an effective system, and it will be the regulator’s job to check.
The regulator can also insist on much better research on a platform’s audiences. Ofcom says that 50% of 10-year-olds are on social media. I believe the companies know this and can identify it. Indeed, reports have shown that some advertising is targeted at people who are known to be under 13. Again, the regulator should have access to such data and information to bring more light to this problem.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
One of my gravest concerns is about the way in which disinformation is being used as a weapons system by our adversaries, and particularly hostile states. How much did the Committee consider whether this Bill is an appropriate legislative vehicle to tackle such activity by hostile states? I am not convinced the hostile states Bill will allow us to tackle it adequately, because we are under threat every single day in the online arena due to disinformation from hostile states, which is a major concern.
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are familiar with disinformation from Russian agencies targeting voters during elections in countries around the world. It is an offence in UK electoral law if a foreign entity buys adverts targeting UK voters, and the report says that the offence should apply. The platforms should not accept such ads, and they should take them down once it is identified that they have been placed by a foreign state with hostile intent.
The regulator also has the role of applying a company’s own terms of service to its systems. A lot of the activity my hon. Friend describes is being done by networks of inauthentic accounts. These accounts should not exist on some platforms, and therefore they should be taken down. The regulator should use its powers to identify fake accounts and networks of fake accounts.
We took evidence on this from another Facebook whistleblower, Sophie Zhang, whose job was to identify such foreign state interference and such networks of inauthentic accounts, which again have no place on platforms such as Facebook.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I welcome the Committee’s work. Like many Muslims, I face Islamophobic racist abuse online, which has skyrocketed during the pandemic. Did the Committee consider the definition of Islamophobia suggested by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims?
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In the report, we address the issues of Islamophobia, antisemitism and any form of religious hatred, and that should be considered one of the harms that the regulator can take enforcement action on against the companies.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the report. One of the challenges relates to where these social media companies are based, where their servers are and where international accounts are held. What account has the Committee taken of how we can control the international aspects, as well as the national aspects, of harmful social media content?
Damian Collins
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The rules apply to content that is accessed by users in the UK; it does not matter where in the world that is coming from. For example, we have recommended in the report that frauds and scams should be within scope, including when they appear in adverts as well as in organic postings. Google is already working with the Financial Conduct Authority to limit people advertising unless they are FCA-accredited, but what about organisations elsewhere in the world that are not accredited? They should clearly be in scope as well. We are asking the companies to take responsibility for content that is accessed by users in the UK, and they will have to comply with UK law if we set that law. We can see how this is already being done in legislation elsewhere in the world, and we can set laws, even for global companies, that have to be applied for users in the UK.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
With reports that children as young as nine years old have smartphones, that the internet is essential to their learning and that their homework is almost all done online from the age of six, can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what will be done to filter out the trash to ensure that those smartphones do not turn into a tool to disrupt our children’s healthy development?
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the impact on children. Important work on this has already been done and this Government have passed legislation on the design of services, which is known as the age-appropriate design code. In our report and in the Bill, we stress the importance of risk assessment by the regulator of the different services that are offered, and of the principles of safety by design, particularly in regard to services that are accessed by children and products that are designed for and used by children. I spoke earlier about the regulator’s power to seek data and information from companies about younger users and to challenge companies whose platform policy is that those under 13 cannot access their content and ask whether they have research showing that they know people under that age are using it but allow them to keep their accounts open anyway. Keeping children off the systems that are not designed for them, and from which they are supposed to be deliberately excluded, could be an important role for the regulator to take on.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
I add my own party’s grateful thanks to the Committee for the diligent and thorough way in which it has gone about compiling the report, and we hope to see that feed through into the legislation that eventually comes forward. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with the enhanced role that is envisaged for Ofcom, it is all the more important that, whoever heads Ofcom, the regulator can act as a genuinely independent regulator?
Damian Collins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We are also grateful to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson), who is a member of the Committee. He is not in his place today. The question of the next chair of Ofcom was not one that the Committee was asked to consider. The Government will run a process, and the DCMS Committee will hold a hearing for the pre-appointment scrutiny of the new candidates. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that online safety will be a big job for Ofcom. The world will be watching, and we have to get the legislation right and ensure that Ofcom has the resources it needs to do the job. It believes that it has, and that it has the powers to do the job, but it should be an ongoing role for this House to scrutinise that process and ensure that it is being run effectively.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Chair of the Joint Committee for that statement. We now come to the Backbench debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
Backbench Business
Christmas Adjournment
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
This is the first pre-recess Adjournment debate to take place without Sir David Amess. It will not be as good a debate because he is not here. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] His performances at these debates were always remarkable: a lesson for every Back-Bencher, and an ideal opportunity to raise matters far beyond his own constituency and across the world and to raise every item of his casework with Ministers prior to our going on recess. We mourn his loss and, on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, we have asked the Leader of the House if the pre-recess Adjournment debate in the summer can be retitled the Sir David Amess debate.
I start with some issues local to my constituency. The first is that we have had a number of planning applications to build new homes on station car parks. At Canons Park station, the Mayor of London applied for planning permission to build high-density, multi-storey blocks on the station car park, vastly reducing the amount of car parking space available for commuters. I am pleased to say that Harrow’s planning committee turned down the application, and the planning inspector, after the appeal by the Mayor, rejected it comprehensively. It is the most comprehensive rejection of a planning application I have ever read. That is good news for my constituents.
On Stanmore station, I have raised in many pre-recess Adjournment debates—my hon. Friend the Minister is smiling already—the issue of the required lift. The Mayor of London has applied for planning permission to build all over the station carpark, which accommodates 3,500 cars. I am pleased to say that the Harrow Council planning officers proposed that the council’s planning committee reject the application, and the committee unanimously turned the application down—but now, of course, the Mayor of London, who is the applicant, has called it in, so that he can determine whether it should be allowed to go ahead. I have asked Ministers to keep a watchful eye on this matter and, if the Mayor is marking his own homework, to call it in and hold a proper independent planning inquiry before anything else happens. That is important.
I also raised at business questions the epidemic of thefts of catalytic converters from cars in my constituency. Over the summer, I was given information about many of the thefts, and took action with the local police to try to combat this epidemic. Sadly, as I mentioned, recently we have had gangs of thugs with baseball bats turning up at people’s offices and homes, in broad daylight and late at night, threatening residents. If residents come out to examine what is going on, the thugs say to them, “Do you want to try it? I’ve got my baseball bat and I’ll sort you out.”
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
The thefts of catalytic converters across the country is seriously concerning. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Home Office and Crown Prosecution Service need to treat this as organised crime by gangs, and that it should be dealt with by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency? Only then will we deal with it, because these catalytic converters are stolen from Melton, or from his patch, one day and are in Poland the next.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Clearly, we need action. The problem is that the catalytic converters can be removed in two minutes, so by the time the police arrive, it is too late and the thieves are gone. The Government need to take action to ensure that precious metals that are taken from catalytic converters cannot be sold for cash. That is one of the first measures that must be undertaken. There must also be prompt action by the police to prevent these thugs from continuing to commit crimes.
I turn to points about immigration casework. My constituency is the most multi-ethnic in the country; there is someone from every country in the world, every language under the sun is spoken, and every religion on God’s earth is practised in my constituency. There are two points I am concerned about. One is that the Afghan refugee settlement scheme still is not published. I am dealing with 656 constituents with relatives who think or hope that they and their family will qualify under the scheme, but still no scheme is available. That is causing angst and anxiety among many of my constituents.
In my casework, I see a huge increase in the number of biometric residence permits being sent to the wrong address after lengthy delays by government. It is an outrage. I understand that Home Office officials are working from home and that they have backlogs in their work, but when they get basic addresses wrong, particularly after they have been emailed to them, it is doubly bad, and that may encourage criminal gangs to get hold of those cards.
My constituency office has also experienced a huge increase in benefits casework. I do not know about other colleagues, but when the pandemic first struck, my office dealt with roughly 250 cases a month that required my intervention. Last summer, we peaked at 1,300 such cases in July; there were a further 1,300 in August, and cases are still running at 856 a month. I am therefore glad that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is doing the right thing and increasing the money in our budget for staffing; I welcome that decision.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Like the hon. Member, I have a very diverse constituency, and I deal with a heavy immigration caseload. Does he share my disappointment about the fact that delays in those cases are getting worse and worse? How does he feel about the Afghan scheme, which we still do not have, so many months down the road? It is also being narrowed down. How is that acceptable?
Bob Blackman
I agree that it is not acceptable. I think most hon. Members across the House will be sympathetic to people fleeing Afghanistan. We rightly made promises and commitments, but unfortunately the resettlement scheme is still not available. As I said, that is causing a lot of angst and anxiety.
I turn to two local issues that I am sure are seen across the country. There has been a huge spike in concerns about planning matters, as well as concerns about fly-tipping and potholes, which are appearing once again in Harrow. Those potholes need to be fixed, because they cause damage and all sorts of unnecessary and unacceptable problems on the roads. We have also seen a large spike in casework about illegal houses in multiple occupation—not registered ones—which, when they spring up, give rise to a lot of noise, nuisance and antisocial behaviour. I am sure that I am not alone in experiencing that.
I turn to important international events. Sir David Amess was a great supporter of the Iranian opposition, the Maryam Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran, which represent a democratic alternative to the current regime. In Iran, there are huge demonstrations against the Government, which are not well publicised. In many cases, people are being severely oppressed with terrible consequences across the piece. It is time that Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office took action. We know that discussions with Iran are ongoing over the so-called nuclear deal—I think they may not be going anywhere—but we must be clear with Iran about its attempts to foster terrorism and further incursions around the world; that is vital. The appeals of the terrorists who tried to bomb the 2018 NCRI will come up shortly in Brussels, and I hope that FCDO Ministers will have a lot to say when those appeals are dismissed. I was at the conference, and I would not be here now had the terrorists succeeded. Many others from across the political spectrum are in the same situation.
We will commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January in this place. We are still looking to build an education centre and museum adjacent to this mother of Parliaments. I look forward to that happening, and to further progress in the new year.
On Equitable Life, the Government have still failed to pay the total sum of £2.6 billion to the people who are owed that money due to the worst case of Government maladministration that there has ever been. I will continue to press them to pay that money—that debt of honour—because more than 1 million people have still received only 22% compensation. Given that we have compensated other schemes to the level of 80%, that seems grossly unfair to all those who have suffered loss.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Let me back up my good and hon. Friend. I think the Government promised to sort out Equitable Life a long time ago, did they not?
Bob Blackman
My right hon. and gallant Friend is absolutely right. It was almost the first piece of legislation passed in the House when the two of us were elected in 2010, and it still goes on; some 11 years later, we have not supplied full compensation.
As hon. Members will know, one of my great passions is combating homelessness and rough sleeping. At this time of year, we must think of those who are forced to sleep rough. I played a major part in the Kerslake commission on homelessness and rough sleeping during covid-19, and I supported the Government on the Everyone In project, and on every other aspect of enabling people to be taken off the streets and into appropriately secure accommodation, yet Housing First has still not been rolled out across the country. It would build the network of support that rough sleepers need to rebuild their life. I hope that in the new year, we will see a big step forward on that.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about Everyone In, but over the last 10 years, pre-pandemic, rough sleeping doubled under Conservative Governments. Everyone In showed that there was political will to get everybody off the streets. Why can we not have that outside a pandemic as well?
Bob Blackman
Under Everyone In, the Government took 37,000 people off the streets. At the time, the rough sleeping accounts were of the order of 8,500. That demonstrates the problem of data on people who are sleeping rough and on people who have been assisted. We also know that 300,000 people across the country are sofa surfing at any one time; they are tomorrow’s rough sleepers.
At the same time, debts for private rents are increasing. The Government are slowly but surely allowing the courts to decide that evictions can take place, which will mean that more people will become homeless and will potentially be on the streets. Action is required. My solution is to build between 90,000 and 100,000 new social homes every year that people can actually afford to live in, as opposed to overpriced accommodation that they cannot. That is one of the things that has to take place.
The challenge before the Government—the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities have agreed; everyone seems to agree—is to abolish the Vagrancy Act 1824. There is an opportunity to do precisely that in the House of Lords. The Government need to accept the amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—if I have got that in the right order—proposed by my good friend Lord Best, which would remove that Act from the statute book. I hope that we will see action on that.
I will turn to the important all-party parliamentary groups that I am involved in. I had the opportunity to visit Azerbaijan during the short November recess. I met the President and my MP counterparts in Baku. I also visited the newly liberated lands, and joined the celebrations of the Azerbaijani people on their recovering Karabakh from Armenia. I look forward to the redevelopment of that region enabling everyone, across the piece, to live in peace and harmony. It is British company Chapman Taylor that is involved in the restoration of Susha, one of the biggest centres, which was destroyed by the Armenians during their occupation. I had the pleasure this week of joining the ambassador of Azerbaijan when he presented his credentials, virtually, to Her Majesty the Queen.
There is a whole host of other matters that I would like to raise in this debate, but I know that time is pressing and that many other Members wish to participate. I end by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all the speakers, all the staff and all the people who keep us safe a very happy Christmas, and, above all else, a happy, peaceful, prosperous and healthy new year.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Even with the spectre of omicron hanging over us, this time of year is very special. For the first time in two years, I have been able to join communities across my constituency as they switch on their Christmas lights. These community events are deeply heart-warming, and it is wonderful to see local families enjoying the lights. I wish all my constituents who celebrate it a very merry Christmas.
Like colleagues across the House, I find it particularly enjoyable visiting people and places across my constituency, and I remain immensely proud to represent Manchester, Gorton.
I recently visited Circus House in Longsight as it celebrated its 10th anniversary and heard about the fantastic work that it has done over the past decade. I was given a crash course in circus tricks, and I recommend that hon. Members try their hand at spinning plates or juggling—it is not too dissimilar to our day-to-day job.
Visiting schools is always a particular highlight of my work. Ahead of COP26, I joined Year 6 at St Margaret’s Primary School to discuss climate action. The pupils were full of insightful questions and ideas. They gave me hope that the future of our planet was in good hands.
Black and Asian community groups, such as the Caribbean and African Health Network and Longsight’s Bangladeshi Women’s Group, continue to make an incredible contribution to life in Manchester, Gorton. It was a pleasure to meet them and to learn more about the outreach work that they have undertaken to engage their communities in the vaccination drive.
This year marks the end of an era in the City of Manchester, as Sir Richard Leese departs as leader of our council after 25 long and dedicated years. Richard’s contribution to our city has been immense, and I have been proud to work with him over the past two decades. He leaves big shoes to fill, but I have no doubt that his successor, Bev Craig, will be a force to be reckoned with. I also know that Manchester is immensely proud to have its first woman and first LGBTQ+ city leader.
Another era in this House ends, too, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has said, as we sadly will not hear from Sir David Amess in this debate, in which he always enjoyed participating. He remains sorely missed by colleagues across the House.
I want to take this opportunity once again to plead with the Government to support my campaign to secure the long-term future of the covid memorial wall. Each person who left a message to a loved one on the wall, including myself, wants an assurance that the covid memorial wall will be allowed to remain.
Finally, like other colleagues, I want to finish by thanking all my staff—Tom, Alice, Yasmine, Sam, Naeem, Anisa and Josephine—who continue to make my life easier. This pandemic has been so difficult for all of us over the last couple of years, and my staff—and those of other Members—have done a tremendous job as our workload has more than doubled. May I also say merry Christmas to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Mr Speaker and to all the team for the wonderful work that they too have been doing?
I hope that everyone enjoys a restful recess, and has a merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), whose predecessor was of course a friend of many of us on both sides of the House. It is also a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I support his suggestion that the next set of Adjournment debates, in the summer, should take place in memory of our great friend Sir David Amess, who, although he was not my geographical parliamentary neighbour, was my parliamentary neighbour at 1 Parliament Street for nearly a decade.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great importance to us in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, which has caused the deepest possible sadness. My young constituent Louis Watkiss, aged 12, tragically died at the Snow Dome on the indoor ski slope in Tamworth on 24 September this year. Louis’s brave parents, Natalie and Chris, are here with us in the Gallery to hear what I am going to say. They are bravely working tirelessly to promote the wearing of helmets to ensure that no other family suffers as they are suffering today.
On 24 September, Louis attended a friend’s birthday party to go tobogganing. A terrible collision occurred on the slope. The full extent of Louis’s injuries was not apparent until his dad Chris arrived at the scene. He saw Louis still receiving treatment from the paramedics, but he was pronounced dead shortly afterwards. Both parents had 20 minutes to lie with Louis at the bottom of the indoor ski slope. I am not going to rehearse the details; the torment of those last moments will live with Louis’s parents, and other relations, for the rest of their lives.
The coroner’s post-mortem report states that Louis suffered a head injury with fractures involving the base of his skull which caused his death instantly. Although such deaths from tobogganing and sledging activities are rare in the United Kingdom, research has shown that children are more vulnerable to brain injury and even death from collisions. That is because their skulls are still developing and strengthening, and are not fully protective of the brain within until they reach the age of 17 or 18. Research referenced in Louis’s report from the coroner states that the most prevalent method for reducing traumatic brain injuries is the use of a helmet. Helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head, neck or face injuries in skiers, particularly those under the age of 13, as well as the severity of injuries.
There is clearly a case here for mandating the use of helmets for snow sports activities in the United Kingdom. To my surprise, although the issue of cycling helmets for minors has been raised in the House—most recently, with great eloquence, by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) when he introduced a private Member’s Bill last year—I believe this is the first time that this particular issue has been raised.
In recent years, some indoor snow sports venues have made it obligatory for participants to wear helmets, but it is entirely voluntary, and there is currently no guidance or legislation in place for operators. Looking abroad for guidance and relevant examples, we see that in New Jersey, in the United States, it has been compulsory since 2011 for minors under the age of 17 to wear a helmet if participating in such sports. In Europe the debate about the use of helmets is certainly active, and I submit that it is time for, at the least, a serious discussion in the United Kingdom. There is little doubt that a helmet would have saved Louis’s life. His death was not only tragic, but wholly avoidable.
It is clear that Louis was a remarkable young man, talented, bright and intellectually curious. He was in his second year at Plantsbrook School in my constituency, and among his many interests and skills was playing the saxophone, reaching grade 5. That included playing in a jazz ensemble at Symphony Hall in Birmingham.
I believe the House should consider whether or not we now take the significant step of changing the law to insist that in these and similar circumstances children’s heads should be protected by a protective helmet. If there are issues with either introducing legislation, or bringing forward an amendment to a Home Office measure or other relevant Bill to provide for this change, perhaps it may be possible to secure rather more rapidly a code of practice entered into by all operators of indoor snow sports and similar activities, which would mean that operators insist on such protective headgear when people are taking part in these activities.
Bob Stewart
This is appalling. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the Tamworth ski slope now insists on children wearing a helmet when they operate there?
Mr Mitchell
My right hon. Friend raises an important point. My understanding is that it does, which shows the House and, in particular, those in my constituency who are now campaigning for this move, how quickly such as measure could be introduced.
As we gather for Christmas, I am deeply conscious of this tragedy, and of the suffering of a lovely family, of a wider school and music community and of Louis’s friends and relatives, who will be remembering his life and mourning his loss at this terrible time. I know that the House and the Minister will want to send Louis’s parents, Chris and Natalie, George and Louis’s grandparents our deepest sympathies. They have every right to expect and believe that this House can be relied upon to look seriously and speedily at a safety measure that the family so bravely and so compellingly want to secure, which will stop other families from facing the grief and misery that they are suffering at this awful time for them.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today, and for all the opportunities I have been given to speak by all the Chairs this year. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I have a running competition to see who will get in first, and he would be here today but for his being in Westminster Hall at the moment, leading on another debate. I also wish to thank the Leader of the House for seeking to answer my endless list of questions in the most charming of ways and always making sure to follow up after business questions. Most importantly, let me say a huge thank you to all the House staff, from those in the Libraries to those in the kitchens, from Committee Clerks to Doorkeepers: you are the glue that keeps this place together, and we would not be able to carry out our duties without every one of you.
This has been a big year, and when I reflected on how I wanted to approach my speech today one person immediately came to my mind, Sir David Amess, whom the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned in his speech. Sir David was a seasoned professional when it came to these debates. He loved to recognise all the good people, organisations and charities in Southend West, and I know colleagues from across the House will still be feeling his absence. I hope we can emulate his enthusiasm and dedication to our constituencies today.
It has been a very busy year in this House. The excitement and privilege of securing a private Member’s Bill has still not lost its novelty. I am incredibly honoured to have brought such an important piece of legislation, no matter how small or technical, to this Chamber. I am grateful to my colleagues who helped me secure its Second Reading, and am excited to usher it through the remaining stages of its passage next year. It is a similar feeling of excitement and privilege when we manage to secure a good outcome for our constituents. This year, that has been especially true in a particular case I had. I refer to a constituent who is a veteran of the armed forces and whose time in live action has left him with scars, physical and psychological. He and his family have become well-known to my office, and it was a shared delight when we were able to successfully liaise with the Ministry of Defence to resolve a pensions issue that had been rumbling on for more than a year. It was just one of a few issues that we continue to help him find a resolution to. It has been a journey that has opened my eyes to how difficult a return to civilian life can be. I must express my gratitude to the many people who helped along the way, including Veterans First Point, which works tirelessly to provide a wide range of services for veterans in Scotland, and the veterans champion at our local health board, who has helped so much with casework.
I could not speak about the armed forces without mentioning an event that saw an avalanche of casework for every one of us—the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I do not want to labour points that have been made so many times already in this Chamber over the past few months, but I must recognise the toll that has taken on us and our staff, but most of all on the constituents who have been desperately trying to help their families left behind. I think many of us are on the same page about how events played out. I would add “and how they continue to play out”, but the Government have become somewhat quiet on the matter. That has not gone unnoticed.
A constituent of mine has decided that he can no longer wait for the support promised by Ministers. He told me this week:
“I feel that the Government isn’t working on any Afghan cases at the moment and it doesn’t seem like it’ll be high on their agenda anytime soon.”
I raised this case with the Foreign Office and the Home Office in August and unfortunately did not hear back. I raised it again in the Chamber in September, and the Secretary of State for Defence promised to investigate it. Despite repeated chases, we have not heard back.
I do not want to spend too much time focusing on the lows, though; despite a difficult year, there is much to celebrate. This autumn, Glasgow hosted COP26, which I was lucky enough to attend. I can proudly attest to the inspiration that it sparked in my constituency, which lies a little outside the city centre. The children from St Charles’ Primary School decided that they wanted to encourage people to travel greener, so they sought to make Newton station more attractive. Not only did they create a beautiful growing space for plants, but they were out and about chatting with the community and undertaking random acts of kindness.
We have also seen a huge increase in volunteer litter pickers. I have mentioned before the Cleaning up Cambuslang campaign, which saw volunteers collect 26 bags of litter for 26 days in the run-up to COP26. Bonnie Blantyre and pals are another fantastic group working on everything from litter picks to creating and maintaining community gardens. SOC—Supporting Our Community—is another I have to pay due recognition to. The group in Hillhouse are active and well known, supporting people of all ages and pulling together lots of community events.
Blantyre Soccer Academy opened a community garden of its own, which is open to anyone in the community free of charge. It is a beautiful space for quiet reflection and has been put to good use by locals. The provision of these spaces cannot be taken for granted; they have become ever more essential to our mental wellbeing.
That brings me nicely to other groups working to better our mental health. I met the head of the local Samaritans branch this year. It was quite a heavy conversation, but it was invaluable. The work the volunteers there do is emotional and sensitive, but I know we are all grateful for their resilience. They provide not just the crisis line, but a whole host of prevention work, educational resources and funding. The Hamilton branch has had volunteers that have committed decades of their lives to the cause. I admire them greatly and wish them good luck for the future.
I also met the charity Place2Be, which takes a holistic “whole school” approach to mental health. It recognises that to help children, the whole system must be in a good headspace. I was grateful to hear that the charity is currently providing some counselling in schools in my constituency, and I encourage all colleagues to get in touch with it to find out more.
The Beacons, with hubs in both Blantyre and Cambuslang, is a commendable organisation. It helps people through their recovery from addiction and is staffed by volunteers. Crucially, it actively seeks volunteers with lived experience, who have a unique insight into addiction and how to help. It is an organisation that helps people rebuild their lives and take back control.
There are so many organisations I want to highlight that are real pillars of the community. I will start with the big name—the citizens advice bureau. Our local branch has taken many a phone call from my office and from constituents. The team there are fantastic, working away at helping people out of difficult situations. Food banks, too, have become a necessity across the UK. It is a sad reality that they should need to exist at all, but I am very grateful and thankful that they do, and I pay tribute to Rutherglen, Cambuslang and Hamilton food banks in my constituency for the work they do. They took the brunt of the universal credit uplift cut and did a sterling job.
My constituency has also seen an increase in new residents’ and tenants’ associations, which is excellent. I have liaised with quite a few and the community spirit is outstanding.
I have just a few more people to thank. First, I thank those at South Lanarkshire Council for their continued engagement on casework matters and for making themselves available. Next, I thank the community councils throughout my constituency that work so diligently for the communities they represent and achieve so much. Finally, I thank my staff, Lynne, Laura, Gillian, John and Kim, who have made it possible for me to support my constituents and represent them here, for their hard work. All MPs know that they could not carry out their role without the support of their hard-working staff.
I am not quite finished yet, as I have been lucky enough to land the final Adjournment debate of term after this debate, but I am very much looking forward to returning to business in the new year. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, all the Speakers and all my colleagues a very good and well-deserved break, and a happy Christmas when it comes.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Last week I took part in a Back-Bench debate on Bosnia, and I warned that the situation there was deteriorating sharply. My great concern was that very shortly we would see again conditions like those that started the Bosnian war in the 1990s. But over the past seven days the situation has become even worse. Now the leader of Republika Srpska has set a short timeline of six months before he intends to quit the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Thus I feel I must warn the House again about what could easily happen in Europe, and within two hours’ flying time of London. The situation in Bosnia today is extremely fragile and very dangerous. It could be likened to what happens when you pick up a lemonade bottle. It looks calm. Wriggle it around a bit, put it down; it still looks calm. Undo the top, and everything spews out. Well, in Bosnia the lemonade top is getting very loose. Having been the first British UN battalion group commander in Bosnia in ’92, what happens in Bosnia matters to me. It is not just me. The Army lost 57 soldiers in the last Bosnian crisis, and they died trying to save people’s lives.
At one stage, I witnessed what might happen again if Bosnia is allowed to split up. The Vance-Owen plan of 1993 allocated various regions of Bosnia to the various factions. Cantons were designated primarily as Serb, Croat or Muslim. Immediately the plan was announced, various sides took matters into their own hands. In particular, I watched as Bosnian Croats attacked Bosnian Muslims to take immediately the areas allocated to them by that political plan.
Afzal Khan
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his moving speech and his tremendous work on this issue, not only here as a parliamentarian but when he served in the British Army. I share his serious concern about what is happening in Bosnia. I hope we can all agree that when the history of our generation is written, Britain must stand on the right side of history. Does he therefore agree that the UK must ensure that there is no return to the violence and suffering of the past and that we secure the gains made for the people of Bosnia?
Bob Stewart
The hon. Gentleman, who should not be called an hon. Friend but is, is right. I am going to come to that.
In the fighting around Gornji Vakuf, no quarter was given to man, woman or child. I recall watching tank fire destroying house after house. I remember watching people being mown down.
I tried for several weeks to stop the fighting, often by trying to get ceasefires. All day I sat in rooms trying to get ceasefires, often by putting my wonderful soldiers in the middle of a battle between two sides, which is a very dangerous thing to do. As an aside, may I pay tribute to my escort driver, Lance Corporal Wayne Edwards, who lost his life on 13 January 1993 in the fighting around Gornji Vakuf? I had agreed to him being used to escort three women through the fighting—through the town—and I still feel guilty, because I had the responsibility of giving him the order to do that. Wayne was shot dead through the front of his vehicle while trying to get three women who needed to get hospital to a place of safety. Truly, Wayne Edwards gave his life so that others could live. That is about as noble a soldier’s death as there can be.
The main lesson of my tour in Bosnia was that it cannot be split up and it must remain a coherent state. My time there occurred in perhaps the most torrid period of the Balkans war, but I left the country two years before an appalling genocide. This was without doubt the foulest atrocity of the war. It occurred in July 1995 at Srebrenica, a small town in eastern Bosnia, where 8,372—as far as we know—men and boys were murdered by the Bosnian Serb army in what was undoubtedly one of the worst acts of genocide since the second world war.
Mr Mitchell
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is making an extremely compelling speech. I have been in the recent past to Srebrenica, and I stood in stunned amazement at the extraordinary example of man’s inhumanity to man. Will he emphasise to those on the Front Bench that this is a region of the world where Britain has deep roots, real knowledge and the ability to help move the dial with many of the disputatious parties? Will he take this opportunity to emphasise that to the Foreign Office? There is a big role for Britain to play at this point.
Bob Stewart
My right hon. Friend is so right; we can make a really big difference here. In my time in Bosnia two years before Srebrenica, we managed to get to Srebrenica in eastern Bosnia. It took us four days. The only reason I went there was because I heard people pleading on commercial radio for someone to come and help them and stop them being killed. The Bosnian Serb army had just about surrounded Srebrenica and Konjević Polje. We got there. I recall about 20 people killed around us. A couple of my soldiers were wounded, but no one was killed. After a few weeks, when we got about 2,000 people out, mainly women and children, we were ordered to withdraw. I did not want to withdraw, but we were ordered to withdraw. Now, is it not weird that if Republika Srpska splits away, Srebrenica will be in that part of Republika Srpska?
Alicia Kearns
I thank my right hon. and gallant Friend for the point he is making. Does he agree that one of the most important reasons why Republika Srpska cannot break away, and why we must maintain the territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is that if it does, that would be officially to mandate ethnic cleansing? It would be to say that if someone ethnically cleanses and commits genocide, they can wait 20 years and we will allow them to break away and celebrate their ethnic cleansing, because they will have succeeded in their goal. That would be utterly wrong, and we must stand firm against that.
Bob Stewart
I entirely agree with my very good friend; she is so right.
Paddy Ashdown once saw President Tuđman draw a map on a menu and divide it in half, saying “That half is Serb and that half is Croat.” Paddy Ashdown asked, “Where do the Muslims go?” I will come to that.
It would be a bit rich if Srebrenica were in a breakaway section of Bosnia. What happened at Srebrenica was the catalyst that caused the international community, led by the United Sates, to take Bosnia seriously, and the Dayton peace accords were the result. They were signed in November 1995 and they achieved their immediate objective—they stopped the killing and they preserved the territorial integrity of the state—but the political arrangements for Bosnia were diabolical.
Dayton bequeathed an unworkable constitution and a hugely complex, multi-layered system of government presided over by, would you believe, a triumvirate of Presidents—Bosnian, Croat and Muslim—who adopted the primary role of lead President once every eight months in rotation. That system was meant to last for only a few years, but it has now stumbled on for 26 years.
All this is unravelling at an exceedingly fast pace. The President of Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, has put plans in place through the Parliament of Republika Srpska to quit the federation and thus reduce Bosnia and Herzegovina in area by 49%. On Friday 10 December, after our debate the previous day, Republika Srpska formally adopted a set of resolutions to initiate the process of withdrawing from Bosnia and Herzegovina’s state institutions, including the armed forces, the taxation authorities and even the intelligence agencies.
It is for that reason that I come back to the Chamber once again to talk about Bosnia. I hope I am not being too much of a pain in the bottom, but we have to know what is happening and we have to stop what might happen. I am sorry if I keep banging on, but someone has to, and many hon. Members agree with me.
Dodik’s move represents the first step towards formal secession, and it establishes a timeline of six months. We are talking about June next year, which is very soon, and a Greater Serbia could result. I get that a lot of Serbs would like that, but it would be a disaster for the area. I firmly believe that such a move would have a domino effect on the remaining Bosnian territory. It would certainly embolden Croat nationalists such as the leader of the main nationalist HDZ party, Dragan Čović, who would very much like to see Bosnian Croat independence, too.
It seems there is some sort of close collaboration between Čović and Dodik, who have been pressing very hard for changes to electoral laws that would favour the Croats and the Serbs and would give them disproportionate representation in Bosnia. Everyone in Bosnia is South Slav, but by religion 30% are Serb, 15% are Croat and more than 50% are Bosnian Muslims. That is 1.8 million Bosnian Muslims. Bosnia matters to us because, if the Croats and the Serbs were to divide the country in half, I suspect we would find thousands of Bosnian Muslims seeking an alternative home in Europe, and I am pretty sure which direction they might well take. It matters to us in a practical way. We might find we had a heck of a lot more refugees—and they would be refugees; they are not displaced persons if they are fleeing their homeland because of persecution.
In the early 1990s, the international community, including our country, suffered from a paralysis about the Bosnian situation, underpinned perhaps by the fact that people just could not or did not want to get to grips with it. We cannot allow that to happen again. For me, there are two lessons from the 1990s that are directly applicable to what is happening now. First, dividing Bosnia will not work, and secondly—this is where we come in, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) have said—the only way to get a solution is for the international community to be involved.
What can we do? I will largely repeat what I said in last week’s debate, with a few changes. First, we have to sustain Dayton at least until we get something to replace it. It is not great, but it has stopped people dying, and we need to keep it limping on until we get a better arrangement. Secondly, Mr Christian Schmidt, the High Representative, requires our absolute and unequivocal support. He must be given all the power we can allow to help him to stop the country going backwards—that means from everyone in the international community.
Thirdly, we need another Dayton. Maybe we can call it Dayton II. I would not mind it being in Lancaster House, because that is a good place to sort out the international community. It requires the involvement of the United Nations, yes, and that would be a problem on the Security Council, since Russia is not being particularly helpful and China is mixing it a bit too. It requires the United States, it requires the European Union and of course it requires Serbia and Russia. We must also have the presence of the Bosnian Serbs. Representatives from Republika Srpska have to be there. They were not there at Dayton I, as I recall.
Fourthly, a point I totally agree with, we should lead. The European Union is at sixes and sevens over Bosnia. Some of its members openly support Republika Srpska, and it has given Republika Srpska quite a massive subsidy. That has encouraged the Bosnian Serbs to believe they will have support from the European Union, or elements of it. On the subject of Bosnia, the European Union certainly does not speak with one voice and it is largely hamstrung—it can do nothing. Take the United States, which as far as I can ascertain has largely gone back to its traditional, isolationist-type approach: “Europe, sort yourself out,” might be the maxim. So we must lead. This country must and can lead.
Fifth and finally—I have a right to say this—we must be prepared to send our soldiers to stop people dying in Bosnia; to support any political initiative, of course. Politics comes first, but sometimes peacekeeping requires someone on horseback. We have a great man to help us in the Balkans now. Air Chief Marshall Sir Stuart Peach was appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the western Balkans last week. He has recently finished as chairman of the military committee in NATO headquarters, and as such was the highest ranking officer in the alliance, even above Supreme Allied Commander Europe. I cannot think of anyone more suited to help Bosnia than Stuart Peach. We also have a very distinguished ambassador in Sarajevo. Matthew Field has been there since August 2018. He is hugely respected. People in Bosnia have told me how much they respect our ambassador. I know Matt well, and his experience and wise counsel should be used. Messrs Peach and Field are extremely well qualified to help Bosnia, and I urge the Government as well as this House to totally support them in their de facto and most crucial mission, which is to save Bosnia from another disastrous war.
Alicia Kearns
As my right hon. Friend mentions what the Government could do, is he aware that Republika Srpska has raised £30 million on the London stock exchange to fund their debt since April? That is something that the Government can look at. That is something that the Treasury is doing. We know that Serbia is funding guns and arms to go into Republika Srpska. We know that Serbia gets those arms from Russia. So clearly there is something going wrong when we are enabling Republika Srpska to fund itself from within London.
Bob Stewart
I did not know that. It is very important. I am finishing very shortly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. For the sake of clarity, there is no need for the right hon. Gentleman—just for once—to consider that he ought to curtail his remarks. He is making a moving and appropriate speech, and the whole Chamber appreciates that he is the only person qualified to make it. We are listening to him and we are happy to go on listening to him for a while.
Bob Stewart
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. “For a while” is about to end.
In summary, there is no doubt that Bosnia cannot sort out its own problems. It requires international help. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. About 100,000 people were killed in the country between 1991 and 1995. That must not be repeated. We, the United Kingdom, could and should—we are the only country that can really do it in my view—lead the initiative to save Bosnia. I ask the Government please, please, to put this as a top priority of this Administration. Please God, let us not stand by and watch huge numbers of innocent people die again.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). He made such a considered speech, and I did enjoy listening to it. May I also take a moment to reflect on the speech from the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) on the tragic circumstances of the death of Louis Watkiss—and my condolences to the family? I hope we will all support the efforts being made by the right hon. Member.
This Christmas will be difficult for many families. It could be the first Christmas without loved ones, and people may have lost their jobs or simply be struggling due to the worsening cost of living crisis. I want to take this opportunity to talk about how local charities in Luton and all their committed volunteers have stepped up over the last year. They have stepped in to address Government failures and have supported many people’s lives in Luton South.
Level Trust has helped families overcome the costs of education, ensuring that children in Luton have the chance to enjoy learning, by running the clothing exchange, delivering home learning packs and managing the emergency home school fund. Level Trust has also helped to set up Luton Learning Link, a partnership with the Luton Council of Mosques and the high sheriff of Bedfordshire, to provide computers to children to tackle the digital divide.
Discover Islam also works with Level Trust, but among its other great community initiatives it has set up the Curry Kitchen, in partnership with Community Interest Luton, to provide hot food to Luton residents in need. It was great to see so many Lutonians join the Luton Lions to run the Luton 10K, including my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), to raise vital funds for the Curry Kitchen.
As one of the volunteers at Luton food bank, it is right for me to mention the great work it does in providing free nutritionally balanced and culturally appropriate food parcels to people in distress or financial hardship, including hot meals for families on Christmas eve next week.
NOAH has provided support to the homeless people in our community through offering food, clothing, medical and dental care, outreach support and specific advice on accessing accommodation and income support, as well as skills and employment training. Signposts in Luton delivers temporary accommodation for people who are homeless and provides psychological support to those for whom it provides a roof.
The Luton Homeless Partnership represents over 20 local services, including Mary Seacole Housing Association, Luton Council, the Luton business improvement district, ELFT—the East London NHS Foundation Trust—and the University of Bedfordshire. It has set up the Big Change initiative, which asks Lutonians to donate some spare time, items or some spare money to help people experiencing homelessness, including through contactless touchpoints in Luton town centre.
Women’s Aid in Luton, which is part of that group, supports women and child victims of domestic abuse. Its refuge delivers peer support, education and access to legal advice. I would like to take this opportunity to give a mention to Luton rugby club, which has again this year put together a huge number of Christmas shoebox gifts for the women who use Women’s Aid services. Similarly, Stepping Stones supports vulnerable women, as does the Luton All Women’s Centre, which I was very pleased to visit just last week.
Keech hospice delivers free specialist care for adults and children in Luton who have life-limiting and terminal illnesses. Significant funds were raised recently for the hospice through the big trunk trail, where large model elephants were sponsored by local businesses and decorated by many different people—including famous Lutonians such as “The Great British Bake Off” champion Nadiya Hussain and former Turner prize nominee Mark Titchner, before being auctioned off to raise a fantastic amount of funds. For children and young people struggling with their mental health and emotional trauma, CHUMS delivers outstanding accessible support that is tailored to individual needs.
I could go on about so many of the brilliant charities in Luton and the excellent volunteers who support them, but I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to pass on to the Leader of the House my request for a debate on the contribution of grassroots charities to our local communities and the importance of increasing Government support to secure their resilience through this very difficult time with the pandemic.
Talking of volunteers, I would really like to take the opportunity to congratulate Dr Waled Mannan from Luton, who is the winner of the BBC sports personality of the year’s unsung hero 2021 award for the east of England region. He has been the lead person in promoting community-based sports and fitness group Revolution, which has motivated hundreds of Lutonians to take up physical activity. Understandably, due to the spread of omicron, the BBC is not having any audience members at its awards event on Sunday, so I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all here today will join me in congratulating Dr Mannan and all the other unsung heroes involved in grassroots sports and physical activities.
Finally, we in Luton were very sad to have lost our friend Lord Bill McKenzie of Luton just recently. He was passionate about our town, Luton, and served it all his life as a local councillor, the leader of the council, a Minister in Government when he was elevated to the Lords, a shadow Minister and a vital member of the parliamentary Labour party. Our thoughts are with Lady Di McKenzie and family, and I hope that we can all take a moment to reflect on his contribution in this place and to us in our home town of Luton. I wish everyone a very merry Christmas and a good new year.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). It is also a pleasure to speak in the Christmas Adjournment debate, except for one element, which is, as has already been mentioned, that we are without our dear friend Sir David Amess. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) that this traditional pre-Christmas debate should be called the Sir David Amess memorial debate. All hon. Members present perfectly accept that they will always play second fiddle to him in their ability to bring up constituency issues.
I was with Sir David, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), in Qatar a couple of days before he was sadly taken from us. I could see how well thought of he was there when, after the news had come through, it was the lead story on the national news. We all miss him; I miss him. He will forever be felt in this place.
It is great to see the Deputy Chief Whip in his place. I have been telling him all week that I would give him quite a hard time in this debate, as I did last year and as I intend to do next year, but in the spirit of Christmas, I will be nice. I did notice, however, that I still have not received a Christmas card from him—[Interruption.] which is shocking. No doubt—I ask him to comment—that is an indication of my standing in his little black book in the Whips Office.
I place on record my thanks and appreciation to all our health workers, particularly those in Eastleigh who, over the last few days—as well as the last few years— have been asked to make contributions and go further than they have in the last few weeks because of the announcements. All those in GP surgeries, hospitals and vaccination centres have worked tirelessly, and will continue to work tirelessly, so I thank them for that.
Traditionally, these debates are a place to raise constituency issues, which is predominantly what I will do. I will talk about some things that are going on in Eastleigh and other things that need to change in Eastleigh. I do not think the Deputy Chief Whip will be surprised that I will raise housing first.
The housing development continues unabated at the behest of Eastleigh Liberal Democrats who control Eastleigh Borough Council. The council has built 49% more housing than is required by Government targets despite its claims that the Government are forcing them to build at that level. It is planning to build 22% beyond Government targets for the next four years.
The Deputy Chief Whip knows that I have raised the issue at previous Christmas debates; in ten-minute rule Bills, where I have made suggestions on how planning reform and legislation could change some of that; and in questions. I must declare, by the way, that I am not against local authorities building housing if they want to, particularly social housing. Specifically, however, I want to raise the situation in which Eastleigh Borough Council buys land, awards itself planning permission and builds the development itself against the wishes of local residents.
An example of that happening in the last few years is the One Horton Heath project in Fair Oak, which was originally 900 homes and has now gone up to 2,500 because it was taken over by the council. It is not wanted by local people. Councillor Steven Broomfield and I have consistently raised with the council that the lack of consultation, and the lack of checks and balances when it awards itself planning permission as well as building its own developments, is not acceptable.
The council is doing that because it has a £600-million borrowing amount, which is not sustainable for a local authority with an annual budget of £32 million. I have raised this matter with what was the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government—now the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—stating that it really needs to look at local authorities that are borrowing way beyond their means, because in the end, local residents in my constituency will have to pay when Eastleigh Borough Council goes bust.
I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to make changes in respect of local councils building developments without those checks and balances. Will the Minister ensure that the Department looks at my proposals? I suggested that if a local authority wants to build on land that it owns—particularly large-scale developments of the type that we are seeing in Horton Heath—the neighbouring planning authority should take that over. The host planning authority could pay that neighbouring authority, but this is about the independence of a planning department in a neighbouring local authority checking and looking at whether the planning application lives up to the standards that it should. That should be done by an organisation that does not own the land and does not build out on its own land. That is what we expect from private housing developers and I hope that the Government will look at taking that forward.
I also want to mention Southampton airport, which, as the Deputy Chief Whip will know, I have raised consistently in the two years that I have been the Member for Eastleigh. He will also know that Southampton airport was desperately affected by the collapse of Flybe, as it was by the impact of covid on the routes that it could operate and the number of passengers that it has been able to serve. Two years ago, it submitted an application to extend its runway by 164 metres, within the footprint of its current existence, and I am in favour of that. The local borough council made the correct decision in the way that it should—there was a marathon planning application, with proceedings that took place over two days; I spoke at 1 o’clock in the morning—to grant planning permission for the runway extension to go ahead.
Of course, an appeal went to the High Court, but it refused to overturn the decision. A small group of green activists—I call them that politely—then appealed the decision again and we now face a judicial review. I absolutely understand that the Deputy Chief Whip will not be able to comment on a live legal case, but there is a wider element that we need to take away from this. If this country wants to be global Britain and wants large-scale infrastructure projects and inward investment in this country to go ahead, we must look at the legal processes relating to how many times infrastructure investments or large-scale projects can be affected by a small group of people who keep taking matters to court time and again. It is affecting my local economy. It could affect the outcome of the freeport bid, which the Government announced for the Solent region, and it would desperately affect the number of jobs and the rejuvenation of my town centre in Eastleigh, which has struggled during the period of covid. Will the Government look at the wider planning process and how we can ensure that planning applications that are backed by 70% of my local constituents cannot keep being delayed by a small group of people with lots of money who keep using the courts to delay them?
This is a bit of a planning debate for me today, because this is an issue that affects my constituency widely. I have spoken about housing and the airport and I now want to raise an issue from the Hamble peninsula of my constituency, on the southern parishes end. I want to talk about the actions and proposals of a company called Cemex, which wants to open a quarry and a mineral extraction facility in the southern half of my constituency. Last month, I was made aware that Cemex was proposing and consulting on a gravel pit—a quarry, essentially—in a village called Hamble, which is accessible by one road, Hamble Lane. Traditionally, Hamble was a very small village that was accessible by that country road. The amount of housing development over the past 10 years has meant that Hamble Lane is becoming incredibly congested. At rush hour, it can take an hour to travel a mile. It is on the peninsula and peninsulas are often quite inaccessible, which is why we have one road. The housing development has added to this. The plan that we were made aware of will mean that 144 lorries a day will go up and down Hamble Lane taking out gravel over the next seven years. After that, the number of lorries going up and down Hamble Lane each day will go down to around 90. That is on a small country road that the county council cannot improve. It is impossible to improve it, despite the—how do I say this politely?—literature that Cemex sends out to my constituents, saying that it will mitigate the effects. The plan is just not acceptable.
I wish to raise with the Government the way in which a so-called consultation was carried out. The consultation lasted for two weeks. There was a virtual exhibition and letters were delivered to people who live in the area. In those two weeks, Cemex received around 200 returns, with 100% of people opposing the proposal. I would of course like to see Hampshire County Council remove the site from its mineral extraction plan. I say to the Deputy Chief Whip that when I put a survey on my website, I got 360 returns within seven days, and 98% of people were opposed. If Cemex would like the 1.2% of people who were in favour to make their consultation look like it was worth the paper it was written on, I am more than willing to provide details.
The level of engagement Cemex is offering is unacceptable. Not a single constituent in Hamble has met a representative of Cemex physically. Not a single physical exhibition or consultation exercise took place within the 14 days, and no Cemex representative has physically met representatives of a single parish council. Cemex has refused to offer public meetings and told the leader of Hamble Parish Council—a democratically elected representative of the Hamble community—that the company will answer his concerns only by email. We are talking about such a large piece of proposed infrastructure in an inaccessible part of my constituency, and I find the company’s actions wholly unacceptable.
Why do I raise this issue today? Because Hampshire County Council has allocated the site. I am working with the council to find out whether we can mitigate some of the effects, but I say to the Government that the level of consultation that there has been is unacceptable for such a large-scale development. We need to look at what role the Government should have when it comes to quarries and such large-scale developments.
Cemex says that after seven years it will make this piece of green land green again, and will provide a park. It says that will provide a benefit to my constituents. The literature says that jobs will be created; I can tell the House, and my constituents in Hamble, that the number of jobs created would be seven—seven jobs for the amount of disruption the quarry will cause to the people of Hamble. Cemex says it will make this place a green space, but it is already a green space. I say gently to Cemex that it might think that the project will be beneficial, but leaving behind a giant hole after the work is done is not the added benefit that the community wants to see. I therefore stand opposed to the plan, alongside the leader of Eastleigh Borough Council, the county councillor for Hamble and the parish councils. I would appreciate it if the Deputy Chief Whip raised that with the relevant Department.
Finally—many colleagues will be delighted to hear me say that—I wish to bring up with the Deputy Chief Whip the topic of Great British Railways, which is a fabulous opportunity for Eastleigh. I do not know whether the Deputy Chief Whip knows or remembers my maiden speech, in which I said that Eastleigh was created because of the building of the London and South Western Railway from around 1838. It truly is a railway town; the ancestors of the people there built that massive infrastructure project during the Victorian era. Eastleigh built not only locomotives, trains and carriages but gliders for the D-day landings in world war two.
Our town centre has an airport just up the road, a deeply willing and committed population, and a huge railway works site that still provides some of the exact same services that Eastleigh provided in the 1830s, so it would be a fabulous site for the new headquarters of Great British Railways. The Government have announced the competition, and I heard this morning that Southampton, just next door to me, has announced a rival bid. I would just gently say that it should stick to the maritime and leave the railways. The railways belong to Eastleigh. I know there will be friendly competition with the leader of its council, but I just say, “Hands off! It’s Eastleigh’s turn.”
Eastleigh has some of the same issues as many northern towns. Essentially, it is a northern working-class railway town on the south coast, next to what I would call a working class ex-industrial city, Southampton. I know there will be many rival bids from areas represented by my colleagues on the Conservative Benches. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Deputy Chief Whip to announce this from the Dispatch Box today, but certainly my constituents would like the early Christmas present of hearing the Government say, “Let’s do away with the competition—Eastleigh is perfect for this.” That would provide jobs, an economic boost, and the town centre regeneration that I am so passionate about; as I say, the town centre has suffered during the pandemic.
As we are here, the Deputy Chief Whip will remember that I have brought up time and again the fact that at Hedge End station, we do not have accessibility for disabled people. This is an issue not just in Hedge End, but across the country. I would be deeply encouraged by any feedback on whether the Treasury is reallocating accessibility funding, and whether Members of Parliament could bid for it. Disabled and less able-bodied people still have to alight five miles away at Southampton Airport Parkway and travel up the M27 just to get home. That is deeply, deeply unacceptable, and I will continue to push the Government on getting that accessibility funding awarded as soon as possible.
Finally—[Laughter.] I said that before—sorry! Finally, finally—this is the nice bit—I wish all House staff a merry Christmas. The Doorkeepers are incredibly patient with all of us. They sometimes see us in perhaps not the best light as we run to and from meetings, but they are incredibly patient and encyclopaedic—they know everything that is going on. I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker a very merry Christmas. I thank my staff, Emma, Sue, Ben, Charlie and Steph, for their unwavering loyalty to me and, moreover, to the people of Eastleigh, who often hear their lovely voices at the end of the phone when they are trying to get in touch with me. Indeed, I thank all Members’ staff across the whole House; this goes back to a point raised by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier). They have had a terrible couple of years working for us; that goes particularly for those working for a new Member of Parliament. I wish everyone in this House a very merry Christmas and, hopefully, a safer 2022.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), and to find out so much about his lovely constituency. I, too, feel happy to be part of this debate. I am delighted to not have the clock, but sad that Sir David Amess is not with us. He was such a formidable part of these debates, and I really enjoyed hearing from him. He took a deep breath at the beginning of his speech, and rattled off about 50 points. It was always a pleasure to hear. We mourn him. We miss him.
Bob Stewart
One of the reasons why I miss Sir David Amess is that he reminds us all of what an assiduous Member of Parliament should do. I was always in awe of that. I felt totally inadequate when he gave his speeches and I heard about everything he had done. Does the hon. Lady agree with me?
Fleur Anderson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. As a new Member of Parliament, I have a lot to learn, and I have learned from Members on both sides of the House. I learned from Sir David Amess.
This week was my two-year anniversary of being elected. It is an absolute honour every day to represent the people of Putney, Southfields and Roehampton, and a huge responsibility that I do not take for granted for a single second. The end of the year is a good time for us all to reflect on that.
I thank all the volunteers and NHS staff who are stepping up their work to deliver the booster as we speak. I also thank the volunteers in other organisations such as The Scrubbery in Putney, which has made 30,000 surgical scrubs since it was set up before the start of covid—they saw it coming. They have just made Christmas bags for all Age UK Wandsworth day centre clients. They do an amazing job. I also thank the Roehampton community box project, who since the start of covid have delivered tens of thousands of boxes to local families in need. When they started, they thought it would be for just a few weeks—maybe six weeks—but it went on, and they are still delivering those boxes every Wednesday, week in, week out. It is amazing.
I also thank all the Roehampton Response Network community organisations, which have come together through covid and provided strength in our community in Roehampton. They are doing an amazing job. I also thank Regenerate-RISE, an amazing older people’s centre that does an amazing job to stem and curb loneliness for older people, which is an issue across my constituency, as it is across the country. It had a great Christmas lunch this week, which unfortunately I was not able to attend. I could go on, but I wanted to pay tribute to some of our amazing volunteers at this time of year—I know that they will step up again in the next couple of weeks.
I want to give an update on wet wipes. As colleagues know, I am officially the MP for banning plastic for wet wipes as well as the MP for Putney. It was an honour to introduce a ten-minute rule Bill earlier this year, and I thank the many hon. Members in the House who have supported my campaign so far. It is the campaign that no one disagrees with. I welcome the constructive discussions and meeting that I have had with the Minister. I also welcome the recent call for evidence on commonly littered single-use plastics, which was launched following my Bill. I agree that it does not have the most snappy title, but in that call for evidence, there is an opportunity for everyone—every Member, everyone working in the industry producing wet wipes, all retailers and all members of the public—to get involved and have their say in a Government consultation. It closes on 12 February. I will contribute to it, and I encourage other Members to do so, and to say, “There shouldn’t be any plastic in wet wipes.”
I hope that the outcome of the call for evidence will be firm and tough action. The industry is already going in the right direction, but banning plastic in wet wipes would push it to go further and faster. That is what we need, given the number of wet wipes bought and used in the UK every year—and that number went up considerably because of covid. We need a date for the phasing-out of plastic in wet wipes, clarity on which wet wipes would be exempt due to medical and clinical need, and agreement on the principle that the consumer—and, importantly, the NHS, which is a main user of wet wipes—will not pay extra. We also need the Government to adopt labelling measures contained in the EU single-use plastics directive. The change in labelling is an easy win that could be made very quickly. It has already been done across the EU, where the industry has already changed the labelling on its plastic packaging. If any hon. Member —or you, Madam Deputy Speaker—goes to a supermarket, they will see that some labels have a sad turtle on them, or say, “Don’t flush.” That could easily be adopted for our labelling of packaging. It would really help consumers to know what is in wet wipes and what they should do with them. In short, the answer is: do not flush.
I was glad to hear the speech by the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), because Bosnia is another serious issue for me. Bosnia is close to my heart, because I lived there during and following the war as an aid worker. I rebuilt villages and worked with the wonderful people of Bosnia, who looked the pain and suffering of the war in the face and decided that they wanted to build peace. They have done that—precariously—for 26 years. However, I agree with the right hon. Member that there are serious concerns about a slide once again into conflict. There is growing nationalism and tension, and moves towards conflict, in Republika Srpska under its leader, Milorad Dodik. There is hate speech and genocide denial, and the Dayton agreement is under threat.
I add my support for the territorial integrity of Bosnia as it is, and for the need for the UK to take the lead in diplomatic action now. It would break my heart to be standing here in the future saying, “We knew what was happening, but we didn’t take enough action, so now we Members of Parliament must work out what to do, in terms of military intervention.” We do not need to do that. It is diplomatic action and action with community organisations in Republika Srpska and across Bosnia and Herzegovina that will make a difference. Long-lasting peace can come only when the population wants peace. We saw that for ourselves in Northern Ireland. What made the difference was when women’s organisations, community groups and schoolchildren said, “We will not have conflict any more”. Such action does not give political legitimacy to leaders who might want to move towards conflict, so it is really important to be working with community groups on the ground. I have urged the Foreign Secretary to do that, and I encourage other Members to do so as well. I ask those on the Front Bench to take that away with them from this debate.
The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, or the lack thereof, has already been mentioned in this debate, but I would like to add my concerns. There is huge anxiety among so many people writing to me who have relatives in danger in Afghanistan. What is happening with the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme? The fact that this has not been announced is a symptom of the chaos in Government. As far as I can tell, it has been passed between Ministers for months. There has been no clarity on what will be in the scheme and what its terms will be. In short, where is it? My plea is for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme to be agreed, announced and to be made very clear so that people know that they can start coming and have the support that they need during these terrible times in Afghanistan.
A big issue for many residents in my constituency is the persecution of the Ahmadiyya Muslim population in Pakistan. I have a large Ahmadiyya community in Southfields, and an absolutely beautiful mosque—the first in London. Recently, I was able to hold the first MP surgery in the first mosque in London. It was a wonderful experience. Many people came to my surgery and I was able to speak with them. I know very well the concerns that so many have about discrimination, not being able to vote for the Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan—if they cannot vote they cannot stand for office, and if they cannot stand for office, they do not have a political say in the country—forced detentions, summary detentions, and discrimination throughout education, work and life. The Ahmadiyya people must worship in hidden mosques and they cannot live their life as they do here. I stand in solidarity with them. I was glad that, this year, I was able to ask the Home Office to recognise the Ahmadiyya marriage certificate in immigration applications, and that rule has now been changed and the Ahmadiyya marriage certificate is now recognised.
Let me move on to a very different issue. The Transport for London settlement is a major concern in Putney. We are now two days away from a weeks-long extension on the funding of the whole of Transport for London, and yet there seems to be a deadlock. I urge the Transport Secretary to meet the Mayor of London today—as soon as possible—so that we can clear this funding deadlock. We need our public transport to be as wide as it is now, and we need to make sure that people who are over 60 will still have access to free transport—I have had many people writing to me about this in the past couple of days.
I cannot miss the opportunity to mention Hammersmith bridge. I have raised this issue 15 times in Parliament now. The bridge has been closed to traffic since April 2019—it is a major traffic route in our capital city and it is still closed to traffic. It is causing chaos in Putney, as all the traffic comes down our roads, causing congestion and pollution and making cycling more dangerous. The council cannot afford to pay for it. At £160 million, it is way beyond its annual budget. TfL can no longer afford to pay for it, because it has had a huge loss of income, as we know, and, with fewer people travelling because of the omicron variant, that loss will only increase. Only the Government can fund the rebuilding of Hammersmith bridge and open it again. I raise the matter on behalf of all residents of Putney, Southfields and Roehampton who cannot get on a bus and go over the river to work, to the hospital, or to meet up with family, because of the closure of the bridge.
With the two-year anniversary of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 now close, last week I asked a perfectly reasonable question of the Leader of the House about Brexit: whether the Government would let us debate the impact that Brexit is having on our economy, society and daily lives so far, and whether the Government would commission a region-by-region report. His response contained the following words:
“Brexit prayer…the Brexit song, beginning, “Gloria in excelsis Deo”… happy fish”.—[Official Report, 9 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 591.]
It was not a serious response to a very serious request. In the absence of a grown-up debate in the House, will the Government at the very least mark their own homework and publish an impact assessment of Brexit?
Housing is a subject that has been raised in this debate before and it is a very big issue in Putney. On homelessness, the Everyone In programme showed that if there is political will, action can be taken. All those who were homeless in my area of south-west London were housed very quickly. I pay tribute to the Putney hotel, which switched overnight from being a hotel to being a homeless hostel, as it still is. Its staff are fantastic and I was able to meet them recently to thank them for all they have done. They do not yet know how long the funding for that will continue, but every person in that hotel should be assessed and a place in suitable accommodation should be found for all of them as soon as possible.
The other issue that we face is damp and shoddy housing stock; so many families write to me about damp issues, as they live in houses where the spores are so thick that you can smell them. I have doctors’ letters about the impact that has on their children as well. In this day and age, we should not be facing that in our country. Councils are not tackling it adequately. Wandsworth Council is certainly not tackling the amount of houses and homes that are suffering from damp, where children and whole families are suffering ill health as a result. That issue needs to be taken far more seriously.
Finally, on housing, I come to the issue of children in temporary accommodation. Shockingly, the number rises every year, but this Christmas 3,300 Wandsworth children are in temporary accommodation, often far from their schools, with their parents having to get up early, in the darkness, and take several buses to get them back to the school that they went to. Their family life suffers immensely. Temporary accommodation should be close to schools, but there should not be so many people and families in temporary accommodation—it is an absolute housing failure. I know that the Mayor of London is building more affordable homes, and they cannot be built quickly enough, because this is a major issue for my constituency.
Also connected with housing is the cladding crisis. I have been campaigning on the issue for nearly two years, yet thousands of leaseholders in Putney, Southfields and Roehampton are still trapped in, to quote the new Secretary of State, “an invidious vice” of unsafe homes, life-destroying safety costs and ever-increasing insurance costs. The Building Safety Bill still does nothing to protect leaseholders, which is extremely disappointing to constituents. Will the new Secretary of State work with us and ensure that the Bill delivers for victims of the cladding crisis on Report? Labour members of the Public Bill Committee have tabled many amendments that would have strengthened and improved that Bill, but they have been rejected. At the last housing oral questions, the Secretary of State said that he would shortly be updating the House on a “series of measures” that he hopes will “help bring some relief” to leaseholders facing costs. He said that he will do that before Christmas. Does that mean it will be today or are we to expect it within the next 10 days? We are holding our breath. We are waiting for those, as the victims of the cladding crisis across the country have heard that and are expecting these measures, and I want to know what will be in them.
Let me finish by thanking my staff team; people in Putney may not know how hard they work. They are an amazing team of people who are working day in, day out to support local constituents. They absolutely care as much as I do for every single person who contacts me, be it by coming to my surgery or emailing me, or when they bump into me in the street or in the shops and at all the Christmas events I go to. I want to say a huge thank you to them, to all the Speakers and to all the House staff, who support us so admirably day in, day out, so that we are able to stand up here. As I have said, I am the only Putney resident who is allowed to come in here to speak on behalf of Putney residents, and I do that with a huge sense of responsibility, honour and enjoyment.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
Let me begin by expressing my sadness that Sir David Amess is not here today. I have spoken in these Adjournment debates on pretty much every occasion since I was elected—albeit only two years ago—and the joy of them was not getting to speak in them oneself, but getting to see Sir David’s tour de force. Most of us decide which of 30, 40 or 50 issues we will raise, but he just raised them all. It was a sight to behold, and I think we will always miss that contribution in these debates as in so many others.
When I thought about the 30 or 40 different matters I could raise, from my campaign for the reopening of Grove station to housing and planning issues, which have already been touched on, I decided on three, all of which happened to begin with A. The first is the issue of the AEA Technology pensioners. As some Members may know, a group of pensioners—predominantly in my constituency, although some are in other parts of the country—transferred to a new company in the mid-1990s when part of the UK Atomic Energy Authority was privatised. They were given all sorts of assurances about their terms and conditions, including the assurance that it was very unlikely that anything negative would happen to the value of their pensions—and guess what? The company went bust less than 20 years later, and their pensions are now worth between a quarter and a third less than they were. A unique aspect of the case is that they were given the advice not to worry about their pensions by the Government Actuary’s Department.
For several years those people have been pushed from pillar to post and from Department to Department, being told, “This is where you should go to seek redress”, “No, it’s that Department”, “No, it’s another Department”, or “Don’t worry, the ombudsman can look at your case”. We have, however, established—and I pay tribute to my predecessor, now Lord Vaizey of Didcot, who worked on this for a while as well—that it is not within the ombudsman’s remit to look at advice given by the Government Actuary’s Department, and the pensioners therefore have no redress whatsoever. The reason I have presented a 10-minute rule Bill on the issue, and the reason I chair the all-party parliamentary group for AEA Technology pensions, is that these guys did the right thing. They were given assurances, and—for want of a better phrase—they have never had their day in court. There has never been someone to look at what happened here. I am also a member of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders, and we all know what went wrong there.
This is a unique case involving more than 1,000 pensioners, and I will keep going on it because it is so important. I have met the relevant Minister, and I am told it is still the case that the ombudsman cannot investigate. I hope we can either change that or obtain another form of redress, because we should all be entitled to some form of redress to deal with our complaint, even if it does not go in the way we wanted it to.
The second A is the Appleford relief road. Appleford is a small village in my constituency, and as part of a housing infrastructure fund bid by Oxfordshire County Council, it is going to have a relief road very nearby to help to ease some of the traffic congestion in other parts of my constituency. The problem is that until very recently my constituents did not realise how close to them the relief road would be. I have seen images of relief roads, including this one: it is 30 feet high, and it will be right up by their houses.
I have met members of the campaign group, and I think that they have a compelling case. They would be dismissed by some as nimbys, but far from it, they are not opposed to the road itself. They have simply made the very reasonable request for the county council to move it by about 200 metres. It would still be close to them, but not as close as is planned, so the noise, the traffic and the pollution that it will bring would have less of an impact than it would otherwise. The work has not started yet. I think that this is an entirely reasonable request, and I am urging the county council to address the concerns of the residents again. None of us would want that road near us, and even if we have to delay the completion of the works, I think it right that we should do so.
The third A is the A420, on which I held an Adjournment debate last year. The road snakes right across my constituency, and many of my constituents find it very dangerous. The crash data backs them up on that; there are very regular crashes all the way along it. There are bizarre situations where people who live near the A420 have to get a bus down it to be able to cross it, and then get the bus back. They simply want to cross a road that is directly in front of them in their village, but it is too unsafe for them to do so. My constituent Jo is one of the people most recently injured on the road; she is in a neck brace at the moment.
Again, the road is the responsibility of Oxfordshire County Council. We need a bunch of different things, from a proper bus service to safe crossing points, bike lanes, walkways and so on. The road is used an awful lot by heavy goods vehicles; part of what we need to do is to try to deter them from using the road, because it should not be used in the way it is. It is used by lots of vehicles that speed, and it is used as a shortcut when it should not be. It passes a lot of what should be very quiet villages, where people should not experience their houses shaking and all the difficulties of getting on or off or across the road. Again, I hope this is something that we can make progress on, and I will keep pushing on it on behalf of my constituents.
What these three things have in common, along with the many other things I could have raised today, is that they are all about people feeling that their voices are not heard. They have legitimate grievances and complaints, but they feel that the authorities, whoever they are—their local council, a Government Department, a business; it can be anything—are not listening to them and do not give them the time and attention or deal with things that should be relatively straightforward to deal with if there was the will to do so. I constantly tell my constituents, as I am sure a lot of Members do, “I don’t have the power myself to change the situation you find yourself in.” I wish I did, but my role is to keep making sure that their voices are heard in this place, and that is what I will do week after week.
With that, I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, a very merry Christmas, and likewise all the staff in the House of Commons—the Doorkeepers and everybody else. Without them, we would be in a very bad place indeed.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston); I now know so much more about the roads of Wantage. All joking aside, having campaigned on the dangerous smart motorways that we see being rolled out across our country, I know how important it is for many of our constituents that representations are made in this place about the safety of our roads, and I commend him for doing that. I also praise the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his immensely passionate and informed speech; I am grateful to him for his expertise in that area. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) mentioned the Putney Scrubbery; my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and I were able to deliver scrubs to the Luton and Dunstable Hospital that were produced in her constituency.
We know that these last two years have been incredibly dark times, but I always think that we must look for the light in the darkness, and that is what I want to focus on today. One of the darkest times has already been mentioned by many Members on both sides of the House, and that is what we saw in August in Afghanistan. Sixty-nine families in Luton North contacted me and my team, desperate to get members of their family, their loved ones, their friends, to safety. We were able to get some people back home, but not all. I echo, and put on the record my support for, all the calls that have been made from across the House for the Afghan resettlement scheme to get started and for those people to be given hope in the darkest of times.
I want to start where many Members finished their speeches, by thanking my team, who worked 24/7 to get people back home to safety and to give them hope. Now my team are asking for details about the Afghan resettlement scheme so that they can pass that hope on to the people who remain in danger in Afghanistan. I thank Mohammad Qudri, Francis Steer and Georgia Marcantonio—members of my team. We all know we cannot do our jobs without them. I want to put on record a special thanks to Jamie Ali, whose last day it is working for me. Jamie has worked for nearly four years for different Members of Parliament, and he embodies everything you would ever want in a member of your team—diligent, hard-working, caring, and incredibly smart. I hope that at some stage we can tempt him back into the world of politics.
As I said, this is a focus on the light. In what has been the worst possible year for many, we have seen the best of some of our people, and that is incredibly true of the people of Luton North. They are people who step up when the Government step back; people in organisations like Discover Islam, Luton Town football club and Sundon Park Baptist church, who provide breakfast boxes for our community—for our children. They went above and beyond to ensure that no one went without over the past year. But what country have we become when we have to rely on these fantastic charities to feed children to ensure that they do not go hungry to school? I praise incredibly loudly, and I am shamelessly proud of, the fantastic community spirit of the charities and organisations that we have in Luton North, and the hard work that they do, but it should not be up to charities and good will to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society do not go without.
I get to meet those children every day I go to a school, an early years centre or a nursery, where you not only get covered in glitter but get challenged and questioned about the decisions that we all take in this place by young people who are concerned about their future. I am so pleased to say that we have an award-winning team from Chantry Primary School—the green team, who are tidying up their community, not just for themselves but for future generations to come.
Many small businesses have joined in the charitable work that went on over the past year to help to feed children in Luton North when the Government said no to feeding children during school holidays. We have countless small businesses. We recently celebrated Small Business Saturday nationally. About a year ago, I started visiting small businesses across the town, and I decided that there are enough fantastic small businesses in Luton North to do that every single Saturday, so since then I have been doing that, promoting their fantastic work, diversity, ingenuity and innovation. We should be backing them. I am so proud that Labour has put forward measures to really back small businesses. People say that they are the backbone of our British economy, so we must show that they are. We must praise them and give them the credit and support that they deserve.
There are fantastic charities such as Age Concern. We all talk about the isolation that we felt. I am so pleased to be back in this place, and to be able to go and do visits and see people face to face. Zoom many have been very useful, but my goodness, it is very miserable being sat behind a screen. We all do this job because we love people. But imagine if that was your only lifeline or if you did not even have that. Organisations and charities like Age Concern in Luton have been going above and beyond in making sure not only that nobody went without but that nobody went without a conversation, because that is such an important lifeline to so many.
Active Luton was one of the most fun and energising events that I went to. It had activities for children throughout the school holidays. I did not really imagine when I took on this role that I would be playing dodgeball with a bunch of children and having numerous balls thrown at me, but I think that they were even more shocked that a Member of Parliament threw the balls back. The children definitely won.
I also never imagined that I would be joining the Luton Lions for a 10 km race, but they were very persistent and it was for a very good cause. I also did not think that we would be doing it in a torrential downpour. I want to put on record my thanks to every person who was involved in that race. There were marshals, organisers and runners, and there were also people clapping and cheering us on from their homes and their windows and even from underneath their car boots, taking shelter from the rain. That is the kind of community spirit we have in Luton to get people through and bring them together to raise money and support fantastic organisations such as the Curry Kitchen.
Covid affected everyone. It affected our lives in ways that we could never have imagined, but it is true to say that people who are poorer or from a black, Asian or minority ethnic background were more likely to be affected. Over the past two years, the inequality that has been allowed to run rife throughout our country has been exposed for everyone to see, and it is on us to ensure that that does not continue. Alongside that inequality, we have also seen an increase in hate crimes, especially during the pandemic. I have had constituents write to me about the increase in the Islamophobia and Sinophobia. I was interested to listen to the earlier debate about the Online Safety Bill, and I would like the Government to bring forward measures to ensure that online hate crimes and racism are tackled in legislation.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Member for making that important point. Does she agree that this is particularly applicable to many colleagues and friends in this place, the Scottish Parliament and other places who are BAME politicians, and particularly female BAME politicians?
Sarah Owen
The Member makes a very good point. We see this in relation not only to black, Asian and minority ethnic women politicians but to BAME women in any public-facing role. They are subjected to the absolute worst elements of the internet, and they must be protected. This applies especially to our young people looking to the future. Many of us have lived our lives without having to be online, but for many younger people that is a huge part of their life and we must ensure that they are protected.
A number of people are, sadly, no longer with us. One who was taken from us far too soon was Southfield Primary School headteacher Sarah Pollard. She was a fantastic advocate for young people in our town. Her influence, her lessons for life, her love of reading, her energy, her enthusiasm and her care for every single child she met will live on in future generations. I want to join her parents, Jean and Brian, in the calling on the Government to look at the lowering of the age for starting breast cancer screening to below 40. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South has already mentioned the passing of Lord Bill McKenzie and Councillor Paul Castleman, two men who served Luton for the best. One of the ways in which those we have lost to covid in Luton will be remembered is through the peace garden initiative, which will have a tree for every life lost in Luton. I know that fundraising is now taking place for the initiative, so please, please donate to it so that we can ensure that every life is remembered.
How do we best remember and pay tribute to those we have lost? To me, it is by creating a future better than what we have seen in the past. People have often said in the past year, “I want things to go back to normal. I want to go back to how things were before.” I do not want to go back to how things were before. I do not want to go back to what was normal, because I want better for the people of Luton North. We should be striving for better, because if we have learned nothing else over the past year we should have learned what is truly important, what truly matters and which people hold this country together.
One thing that is key to a better future is providing better education. We have wonderful educators in Luton, and we need to see the Government’s aspirations meeting the aspirations of young people in Luton North. I am so proud that we have one of the top education providers and the oldest sixth form in the country, Luton Sixth Form College. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South went there and is a governor; I was able to visit a few weeks ago and hopefully I will be going there tonight to watch “Matilda”.
One thing the college has asked for time and again is a protection for BTECs and a guarantee that they will continue. They are hugely popular and hugely successful in Luton, not only at Luton Sixth Form College, but at Barnfield College. I am so excited every time I drive or walk past Barnfield College, because there are loads of cranes and it looks really busy, but I know next year we will be opening the doors on a fantastic new college that lives up to the aspirations, dreams and future hopes of young people in Luton. When I went to Icknield High School, I got to see first-hand how fundraising and creativity went hand in hand to raise funds for the fantastic Keech Hospice Care.
Last week I went to Beechwood primary school, which had a sense of community and education together. I saw that first hand when I walked in to Venus class. The class were designing posters encouraging people either to come to this country, or to come to live in Luton, and all the words on the posters summed up what I think are the best, the lightest and the brightest bits of Luton. They had “community” and “friendship”—one lad had “football”—and they all had “opportunity”. That is exactly what those young people deserve. I do not want to go back to normal. I want to go better than what we had before, because those young people in Luton North deserve so much better.
I put on record my thanks to all the staff who keep us going here—the staff who keep us safe, the staff who keep us fed and the staff who keep us on the right track when we are going the wrong way—and I wish everybody a merry Christmas and a safe and happy new year.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, but I share the views that have been expressed by many hon. Members and hon. Friends about Sir David Amess not being here with us. I have only been a Member of this place for a short while, but even after that short while, I felt it was a bit weird being here today. This debate cropped up on me. I had not really thought about it—in fact I only put in to speak a little bit earlier, because I forgot it was going to happen—and for a moment one of the things I remembered most about him was his contributions towards these debates. He will be missed forever, and it is on days like today when we especially remember him.
I have a few local issues and a few national issues. I have been pretty active in the Chamber this year. In my first year I was in this place, I made 86 interventions in different debates. I was quite pleased with that, bearing in mind that my predecessor made 82 and his main re-election claim was that he was the hardest-working MP in Suffolk. I was quite glad to get 86 in my first year. I think this year I have made about 79, so it has dropped a little bit, but normal service will be resumed next year.
I continue to be involved in campaigns in Ipswich. The funding of core public services continues to be a huge priority for me and many of my Suffolk colleagues. Just this week, me and all six of my Suffolk colleagues sent a letter to the Department for Education on special educational needs and disability funding. For whatever reason, young people with learning disabilities in Suffolk are probably the most poorly funded in the country—not just compared with large metropolitan areas, but compared with counties that are very similar to us. It makes no sense. My view is that, whatever their postcode, a young person with learning disabilities deserves exactly the same level of support as anybody else. It is not about taking away from other areas; we are just saying that young people with learning disabilities in Ipswich and Suffolk deserve the same support as anybody else with learning disabilities.
I am continuing my campaign nationally on learning disabilities. As a dyslexic and dyspraxic, I am a broken record on the Education Committee on those two issues. I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) announced that he is also dyslexic and that he is moving forward with the ten-minute rule Bill on the requirement to screen all primary school children for dyslexia. I was proud to co-sponsor that Bill, and I will continue to work closely with him on that important mission.
We know that around half of prisoners have dyslexia, and around four in 10 entrepreneurs have got dyslexia, so the stakes are incredibly high. Given the right support and with an early diagnosis, there is no reason why dyslexics cannot be among the most productive and creative people in our country. If they do not get the right support, they can often go in the wrong direction.
Like many hon. Members and hon. Friends in this place, I continue to be very active on the issue of cladding. I also eagerly await the further support that has been promised. Though many of my constituents have been supported through the building safety fund, many have not. I have been clear that I will continue to campaign on this issue, because I believe that no leaseholder should be left behind, and some have been—through no fault of their own. That campaign must continue.
I want to raise a slightly different issue on cladding. We have had a few examples where buildings have been successful in getting funding through the building safety fund, only for shrink wrap to emerge. One large tower block in Ipswich—St Francis Tower—was one of the first buildings in the country to get access to the building safety fund. That was good news, until shrink wrap covered the building and hundreds of residents were expected to live behind that for up to a year, with virtually no natural sunlight and very little air.
I have been clear in this place that I believe that Block Management UK and OANDA—the companies that have put shrink wrap on the building—have not behaved in an acceptable way. There are other buildings in Ipswich where this is happening. Those companies seem to have listened a little to the debates around what happened at St Francis Tower, and breathable material is shortly to be erected on another building in Ipswich. I went to see it, quite excited about this great development, but it was not that breathable. It is slightly better than the shrink wrap around St Francis Tower, but not by that much, to be honest.
My message to the Government is that Ipswich is ahead of the game when it comes to accessing the building safety fund. We have experienced some of these pains before other areas. I do not think it will be long until there are other hon. Members and hon. Friends raising exactly the same issues in this place. I have been looking to secure an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate to raise awareness of this issue. Yes, we have got to get money from the building safety fund, and dangerous materials do need to be removed, but we have got to carry out that work in a way that is sensitive to the mental health of the people who are expected to live in those buildings.
Freeports continue to progress; town deal projects continue to progress. Ipswich Town football club is mid-table in league one at the moment; it is not great. I was at a Charlton game recently at The Valley. We lost 2-0, but it was great to be with 3,000 Ipswich fans in strong voice. Not many of them actually recognised me; I seem to get recognised more at Portman Road than when I go to the away matches. I have been going despite the concerns about omicron. I will be at Portman Road this Saturday to see them—hopefully—defeat Sunderland. As a Newcastle United fan, I have two reasons to hope that Sunderland are unsuccessful on Saturday.
There are three more national issues that I want to touch on—things that I feel strongly about. One of them I have been banging on about quite a lot, but two of them, for whatever reason, I do not feel like I have had the opportunity recently to air my views in this place. I want to talk quickly about child cruelty. I know that many Members have mentioned this, but in the case of Arthur’s tragic death, I want to put on record how disturbed I was by that. I know we all know about what happened, but if Members have not listened to and seen the clips and the videos of the abuse that he suffered, my advice would be to do so, as difficult as it is, because we have to confront and not hide away from the horror of what happened.
I noticed yesterday that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) raised the case of Star Hobson at Prime Minister’s questions, which is also incredibly disturbing. It is enough to bring any of us to tears when we think about what must have been going through the minds of those young, defenceless people—how vulnerable they were, and how incapable they were of doing anything to protect themselves as horror was placed on them and there was no escape. Their last moments would have been feeling alone, desperate and unloved. It is vitally important that any failings in children’s services in those relevant local authorities are looked at urgently and lessons are learned so that this cannot happen again. We know that some of this was linked to the fact that lockdowns were taking place, so it is another very real reminder of the consequences of lockdowns and how some of the most vulnerable people in our society pay the greatest price and have done. We must do what we can to avoid them.
In terms of covid as an issue, it is in some senses good that this has been a positive debate. We all will do what we can to remain positive and, when we go back to our constituencies, to be positive and lift up people we meet with a bit of Christmas spirit and cheer, but it is quite sad, because for millions of people in this country, last Christmas was a very dark and depressing time. We were looking forward to having a Christmas that was much more normal, much more positive and much more festive. Like many Members, I have enjoyed over the past few weeks going to Christmas craft events, seeing Christmas decorations made and going to a number of different carol services. For one, I was asked to dress up as a wise man, which was an interesting costume, and give an incredibly long reading. It was an essay, which was quite difficult, but I got through it and I was pleased to have been able to do that.
My concern is that if we are not careful, this Christmas could be quite similar to last Christmas, and that is a sad thing. It is an incredibly challenging time for our hospitality sector at the moment and for many people who will test positive. Even if they do not get that ill from having it, they may have to spend Christmas alone, and there will be lots of people in that position.
It is important, though, that we accept the brutal realities of lockdown restrictions. For some people they may not be that bad, but for other people, the mental health consequences of lockdowns are debilitating. Even the fear of a lockdown and the uncertainty that surrounds whether one may or may not take place will be taking a great toll on the mental health of millions of people up and down the country. That is not to say that I think this is an easy situation or that we should not be concerned about the omicron variant; it is just to say that in any decision we make, we need to have a rounded debate and discussion in which all the factors are considered: the economic effects, the impact on livelihoods and the impact on mental health.
We need to begin to think about what the long game is here. When does it end? If it is the case that we can—I hope—get through the next few weeks without too much devastation in terms of economic effects and potential loss of life, there will be more variants. There will be another variant perhaps in two months’ time, three months’ or four months’ time that could have 31 mutations or 32 mutations. If we act and continue to act in a just-in-case way, I do not really see where this ends.
At some point, as a country and as a world, I think we need to figure out in the long term how we live with this. We all know people—there are millions of people in this country—who are shadows of the people they were 20 months ago; who have lost confidence, whose development has been stifled, and that is across all age groups. I have incredible concern about our young people and how their chances have been blighted. This is a difficult time for us, and I do not envy the Prime Minister being in the position that he is in. The ultimate responsibility lies at his door. As a Member of this place, I would just say, let us always think in the most rounded way possible. It has been a pleasure to contribute to the debate, local, national, light-hearted and much more serious and sombre.
With regard to child cruelty, I do think we need to look at children’s services. We need to prevent what has happened from happening again. We also need to look at whole-life tariffs. I think we would struggle to find a person in this country who would not accept that retribution does have a legitimate role to play in the justice system, particularly when it comes to the most heinous crimes and the most evil individuals such as the individuals behind the barbaric crimes that I outlined earlier in my speech.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We now come to the Front-Bench responses to the Christmas Adjournment debate.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure once again to be the SNP lead in the Adjournment debate. It was superbly led by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). He rightly started with a glowing tribute to Sir David Amess. I can only reflect that there will not be another summer or another Christmas in which I will be mentioned in the Southend newspapers because of my exchanges with Sir David. Indeed, last summer I made a wisecrack in here that somehow managed to find its way into every single newspaper in the UK, including in Southend when I compared the England football team’s penalty shoot-out record with the Southend trains. I can only say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that when Sir David saw me in September he very much approved and thanked me for the opportunity once again to mention the train service in Southend. I support the Backbench Business Committee in its request to name the Summer Adjournment debate after Sir David. That is very much a tribute. I can only feel sorry for his successor, whoever that may be. They will really have something to live up to. It was nice to hear all hon. Members mention Sir David Amess.
As the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said, we are dealing with covid once again, and this new omicron variant. We need to hear from the Government fairly soon that they will have to support business and, indeed, workers. I hope they will take the opportunity to revisit the issue of the excluded—those 3 million people who have not received financial support during the pandemic. In the past 20 months we have seen the best in people.
I can think of organisations that have assisted the vulnerable in Glasgow South West, such as Govan HELP, which organises The Govan Pantry; the Crookston Community Group; SWAMP and G53 Together; the Threehills community supermarket, which is a thriving project that I am very much involved in; and the Drumoyne Community Council. They have made sure that the vulnerable have been protected, particularly when it comes to food.
People have a right to food. I am delighted that, in 2022, I will be working with the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union on its campaign on the right to food to ensure that those workers are aware of their rights. I support workers in the hospitality sector. The Government need to look at people not being given travel to get home at night from their place of work and the fact that people working in the hospitality sector on zero-hours contracts cannot afford food. It sickens me that they spend their shifts serving food that they cannot afford.
Perhaps in 2022, the Government will finally table their much-promised employment Bill to look at those indignities, because many indignities that we see in our society happen in the workplace. As the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) touched on, the covid pandemic has exposed inequalities, including in employment and employment practices. I hope that the Government will fix this country’s broken social security system.
I am delighted that the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and ensuring that it is taken forward. It is harrowing for hon. Members to listen to constituents in our surgeries showing us the threats that their family members in Afghanistan have received about what will happen to them if the constituent does not go back to Afghanistan to face the Taliban. It is important that that work is done. I will certainly continue to raise issues with the Home Office and I will join him in ensuring that it puts the scheme in place. I am delighted that he and other hon. Members raised it.
That comes back to another of my wishes for 2022. The language of our politics is important, especially when we are discussing immigration and refugees. I place on record again that it is legal for people to seek sanction or asylum; it is not illegal and we should stop labelling people as illegal.
This year is the 25th anniversary of Show Racism the Red Card and I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group. I did a recent podcast with the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) where we mentioned that it is important to get the tone and language of our politics right when we are discussing those issues.
I have seen Show Racism the Red Card at a school in Glasgow South West telling schoolchildren in excellent terms the difference between an asylum seeker, a refugee and an economic migrant. The Deputy Chief Whip may want to invite it to this workplace to tell MPs that difference. Again, I hope that the Government will consider giving asylum seekers the right to work in this country after six months, because I think that they should have that right.
In general, the Government have had some recent difficulties. They seem to have engulfed themselves in sleaze and the perception of arrogance. There is a cost-of-living crisis. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) mentioned that we should do an assessment of Brexit and face the Brexit realities. The economy appears to be shrinking. The Government should consider their position in dealing with some of those issues and with the perception of the Government.
Of course, support for Scottish independence is rising to its highest levels, and whether or not there is a connection, I am very confident that, after the covid crisis is over, Scotland will become a modern, independent country.
The hon. Member for Harrow East, the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) and others rightly mentioned something that I always mention: the role of constituency staff. The caseloads are increasing, and have increased in the past 20 months. Once again, my constituency office staff team have never been busier and they are the real heroes, as far as I am concerned. I thank Justina, Dominique, Keith, Tony, Greg and Scott for their work. They are led by our office manager, the great Roza Salih, who, unfortunately, was not elected to Scotland’s Parliament this year, but I am sure that she will be elected to her place very soon, because she deserves it.
In 2022, I hope that we will continue to ensure that not just Members of Parliament, but constituency office staff have the security measures that they need to continue to do their work. When I was first elected, I never contemplated having to deal with some of the security questions and measures that we now have to deal with.
Paul Holmes
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions constituency security. He will know—I will have to raise this later—that contracts have changed, but we are still seeing unacceptable delays and works not being completed to our constituency offices, despite our consistently trying to get the authorities to act on it. Has he experienced that, and have any colleagues spoken to him about that problem?
Chris Stephens
I have experienced delays; I had a visit this week that I hope deals with that. Social media was touched on as well, and the abuse, threats and hateful conduct that we receive as Members of Parliament on social media will have to be looked at. That is seen not just by us, but by family members and constituency office staff, and I hope that some work will be done around social media.
It falls on me again to remind everyone that we go into a recess, not a holiday, and I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker and the Speaker’s team, the House staff, those who look after us and feed us, everyone’s constituency office staff across the United Kingdom, and right hon. and hon. Members a merry Christmas. I look forward to seeing them again in 2022.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
It falls to me to respond on behalf of my party as the shadow deputy Leader of the House. Although I cannot promise to match the pizzazz of the shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who was here earlier, I look forward to supporting her excellent work in holding the Government to account every sitting Thursday in 2022, just as she has done on Thursdays at business questions this year—in fact, not just on Thursdays or at Christmas, but all year round. I feel, however, that my appearance at the Dispatch Box, rather than in the Whips Office, should give hope to late developers everywhere.
Although the tone of these end-of-term debates is often more convivial than other exchanges that we have in this place, there is an air of sadness today. As someone who often takes part in the pre-recess Adjournment debates, like the hon. Member for Wantage (David Johnston), the loss of the late Member for Southend West, Sir David Amess,—is really keenly felt among us, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) rightly said. He was an ever-present master of these debates. His speeches were always fair, funny and passionate, and he unashamedly championed his beloved Southend and his constituents. His speeches were delivered with the customary grin and glint in his eye that we will all remember him for. We very much missed a speech from him today but his generosity and kindness to colleagues, and the contribution that he made in this House, is missed even more. I know that we will all send love to his family and friends.
As David Amess really showed us, these debates are a fantastic opportunity, as are business questions, for hon. Members to raise a whole range of issues. As the hon. Member for Wantage said, there are 40, 50 or 60 issues that a Member could raise, and let’s face it: this year we have had plenty of material to work with. Today, we have had some brilliant contributions from around the House on issues that are really close to Members’ hearts.
Turning to the Opposition Members who spoke, it was a real pleasure to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). He was a wonderful member of the shadow Leader of the House team, and my thanks to his staff for all the work that they have done. He talked with such pride about the contribution of community groups and schools in his constituency. I very much applaud his call to give the covid memorial wall a long-term future, and I wish him luck with that campaign.
It is always great to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) speak about the excellent work of community groups in her area. She is a fantastic local champion. I look forward to her securing a debate in this House on the contribution of charities and the support they need. It would allow me to speak, and to thank the unsung heroes in Newport East, including the food banks and charities doing so much great work, not least on an issue raised with me recently by the guides about access to banking services for small charities. I do hope she gets that debate.
Well done to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), who also spoke about local community groups, as well as a range of other issues. Well done to her also on her campaign to ban plastic in wet wipes. No one disagrees—she is quite right—and it would be worth spending a parliamentary life on that issue alone, so we look forward to her success. It was very interesting to hear of her experience of Bosnia. Her points on housing were well made, and I draw to her attention—and to the attention of the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), who spoke on the subject—the announcement made by the Welsh Government today on some of the housing and cladding issues we have heard about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) is a fellow Labour Whips Office colleague. We should thank our Whips across the House, and our advisers and civil servants who support our Whips Offices. My hon. Friend—I have to say that Luton was very well represented in this debate—is quite right about looking to see the light, and seeing the best in people who have really stepped up and stepped forward during the most difficult of times. I very much recognised her description of those weeks trying to help people home from Afghanistan. She was quite right to raise the issue of the disproportionate impact of covid on the disadvantaged, and the inequalities that that has exposed.
On the issue of Afghanistan, I very much agree with the hon. Member for Harrow East about the need for the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. Having worked over the years with a number of Afghan interpreters who have settled in Newport East—we spent many years trying to reunite them with their families before this crisis—I think it is really important that we get this right. He also mentioned the biometric residency permits issue; many of the families, certainly in Newport, who did make it here to rejoin previously settled Afghan interpreters have been waiting in bridging hotels for many months for those permits. I do hope that the Deputy Chief Whip listens to that, because it is very important.
I commend, as I think all Members would, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) for raising the really important issue of compulsory helmets for those involved in snow sports. He spoke about a really harrowing case—I know we would all send our love to the family—and he does the House great service by raising it.
It was extremely important to hear the right hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) speaking with such experience of the situation in Bosnia. He speaks with such expertise on defence issues generally, and his comments were echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney. He is quite right that Britain has a role to play, and we must save Bosnia from another disastrous war. I think many Members will reflect on his speech in the days to come, and it was a really important matter to raise.
I join in what the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) said about key workers and health workers. That gives me the opportunity to thank the staff at the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, GPs who are part of the booster programme, and all those key workers out there working with us at this time. I hope that the Deputy Chief Whip will note—this is for his black book —that the hon. Member for Eastleigh is a most assiduous attendee of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. The hon. Member also talked about rail, which gives me the opportunity to ask the Government to look kindly on the campaign for a walkway station in Magor. I have raised that issue many times in the House; perhaps the Deputy Chief Whip can put in a word for me.
Last but not least, the hon. Member for Ipswich mentioned dyslexia, which is a really important issue to raise in the House. Many of my constituents will welcome that. I echo the points rightly made about security and abuse by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). I hope that the Deputy Chief Whip heard that, and that we continue to apply the pressure to get those things right.
As we close the curtain on 2021, colleagues around the House will be challenging the Government to do better in 2022 across a range of policy areas. One of the most basic things that the Government could do to help is improve engagement with Members on departmental answers and response times. I speak for many Members when I say that departmental response times for constituency queries have been a real concern this year—they are often raised in points of order in the House. The Home Office has been shocking—at some stages there have been about 8,500 unanswered queries from hon. Members in the system. We also have constituents waiting more than a year for cases with the Child Maintenance Service to be resolved, and there are unacceptable wait times from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, too. Let us hope for much better in 2022.
As I said, there is always plenty to raise with Ministers on these occasions, not least today, as in the last few days we have seen the Prime Minister suffer the biggest rebellion of the Parliament. As others have said, it has been up to the Opposition to show the leadership that the Prime Minister cannot. This week, as many have said, we have seen some of the worst leadership at the worst possible time. We need a serious Prime Minister for very serious times.
We cannot let an absent Chancellor off the hook, either, at a time when urgent clarification is needed on support for workers and businesses, when the threat that inflation poses for household bills looms large, and with a cost of living crisis as we head into the new year. With inflation at nearly decade-high levels, it will be a really difficult Christmas for many families. When businesses cannot trade properly, we cannot pretend that nothing has changed, and we cannot abandon them and workers at this time. It feels like the Government are in chaos with a Prime Minister who has lost his grip, and that working people are paying the price.
On a more cheery note, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) put it so well, the glue that keeps the House together is all the people who work in it for us. May I therefore end by thanking staff across both Houses—the wonderful Doorkeepers, the security staff, the police, the catering staff, the cleaning staff, the Clerks, the Library, Hansard, broadcasting and those in many other roles—for all their tireless work to keep us safe and help us keep our jobs? My personal thanks to my team—Kath, Dan, Elaine, Sarah and Emma—and to hon. Members’ staff working in constituencies who are, as many said, on the very frontline for us in difficult times. Next year will be difficult, too.
If I may, I will thank one other team whose work in this place is often unseen but none the less vital. As the Chair of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, may I take the liberty of saying a very big thanks to counsel, the Clerks and the Committee, of which the hon. Member for Eastleigh is a member, for all the work that they do to scrutinise secondary legislation, especially at this time of emergency regulations? I recommend the Committee’s special report, “Rule of Law Themes from COVID-19 Regulations”, to the Deputy Chief Whip as interesting recess reading. It gives some pointers as to where the Government could improve, while appreciating the hard job that civil servants have in drafting legislation in the current difficult circumstances.
I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a safe recess. To you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the whole Speaker’s team, I say Nadolig llawen pawb.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Nadolig llawen i chi hefyd. I think it is about time that we heard from the man standing behind that tie: the Deputy Chief Whip.
The Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household (Stuart Andrew)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to answer this debate.
I do enjoy these debates—not only do we get a great tour of the country, various issues, and the community work that goes on, but it is great to hear people talk so passionately about their constituencies. However, as others have said, something just is not the same this year: we have all rightly remembered our late friend Sir David Amess. I was always struck, as were others, by the speed at which he would give his speech, and not only because when I tried to list some of the things on which he needed responses, it was impossible for me to look through the file quick enough to find any meaningful answers. I often felt for the Hansard reporters who tried to record it word for word. He really used these debates superbly.
David was one of the many right hon. and hon. Members I see in this House working incredibly hard daily for their constituencies, often with very little praise—if anything, with lots of criticism. One thing that really struck me in the days that followed his death was that the tone changed very quickly, and people were appreciative of MPs and the work they were doing. Sadly, sometimes it does not last very long, and colleagues have yet again been subject to threats and abuse on social media. We have to do all we can to stop that happening, because I do not want people to be dissuaded from standing for election to this House. Our democracy is incredibly important and, as I say, I see on a daily basis people working incredibly hard for their constituencies.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for raising that issue; it is very important. Will he join me in saying that not only Members of Parliament but constituency office staff should not suffer abuse? They are recognised in the community as members of an MP’s team.
Stuart Andrew
Funnily enough, I was literally about to come to that. It is often our staff who see the abuse first. If the people who write the abuse think that our staff are not affected, they need only speak to my staff or, I am sure, anybody’s staff. They are affected. I thank all our staff for the work that they do.
David epitomised what I was saying about being a hard-working Member of Parliament. In these debates, he would always finish his speech on the subject of making Southend a city, and that is now happening—there is no greater honour to him. I hear loud and clear the calls for the summer Adjournment debate to be named after him in tribute, and I am sure that if it is the will of the House, there will be ways in which we can make progress on that.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for giving the Government’s view that we should rename the summer recess Adjournment debate after Sir David. One reason why we have made that suggestion is that there is not always a Christmas or Easter Adjournment debate, but there is always a summer one. Will my right hon. Friend find a way? Does there have to be a resolution of the House? Is this done by Government diktat? What do we have to do to make this happen—everyone agrees on it—for next summer?
Stuart Andrew
My understanding is that it is a matter for the House. However, I will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
That was a timely intervention, because I was just about to refer to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I feel like I know Stanmore station extremely well, and he raises an important point about building on car parks. Many train stations across the country did just that, and they now regret it because we want people to use alternative modes of public transport to get to work.
I am glad my hon. Friend raised the important and concerning issue of the theft of catalytic converters by gangs.
My hon. Friend was not the only hon. Member to mention the Afghanistan resettlement scheme. The Home Office is working quickly to establish the details of the scheme. As we know, we are looking at 5,000 coming in during the first year, with 20,000 coming in over five years. We are working with partners such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to design and open the scheme, and further details will be announced by the Home Office. I will reflect to the Department the fact this was raised in a number of contributions to this debate.
My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of homelessness, and I congratulate him on his work and campaigning. Like me, he will be pleased that rough sleeping has fallen by 43% since 2017. Investment is going in, but I am under no illusion that there is still work to be done.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) talked about Christmas lights, and I think we all like that we have had some events to go to this Christmas. It was good to see a couple of thousand people, including families, coming out to enjoy the festivities in Guiseley.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) rightly talked about how schools and community organisations adopted COP this year. Pupils at so many of our schools took a great interest in COP, which shows the huge responsibility on our shoulders to ensure we tackle this important issue for their generation.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton also mentioned Sir Richard Leese, to whom I offer my congratulations on his lengthy service as leader of Manchester City Council. The Conservative group leader of Leeds City Council is celebrating 50 years of service, including more than 40 years as leader of the Conservative group, which is quite a phenomenal achievement. Councillor Andrew Carter has done a phenomenal amount of work, so I nick this opportunity to give him some credit.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) made a very important contribution on Louis Watkiss. I cannot imagine how difficult it must have been for his parents, Natalie and Chris, to lose their child in such an awful accident. When I worked in the children’s hospice movement, one of the things that hit me the most was when bereaved parents would tell me it was not just the loss of a child but the loss of their hopes and dreams for a life they thought would go further. I hope that out of this tragedy we can see some good. Clearly their campaigning with my right hon. Friend is important, and I will talk to the relevant Department to see whether an amendment to the law is practicable or whether the code of practice can be changed.
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made a powerful contribution. I suppose no one can talk about Bosnia with such experience, although I have learned that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) also has experience of Bosnia.
I have been to Bosnia a couple of times, and visiting Srebrenica is probably one of the hardest visits I have ever made. We went up to the village and met some of the mamas of Srebrenica. One of them told me that in one day she lost her father, her brother, her husband and her two sons. You just cannot imagine the atrocities. My right hon. Friend is right to raise this serious situation. The de facto secession attempt by Republika Srpska is something that the Government take very seriously. We are not complacent about it, and we condemn those threats. We fully support Bosnia and Herzegovina’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. He rightly pointed out that we are working with our international allies and other partners, and mentioned the appointment of Sir Stuart Peach. Clearly, this is an important area of work. My right hon. Friend will know that the Foreign Secretary hosted Foreign Ministers from the western Balkans just this week to address these issues, but again, I will ensure that the serious points that he made are heard in Government.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) talked, like many did, about the contribution of community groups. I think we have all been impressed at how much they have done to help so many people in our communities. I will certainly speak to the Leader of the House about her request for a debate on the contribution that such organisations have made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) complained that he has not yet received a Christmas card from me. All I can say is that all good things come to those who wait. In fact, I think everybody I know is still waiting for one; that is how far behind I am on my Christmas preparations. He is a doughty campaigner for his constituency. He talked about the housing issue, which I know he raises at every opportunity. He is also a doughty advocate for Southampton airport. The fact that he went to speak in support of it at 1 o’clock in the morning shows how much he clearly cares about that issue. His bid for the headquarters of Great British Railways to be in Eastleigh is noted. Just like the Christmas card, an early present cannot be forthcoming, but the bid is noted.
The hon. Member for Putney—from Pudsey to Putney —and others talked about the amazing contribution of staff and volunteers in getting the vaccine and the vaccine boosters out. We are so grateful for the amazing work that they are doing, and we are grateful to those who have been doing the community boxes. The wet wipes issue is one that I have personal interest in, in that—I had better clarify that—we had our niece living with us for about a year and, unbeknown to me, she was using them to remove make-up, flushing them down the toilet and clogging up the pipe. I just do not think people realise how destructive they are. Indeed, Yorkshire Water ran a very important campaign trying to highlight the issue. I will personally advocate for that campaign with the relevant Department.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (David Johnston) talked about three serious issues in his constituency, including the relief roads and the pensions issue. He talked about those who are involved in those campaigns feeling that they are not being listened to, but let me reassure those constituents of his that I have seen him at work in this House and I know that they have an MP who is diligent and relentless, who will ensure that their voice is continually heard.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) talked about the Afghanistan resettlement scheme and all those organisations; I particularly enjoyed listening to her experiences at the various groups she has been to. I was touched by the case of the headteacher she talked about, and I will raise with the Department of Health and Social Care the suggestion about lowering the age of screening.
I listened to one of the first speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), when he talked about learning disabilities. As a personal champion of that issue, he offers a great contribution to the House, and I know how passionately he cares about it. He also raised the awful cases of Arthur and Star. I have one regret in life, and that is that I am not a dad, because I think that is probably one of the best and most precious gifts you can have. I cannot therefore understand how anybody could do anything to hurt young children. I hope that we will all, in the memory of those children, do everything we can to ensure that such cases are never raised in this House again. Finally, I turn to the Front-Bench contributions from the hon. Members for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden). I think we will always disagree on the independence of Scotland. We had the referendum. I understood it was a once-in-a-generation referendum, and the answer was very clear. Both raised the important issue of security for MPs and MPs’ staff. I sit on one of the Committees concerned. We have to get reassurance to Members and their staff that when work that is needed is highlighted, it is enacted quickly. There have been too many delays, and I will continue to raise that. I will raise the issue about Departments’ responses with the Leader of the House.
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker for all your support and hard work over the past year. I thank the Clerks, who always offer us support and try to help us understand some of the mad rules that sometimes I cannot get my head around. I thank the Doorkeepers, who are always so polite and always help us when we need it, all the catering staff, and all the other staff in the House. I want to add my thanks to my staff—Steph, Penny, Kyle, Dawn and Simon, who work incredibly hard.
I hope everybody has a safe break. Our message should be to get boosted. The hon. Member for Luton North said that she wanted to talk about giving a bit of light, and you have also referenced this, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I thought I would activate my tie as I wish every right hon. and hon. Member a very merry Christmas and a superb new year. I look forward to seeing everybody again after the end of recess.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
How do I follow that?
Everybody has mentioned Sir David, or thought of David, during this debate. I have chaired many Adjournment debates where David took part. It does not matter if you put a three-minute limit on David, he sees that as a challenge. He certainly does not reduce the number of issues, as you intimated, Stuart; he just rattles through them. Of course, today he would have carried on with his campaign to make Southend a city, and, more recently, to get a statue of Dame Vera Lynn on the white cliffs of Dover, which I heartily support. I also support the idea that has come forward that we change the name of the summer recess debate to one that contains Sir David’s name. Irrespective of whether that happens or not—and I think there would be a will of the House for it to happen—the spirit of David will always be in this Chamber during Adjournment debates.
I cannot compete with the tie, but I do have a hat. [Laughter.] There are 650 MPs, but thousands of people who work here to make sure that we can do our job. I want to wish everybody who works here, from the cooks to the cleaners to the Clerks—there are simply too many to mention—a very merry Christmas. It has to be better than last year. At least I am not going to have to kick my sister and brother-in-law out of the house after one day—that felt really awful. At least we are going to have a decent Christmas. I wish everybody a very, very happy and healthy 2022.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Animal Testing
(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak today on this issue and for granting this important debate.
I have said many times, and in many debates in this House, how passionately I feel about animal welfare. I know I am not alone among my colleagues in that respect, and I know I am not alone in my constituency. We are a nation of animal lovers, and that is why animal rights consistently sits in the top ranking of issues I am contacted about. It was only two months ago that my constituency broke into the top 10 for the number of signatories to an e-petition that prompted a Westminster Hall debate on this very issue. We, as a nation, care.
Looking to the future of testing on animals, there are several angles of the argument we need to consider. First, does the scientific evidence support continued animal experimentation? Next, on the morality of testing, can we justify knowingly submitting animals to suffering in the name of science? There is also the international context to consider. Are we willing to go from a world leader on animal rights to merely following the law? I will do my best to cover those questions today.
It will come, I hope, as no surprise that public opinion overwhelmingly supports the replacement of animal experiments with human-relevant techniques. Now would be a good time to reflect on that fact as it is, after all, the public who elect us to this place, and it is both our responsibility and greatest privilege to represent their views here. In February, YouGov polled the UK in partnership with Cruelty Free International. That polling found that 68% of people support phasing out animal testing in favour of alternatives. In Scotland, 79% of adults found it unacceptable that animal testing continued while other methods were available. In September, further polling found 65% of respondents wanted to see a binding plan in place to phase out experiments. Two thirds wanted a target date for the end of testing. And if that does not convince you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will appeal to the politically minded among us. Almost 70% have a favourable view of MPs who support the phasing out of animal testing. Now is the time to step up.
Let me turn to the first of the questions I posed earlier, on the scientific argument for testing. In October’s debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), set out the justification for testing. I have great respect for the Minister and do not doubt his passion for these matters, but in my opinion the argument was hinged on a flawed principle. First, that animal testing is
“vital for identifying benefits for humans, animals, and the environment.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2021; Vol. 702, c. 41WH.]
I will make no comment about the contradiction there of animals suffering for the benefit of other animals. That it is the legal framework in which we currently work.
Let us look at the first point: that animal testing is a necessary evil. Some 92% of drugs that show promise in animal trials fail to reach the market, most commonly because of poor efficacy or safety that was not picked up in animal trials. For treatments for complex and poorly understood conditions, failure following success with animal trials is almost a certainty. For example, on Alzheimer’s, the chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation has said:
‘We’ve cured mice engineered with this disease over 500 times. The mouse models don’t translate into humans.”
We would be forgiven for assuming that animal testing is only used as a last resort. We hear all the time that animal experiments are used only where there is no alternative, and it is true that that is the intent of the law. The duty is currently on the researcher applying for a license to prove there is no alternative to animal testing. Not only are applications not approved by experts in the subject matter, but analysis of Home Office documents show that this is treated as a tick-box exercise by some researchers. There are no rigorous checks and balances in place. There is the continued approval of mice testing for Botox products, despite the availability of approved non-animal methods, and the fact that most products are used for cosmetic purposes.
Dogs have a special protection in legislation and are allowed to be tested on only if there are no alternative suitable species. Last year, however, 4,340 licensed procedures were carried out on dogs in Great Britain. Dogs are mostly used for repeat dose toxicity testing, where they are given daily doses of test substances for about four weeks, sometimes longer. Once the experiment is over, the dogs are put to sleep so that researchers can examine the effects of the substance on their internal organs. Although continued research and development into viable and reliable human-relevant methods remains essential, and progress must be made at pace, there are existing methods available. I question, then, why 3 million animal experiments were carried out in 2020. In fact, no application for animal experiment was refused by the Home Office last year. In one specific case, a simple one-word answer was provided to justify why there was no alternative to animal testing. Perhaps that is why, in my recent pursuit of information on Scotland-specific animal research data and unnecessary animal deaths at testing facilities, the Home Office has been so reluctant to provide any meaningful responses at all.
How can we recognise the sentience of animals and not recognise the hypocrisy of allowing them to suffer in the name of medicine, when those medicines are not even reaching the market? How can that be justified? Not by the existing legislative framework, to start with. Although it may be legally permissible, it is not morally permissible. It is time for the Government to commit to a reform of the animal testing law. Although they acknowledge that, actions speak louder than words, as the old adage goes. If they do not do this, the UK risks falling behind our international partners.
We have heard this Government’s exclamations about how Brexit presents opportunities untold. Whether that is true remains to be seen, but I ask them to seize this moment: let us make this issue one of those opportunities to cement ourselves once more as a world leader. The European Parliament recently voted in favour of an action plan to accelerate the move away from animal testing across the bloc. It backed the establishment of a high-level group to work with member states to draw up an ambitious plan, with concrete actions. Germany has committed to a plan to support innovation through animal-free research. The Netherlands has initiated its transition programme for innovation without the use of animals, in order to become a front runner in this area. The US Environmental Protection Agency has released its first update to its plan for reducing animal testing, with concrete steps towards its goals and metrics to monitor progress. We must be proactive here.
So where do we start? Funding is crucial. Current funding through NC3Rs is not enough if we are to replace animal testing. Its annual budget is about £10 million. By comparison, it is estimated that in 2019 the Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research together provided £1.8 billion in funding for UK medical research, and medical research charities provided £1.9 billion. NC3Rs does not even focus solely on animal experiment replacement. The Chancellor’s autumn Budget committed £5 billion to health research. I encourage the Minister today to commit some of this funding to the development of human-relevant science.
In tandem with funding, a clear and ambitious strategy is essential. That means a joined-up approach across Government and stakeholders. We can see the approach the international community is starting to take. Some good suggestions from animal charities that I have heard include the use of target setting, as we have seen with our climate change commitments, and the immediate discontinuation of funding for projects using animal experiments in areas that have proven poor translation rates to human trials. Research techniques need the space to continue modernising. Continuing to rely on outdated principles, legislated for half a century ago, is stifling development. If we look back into history at all the advances made in medicine and technology, we see that they are filled with methods and practices that were seen as innovative and state-of-the-art at the time, but that we would not dream of using now. That is precisely where animal testing should lie: necessary in the past maybe, but necessary no more—it is not ethical.
I also agree with calls for a dedicated Minister with the sole portfolio of accelerating animal-free science. At the moment, lines of responsibility for these issues are too muddy. They are divided up between the Home Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and, even then, there is overlap with a number of other Departments. The Home Secretary has statutory duties to support the development of non-animal testing, but it is often overlooked, which, when we think about the knock-on effect on drugs, economic policy and public health, is difficult to accept. Stakeholders say it is difficult for them to know which Minister they should be engaging with—a clear sign of how low this is sitting on the list of priorities. It must be addressed urgently.
I mentioned earlier my own difficulties in obtaining specific animal testing data from the Home Office, where the responsibility for this policy is supposed to lie. When I tabled a written parliamentary question asking for the number of unnecessary animal deaths at licensed testing facilities, the answer was:
“No such estimate can be made”.
When I followed up to ask what plans there were to record this information in future, the answer was that
“the Home Office does not hold information on, nor has plans to record future deaths of animals that occur at licensed scientific testing facilities.”
That demonstrates the urgent need for better oversight. How can we accurately assess the legitimacy of animal testing and the associated suffering and death if the Ministers responsible do not even register the full necessary data?
In conclusion, I thank the charities that work so hard for change in this area, and I thank them for the information that they have made available to aid this discussion. They are Cruelty Free International, Animal Free Research UK, OneKind and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
I reckon the Minister and I are the last two in the Commons today, or among the last three. I thank him for taking the time to respond to my Adjournment debate, and wish him a very happy Christmas break.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing this important debate and for her kind festive wishes, which are very much reciprocated to her and her family. I am grateful to her and to all colleagues who have raised concerns about this issue in previous debates and in correspondence with Ministers and in various questions for those contributions.
I have the privilege of closing today’s debate on behalf of the Minister responsible for animals in science. In so doing, I would like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for closing a Westminster Hall debate on this subject on 25 October. He provided a thorough account of the Government’s position on that occasion, and I hope that I can build on his commentary in my remarks today.
This is an evocative topic. The strength of feeling it generates is entirely understandable and I do not seek to minimise that in any way; I am exceptionally mindful of it. What we absolutely must do when discussing this issue is ensure that our discussions are rooted firmly in the evidence. The use of animals in science lies at the intersection of two important public goods: the benefits to humans, animals and the environment from the use of animals in science; and the UK’s proud history of support for the highest possible standards of animal welfare. I note the hon. Lady’s point that the UK ought to be a world leader. I argue that one of the important contributions that have we made, including when we were a member of the European Union, was that the European directive for the protection of animals used in science was built upon and developed directly on the back of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, so UK legislation was very much at the forefront when it came to shaping safeguards and regulation in this policy space.
The balance between those two public goods is reflected in the UK’s robust regulation of the use of animals in science through a dedicated Act and our strength in science and innovation. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, which I have mentioned, specifies that animals can be used in science only for specific limited purposes where there are no alternatives, and provides protection for these animals through the legal requirement to apply the principles known as the 3Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement. The Government are committed to maintaining robust regulatory standards, and to investing in alternatives to animals. I agree with the hon. Lady that that is very much something that the British people want to see happen, which is why we, as a Government, are committed to the three Rs. When we are considering the ongoing need for the use of animals in science, it is essential to look at the impact that would result if it were not possible. Animal testing and research play a vital role in the understanding of how biological systems work in health and disease. They support the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies, for humans and animals, and they support the safety and sustainability of our environment. From new vaccines and medicines to transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions, animal research has helped us to make life-changing discoveries and advances with enormous benefits for society. Indeed, the development of the covid-19 vaccine, like that of all vaccines, was made possible at least in part because of the use of animals in research.
Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. That testing is essential to protect human health and safety. Without the testing of potential medicines on animals, the development, registration and marketing of new, safe, and effective medicines would not be possible.
Although much research can be done with non-animal models, there are still purposes for which it is essential to use live animals, as the complexity of whole biological systems cannot always be replicated with the use of validated non-animal methodologies. That is especially the case when the safety of humans and animals needs to be ensured. Ours is a nation that rightly gives strong support to animal welfare, and I think it fair to say that it is a country of animal lovers, but let us not confuse the issues. I will be clear: animals are only ever used in science when there is a legally permissible purpose that is for the benefit of humans, animals themselves, or the environment. We authorise the use of animals only when the harms caused to the animals are justified by the likely expected benefits, and when there are no non-animal alternatives. We issue licences only when pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm have been minimised to the degree needed to meet the scientific research objectives. There are, of course, various levels and layers of safeguards in respect of this work.
There are three commonly cited but incorrect statements about the use of animals in science. The first is that the use of animals in science is not necessary because all the benefits can be achieved through the use of non-animal methodologies. The second is that the use of animals in science is not valid or useful primarily because data acquired from animal testing cannot predict the experience of humans or other animals. The third is that many potential medicines fail during development, and that this demonstrates that animal testing is not useful or necessary in drug development.
Let me deal first with the claim that there are alternatives to using animals for all purposes. Although scientific progress has meant that many scientific objectives can be achieved without the use of animals, there are still areas in which that is not possible. One example is the assessment of what is described as the “reproductive toxicity” of a chemical or potential new medicine. That means understanding whether a chemical causes abnormalities in fertility, abnormal development of offspring, or even problems with the fertility of the offspring of those exposed to such a chemical. Although some initial screening tests for that purpose can be performed without the use of animals, animal tests are still necessary for the assessments. Such tests have prevented the further development or marketing of substances that would have had significant negative impacts on fertility or developing embryos.
Let me now deal with the second point. Animal models are constantly improving to become more accurate and predictive, and scientists understand progressively more about which biological systems in which animals offer the most scientifically valid results. Improvements in the understanding of the genomes of animals and humans have been critical to ensuring that scientific research in animals is understood and applied appropriately. Data from animal experiments are constantly fed into computer models that analyse their predictivity and enable scientists to use animal models in increasingly smarter and more predictable ways.
As for the third claim—that many drugs fail during development, and that this shows that animal testing is not useful or necessary—although it is correct to assert that there is a high attrition rate in drug development, there are many reasons why drugs that are assessed as potentially effective and safe in animals do not progress to the market, including commercial reasons. Although there are always some effects in humans that cannot be accurately predicted in animals, animal studies are successfully used to characterise toxic effects of potential medicines with respect to the target organs that may be affected, and to understand how such effects vary with the dose of the substance administered. Additional information can be obtained about whether toxic effects seen can be reversed. This information allows for the identification of factors that can be monitored to assess adverse effects from potential new medicines in their first clinical trials and to establish the first dose that can safely be given in these studies. This is a critical part of protecting the safety of the participants in these studies.
Results from animal studies are therefore used as the basis for extrapolation to indicate and manage possible risks to humans. Thus, animal testing is considered not in a stand-alone context but as part of an integrated set of evidence from a variety of sources, including non-animal testing. Should animal testing not occur, more potential medicines would not progress to market, resources would be spent on potential medicines that would have been excluded through animal testing and the risk to humans in clinical trials would be considerably higher.
I commend the hon. Lady for the passion with which she speaks on these matters and the constructive approach and tone that she has taken in this debate, and which I know she will continue to take in raising these matters. I can assure her that the UK aims to be a world leader in the development of, and access to, new and innovative treatments and technologies. We must continue to protect the health of humans, animals and the environment. To achieve these important outcomes, we will continue—until such time as alternatives are achieved for all purposes—to need to use animals in science, but it is right that robust checks and balances should be in place. Importantly, while achieving these outcomes is critical, this Government also remain committed to robust regulation of the use of animals in science through enforcement of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, and to the funding, development and promotion of non-animal alternatives. That is something I know all of us in this House and in our country want to see delivered.
In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker and the terrific team of Deputy Speakers for everything that you do. I should also like to thank the Clerks, the staff of the House and of course the Doorkeepers. As the final Minister to speak at the Dispatch Box this year, I also want to say an enormous thank you to the officials who have been working tirelessly across Government, particularly during the challenges of the pandemic, which is of course ongoing. I also want to thank those in my private office and my parliamentary staff, without whom I could not do the work that I do. As a Home Office Minister, I would also like to thank and send my best wishes to our emergency services workers and all those working on the frontline this Christmas and new year. And perhaps most importantly for me, I want to thank the good people of Corby and east Northamptonshire, without whom I would not be here.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
On behalf of the Speaker and the three Deputies, I wish everybody listening a very merry Christmas and a happy 2022. It is now my duty for the final time this year—hopefully, I pray—to put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(3 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(3 years ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nadhim Zahawi
Not that long ago, only about 37% of local authorities had a good Ofsted inspection. The one thing I would correct her on is that it is not so binary as pass and fail, because, actually, it is very much about areas of improvement in children’s social care. That 37% has now risen to 57% of local authorities that have a good inspection.
[Official Report, 6 December 2021, Vol. 705, c. 41.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson).
The correct information should have been:
Nadhim Zahawi
Not that long ago, only about 37% of local authorities had a good Ofsted inspection. The one thing I would correct her on is that it is not so binary as pass and fail, because, actually, it is very much about areas of improvement in children’s social care. That 36% has now risen to 50% of local authorities that are good or outstanding.
Nadhim Zahawi
Since 2017 we have seen an uplift of 10% in the social care workforce, which I hope she will agree is to be commended.
[Official Report, 6 December 2021, Vol. 705, c. 44.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck)
The correct information should have been:
Nadhim Zahawi
Since 2017 we have seen a rise of 10% in the child and family social worker workforce, which I hope she will agree is to be commended.
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Lady for her 15 years of service as a social worker. She is absolutely right. In the first quarter of next year, there will be a reduction in that bureaucracy; that is coming down the line even before the review.
[Official Report, 6 December 2021, Vol. 705, c. 53.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi).
An error has been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby).
The correct information should have been:
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Lady for her 15 years of service as a social worker. She is absolutely right. In the first quarter of next year, the review will cover reduction in bureaucracy.
Electrification of the Hull to Selby railway line
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
backbench business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Surgical Fires in the NHS
(3 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate. That is in line with Government and House of Commons Commission guidance. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House of Commons to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That can be done either at the testing centre on the estate or at home. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of preventing surgical fires in the NHS.
It is a joy to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees, for the third time this week, and to be here myself to make a contribution to the debate. I am pleased that other hon. Members are present: the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar); the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting); and the Minister. It is no secret that I am very fond of the Minister. She and I have worked together in the House on many health issues, and I very much look forward to her response. This topic is of significant importance, so I am glad to see other Members in the Chamber to make what I am convinced will be significant contributions.
As Members are aware, health has been my portfolio in this House for quite some time—almost 10 years—which means I have been exposed to some of the more challenging issues to face the healthcare system across the United Kingdom. Today’s discussion is about one of those: surgical fires in operating theatres. It is certainly one of the most concerning issues that I have come across in my time in this House. Did I know much about it? I probably did not, but once it was brought to my attention in this place and back home in Northern Ireland, where it is a devolved matter and the responsibility of a Minister in the Assembly, I became aware of it.
I spoke to the Minister present before the debate, and she has some of the questions in my speech from my staff and others. I very much look forward to her response to the questions that I will pose today. First, however, I pay tribute to the work of the expert working group on the prevention of surgical fires, who brought the matter to my attention and whose report on the prevention and management of surgical fires I recommend to the Minister and all Members of the House. It is a thorough and detailed report, which encapsulates the issues that we will discuss in the debate and gives the Minister and her Department the opportunity to respond, I hope in a positive way.
I had the pleasure of chairing the parliamentary launch of the working group’s report in November last year. I am sure that their report and campaign will feed into much of the debate—it certainly will through my comments, and I am pretty sure it will through those of other hon. Members as well.
I want to underline what we mean by surgical fires and the serious dangers they pose to patients and clinicians alike. A surgical fire is a self-descriptive name: it is a fire that occurs during surgery in an operating theatre. In order for a surgical fire to occur, three elements must be present: the ignition source, the fuel and the oxidiser. Ignition sources include electrosurgical units, fibre-optic light sources and lasers. The fuels regularly include alcohol-based skin prepping agents that have been used in excess or applied inappropriately. The oxidiser is simply an oxygen-rich environment in which nitrous oxide is present, alongside the oxygen. Those are the three ingredients, or the three elements that are the reason for surgical fires. I do not believe that it is impossible to address the issue, through the Department and the Minister’s response, so that we can ensure that such fires do not happen.
The statistics, which the people working in the background have gained from across the whole United Kingdom, highlight just how worrying this matter is. The report states:
“Injuries caused by a surgical fire most commonly occur on the head, face, neck and upper chest.”
By and large, that is where operations focus on, and a fire can leave victims with debilitating pain and lifelong physical and psychological scarring—I will later give the example of someone whom I met in this House at a presentation that we did some time ago. A surgical fire can also cause harm to operating theatre staff, who are exposed to similar risks. It can affect not just the patient on the table who is having the operation, but the staff, so there is a dual responsibility for safety—obviously for the patient, but also for the staff.
Like so many members of the public and those of us present for the debate, I had absolutely no idea that surgical fires posed a threat to patients across the United Kingdom, and I was unaware of the extent of the injuries that they can cause, so I am extremely pleased that this subject is being debated, even though we are in the graveyard slot. We are going into recess after today, so most Members have probably left. That is unfortunate, because others had wished to participate but could not stay. The omicron variant has also been part of the problem, and that is perhaps the case for the shadow Minister who was originally going to participate in the debate but could not do so. We are ever mindful that although we may be small in number, the debate is none the less important, and we want to put that on the record.
Today’s debate is about raising awareness about the seriousness of surgical fires and pushing for the next steps to ensure that they no longer happen. Ultimately, that is the goal of the debate—to ensure that precautions are taken so that surgical fires do not happen. What I will outline in my contribution will helpfully enable the Minister and her Department to take the necessary action.
I am sure that many Members will be asking the same question that I did when this issue was first brought to my attention: how common are surgical fires? That is a question that many of us ask. The reality is that nobody knows entirely, but the expert working group sent out a freedom of information request to trusts, health boards and relevant bodies across the United Kingdom. Although there were significant discrepancies across all organisations, the NHS England acute trusts and Welsh health boards stated that they recorded some 96 surgical fires between 2010 and 2018. The report states:
“A search of the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) data from between 2004 and 2011 identified just 13 reported surgical fires.”
The important point is that, by comparison,
“NHS Resolution claim to have been notified of 631 clinical negligence claims relating to surgical burns to patients”
between 2009 and 2019. NHS Resolution also claims to have paid out £13.9 million
“in damages and legal costs on behalf of NHS organisations.”
The data that some of the trusts and health boards hold as their evidential base indicate to me that the issue is bigger than many people thought. The fact that some £13.9 million has been paid out in damages and legal costs emphasises that point with a strong evidential base. I am sure that the figure is still a stark underestimate of the scale of the problem, and not all incidents will have been recorded. I suspect the number of claims could be bigger than 631, and that does not even account for all the near-misses that may have occurred in operating theatres across the United Kingdom.
According to a survey by the Association for Perioperative Practice, which is one of the largest membership organisations for operating theatre staff, almost half of its members have personally witnessed a surgical fire—again, an evidential base to prove that this issue is like picking at a scab, because the evidential base and examples are far-reaching and quantitative. There is no question but that there is a clear and obvious discrepancy in how surgical fires are reported, which raises questions about the true number of such incidents.
One of the key questions is what reason is behind the large discrepancy in reporting and why the number of surgical fire incidents that occur each year cannot be accurately quantified. The answer is quite simple: it is not mandatory for trusts to report these events when they take place. I am astounded that that is the case. There is evidence to show that £13.9 million was spent in pay outs for damages and legal costs, and that there were 631 fires. How can it be possible that it is not mandatory to report when someone is set alight during surgery? It is bound to be a fairly dramatic situation. These figures do not even cover the near-misses that must occur on a regular basis.
As the Minister may know, over the past year I have tabled a few parliamentary questions, asking the Government to provide an answer about the number of surgical fires that occur every year, but each time they have been unable to do that. I find it concerning that the Government accept that surgical fires are an issue within the NHS but they still do not know the true scale of the problem. Such is the magnitude and severity of this issue that I would have thought the Government might respond. I say that very respectfully, which is my way of doing things, Ms Rees; when I ask questions, I ask them both to get the answer and to improve the situation. That is probably why I always see the glass as half full, rather half empty. I look to the Minister for a response on that.
The Government are still not monitoring or reporting issues that threaten the safety of patients in the UK. This is also a structural problem that requires proper education and training, and puts in place the necessary protocols to mitigate and reduce the risk as much as possible. One would assume that trusts across the country all have protocols in place to prevent such fires from occurring, but I am sad to report that that is not the case.
According to research by the expert working group, which examined specific protocols and training programmes addressing surgical fires in local NHS trusts, only a limited number of trusts across the UK actually have surgical fire protocols. I think it is vital that they should have them, but many rely on general fire safety guidelines, where there is often no mention of surgical fire risk and prevention processes. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s response about what protocols and safety measures can be put in place.
According to a survey by the Association for Perioperative Practice, over half the respondents reported not having surgical fire protocols to date, while almost two thirds reported that their organisation did not provide training courses or education for operating theatre healthcare professionals on preventing surgical fires. Again, there has to be a clear change of focus among healthcare professionals to ensure that this issue is addressed.
A third of respondents reported receiving training and education, and that training included both high-risk management courses and more generic fire safety training, which was more reactive than preventative. I am a great believer in early diagnosis and preventative measures, rather than reactive measures, so I hope that as a result of this debate we will have measures put in place to address those issues. The training is clearly not adequate for the seriousness of the danger at the moment. The lack of prevention and management protocol is completely unacceptable and represents a clear and present danger to all patients who undergo surgery in the NHS.
It is truly astonishing that surgical fires are already recognised as a safety concern in other countries. I will give examples of those, because if other countries can see the risk, difficulty, impact and severity of this, then I know that our NHS, which we all treasure and love, can deal with the issue equally well, if not better. Yet there is insufficient guidance about how to prevent and manage surgical fires in the UK.
In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration already provides a list of specific recommendations on reducing the incidence of surgical fires. These include conducting a fire risk assessment at the beginning of each surgical procedure, which seems to be logical. Again, maybe the Minister can give us some indication of whether that is a procedure that the NHS will adopt. Those recommendations also include additional safety procedures such as planning and practice on how to manage a surgical fire, including how to use carbon dioxide fire extinguishers. Are those things available in the NHS? They should be, so if not, is there an intention to put them in place? As a result of introducing the necessary protocols, educational tools and reporting systems, the number of surgical fires in the United States has dropped by 71% since 2004. By putting the right strategy and safety measures in place, we reduce the threat. That is my goal today, and that is the approach we should be trying to emulate within the NHS.
The expert working group’s report made a number of recommendations on the prevention and management of surgical fires. I do not intend to read out the entire report—even though I have three hours, I do not want to put people to sleep when they want to go home—but I want to highlight four of its key recommendations. First, professional associations should explore the value of a national awareness campaign for healthcare professionals. Secondly, education on surgical fire prevention should be mandated in the surgical and perioperative education and training syllabus. Thirdly, NHS England should explore how to evolve the procurement process for sanitation products, in order to reduce surgical fire risk and encourage procurement of proven surgical fire-safe technologies. Fourthly, NHS England should explore the development of a standardised patient safety alert system that aligns the processes and outputs of all bodies and teams, and ensure that they set out clear and effective actions for providers to take on safety-critical issues. If I were to ask for nothing else today, I would ask for those four recommendations to be acted on, because that would be a massive step forward.
It is clear to me, as I hope it is clear to other Members, that effective education and training are the primary means of preventing the incidence of surgical fires. Despite some form of fire safety training being mandatory for all NHS staff during their induction and ongoing employment, that training does not address the unique features involved in preventing or extinguishing a surgical fire. The response to different kinds of surgical fires can differ, as can an individual’s role, depending on who is present at the time. I know that the past year and a half—almost two years—have been extremely difficult due to covid, and that the NHS, the Minister and the Government have other priorities, but this is about prevention. It is about making sure that surgical fires do not happen again, and it is logical to try to do so: it would have stopped that £13.9 million from being paid out in damages and legal fees. Meanwhile, preventative measures and effective management strategies require additional education and training, and the absence of such training currently acts as a barrier to eliminating incidents of surgical fire and ensuring an appropriate response.
As I have highlighted, providing detailed guidance and encouraging the individuals who constitute the perioperative team to consider their role in surgical fire prevention has led to a statistically significant decline in the incidence of such fires in the United States. Their incidence has fallen by 71%—wow! I did not do the mathematics, but if we brought that 631 down by 71%, it would be approximately three quarters of that number. It is clear to me that surgical fire training should be made mandatory across the NHS and the private sector, and should be updated at least every two years. Again, I refer to those four asks: we need to make sure that those matters are taken on board, so that we have a proper system in place for the future as well.
Despite education being an essential method of preventing surgical fires, it is no use if it is not mandated, and if we still fail to tackle the institutional failure to truly record the scale of the problem. Following discussions with the expert working group and others, I call on the Minister to instruct the Centre for Perioperative Care to investigate the possibility of making surgical fires a never event, meaning that they never happen again. We would like to see surgical fires made a never event as part of the CPC’s work on redeveloping the national safety standards for invasive procedures to ensure they remain fit for purpose.
Classifying surgical fires as a never event would require mandatory reporting of incidents or near misses, while also mandating essential education for surgeons and other perioperative staff across all NHS trusts. Even without knowing the details of surgical fires, the name itself suggests they should be a never event. The concept of a surgical fire is terrifying enough that if we asked a lay person whether it should be classified as a never event, they would likely agree that it should never happen—indeed, they would probably be astounded that it even did. Only by classifying surgical fires as a never event can the national safety standards continue to be fit for purpose.
I have been paying keen attention to some of the Government’s responses to my questions about surgical fires over the past year. I realise that the Government have previously stated that they have no plans to classify surgical fires as a never event. Again, I urge the Minister, in the light of the evidential base we now have, to do just that. I note in the latest response to me that the Minister says that it is not possible to make surgical fires a never event because
“there is currently no national guidance or safety recommendations to prevent surgical fires in operating theatres”.
I say respectfully that we need to do that. If we can do that, we can move forward.
I have good news for the Minister—I always try to bring good news, and not just because it is Christmas. The expert working group has already developed national guidelines. Its report made safety recommendations for perioperative staff, and the group is waiting for them to be adopted. What the expert working group has done could be a template for exactly what the NHS needs to do. It has informed me that it is more than willing to pass on its hard work directly to Government. If the Minister is agreeable, I would be happy to have a meeting to exchange those views, and those papers as well, with the Centre for Perioperative Care expediting the process. I believe there is now no reason not to classify surgical fires as a never event.
We should not forget the most important impact of surgical fires: the human impact. As I mentioned earlier, I had the pleasure of chairing the launch of the report last year. During the event, I also had the pleasure and the privilege of listening to a patient who had experienced a surgical fire. He explained to us the impact that the incident had on his life. What happened to this gentleman is quite tragic. I will quote his story, but I will not name him, and I will be careful what I say in relation to him.
He told the group that he had visited the hospital for a routine procedure, but that when he woke up the staff informed him that his body had been set alight during surgery. He told us how he had been burnt on the left side of his chest and upper arm, and of the impact that this trauma had on him. He was not aware of the fire because he was under anaesthetic having an operation. He went on to explain how it had prevented him from continuing his career in social care, which he had been in since the age of 16, because he was disabled as a result of the incident. He explained how it had left him physically and psychologically drained, and how it had left him in pain, unable to carry out simple household tasks such as making a cup of tea—he did not have the stretch or lift in his arm any more. He told us of the impact that the fire had on his family. His partner became his carer and he could no longer spend time with his granddaughter. Having five grandchildren—three girls and two boys—I know how much I enjoy spending time with my grandchildren.
That is a jarring story—one that is all the more shocking and disturbing the more details that are revealed. I am not going to name him because there are legal discussions going on with the trusts involved and because he has nothing but praise for the nurses who have cared for him since the incident. He understands that nobody set out for it to happen, but it happened, and it happened because the precautions were not in place, because there was no safety measures and no training. The so-called never event happened.
He is a very kind man—a gentleman. However, no matter how good the nurses have been to him, it would be remiss of me not to mention how inadequately his situation was addressed. To cause severe harm to a patient is beyond the pale; it is against every medical principle that exists. The NHS and all its staff are tasked with saving life, and that is what they do to the best of their ability. We must not forget the impact on the operating theatre staff, who may also experience a psychological cost from these experiences. It is equally essential that surgeons learn how to give both physical and emotional support to the victims of surgical fires. They are the ones who have suffered most, and surgeons must be empathetic to them and their needs.
What is also concerning is that, despite this serious incident taking place, the hospital appears not to have made the appropriate changes to its systems and protocols. We all learn lessons—every day of my life, I learn lessons; I am not so proud that I do not learn from all those around me and those who I speak to. The patient required follow-up treatment in the same hospital and, on inquiring what had been done to prevent the incident from happening again, was told that nothing had changed; there had been no updates. How disappointing.
As I mentioned, I cannot name the patient, but I pay tribute to his bravery and his determination to prevent this from happening to another person. That is one of the reasons why he told us his story. He wanted to provide us with the evidential basis for what had taken place and to ensure that it did not happen to somebody else. He is truly an admirable person. I thank both him and his partner for sharing their story with me and, ultimately, with everyone in the House and Westminster Hall and with the Minister and her Department.
I am coming to the end of my speech, Ms Rees. I will begin summing up, so that we can also hear from others. I look forward to hearing some thoughtful and insightful contributions from the shadow Ministers and, specifically, the Minister. As I have stated, I hope this debate will bring greater attention to the issue of surgical fires and shine a spotlight on this danger. It is clear to me, from reading the expert working group’s report and patients’ testimonies and from listening to expert guidance, that more needs to be done to prevent surgical fires. That is why I am so pleased to play my part in today’s debate in support the aims of the expert working group.
I hope that in the short time—it feels like a long time perhaps, Ms Rees—that we have been making the case today that it is clear that we are supporting the aims of the expert working group. There needs to be mandatory reporting of both surgical fires and near misses, because until we can effectively quantify the scale of the problem, we cannot effectively address it. Similarly, we need to introduce effective and mandatory education for all surgeons and perioperative practitioners in order to prevent surgical fires from occurring and to ensure that they are effectively managed when they do occur. This can also be done by classifying surgical fires as a never event. NHS operating staff are already aware of the threat of surgical fires, but they have not received the proper support and guidance to ensure that these incidents are prevented.
I therefore hope that our actions today will start the necessary change. Whether we are talking about simple steps such as introducing a checklist to ensure the taking of appropriate preventive measures, such as using the correct antiseptic skin solution, or ensuring the presence of the appropriate tools and equipment for the management of fires, which we should have as a precautionary measure in all operating theatres, these are all necessary steps to ensure the safety of patients and operating theatre staff alike. This is about the patient; it is about the staff; it is about getting it right. If we do not, we will have to confront the reality that many more people will be harmed by our failure to act. Classifying surgical fires as a never event is, I believe, the only way to effectively prevent patients and NHS staff from coming to harm.
I thank hon. Members for attending the debate and ask them to consider the reaction of their constituents if they were asked about surgical fires. If a Member here were asked about this matter, what would he or she want done in relation to it? They would surely all agree that such fires should never be allowed to happen. Making them a never event is the common-sense option, and I hope that others will join me in urging that that rational action be taken on this issue.
The people to whom I have referred, including the gentleman who made his own personal submission, are real human beings. They are people who have gone through operations and been confronted with the reality of this issue. We know about 631 of them in the United Kingdom, and we believe there are more. Addressing this issue would put an end to the need for the £13.9 million of damages and legal charges. We live in an age in which we must also be careful with the money we spend. If we are not, things may happen that cost the NHS money. People have been affected by this issue, and people will continue to be at risk until we act. I therefore invite the Minister and other hon. Members to join me in what I believe is a very worthwhile campaign to make surgical fires a thing of the past—as I said before, a never event.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate on such an important matter. Surgical fires are rarely ever spoken about across the UK, but they are a more common occurrence than is perhaps first considered. When these tragic events do occur, they are very serious and can cause injury to both the patient and our healthcare professionals. Most surgical fires occur in, on or around a patient undergoing a medical or surgical procedure, with the most common injuries being on the head, face, neck and upper chest. The majority of the fires are caused either by a skin preparation solution not being given enough time to dry or because swabs soaked with the fluid were left in the operating field within an unsafe distance of an ignition source.
The sources can include drapes, towels, endotracheal tubes and swabs, and alcohol preparation solutions that have not been allowed to dry fully and as a consequence have pooled on or under a patient. Electrosurgical units, lasers and fibre-optic light sources are all well-described ignition sources for surgical fires, which have a devastating effect on patients physically and mentally. There are numerous personal accounts of patients who have been harmed due to those types of fires, and in nearly all cases they were wholly avoidable.
More recently, in one case a patient undergoing surgery for pancreatic cancer caught fire and suffered 40% burns and died a week later in hospital as a result of those injuries. It is even more vital that we have the protective measures in place to prevent these avoidable incidents from ever happening again.
Between 2010 and 2018 there were a total of 96 recorded surgical fires, as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out. Those were declared by NHS England acute trusts and Wales health boards. The figures are similar in Scotland, from what I have been able to ascertain.
When doing my research for this debate, I spoke to a few of my constituents who work in the surgical field, based at the fantastic University Hospital Monklands, which cares for so many of my constituents. I am going to take this opportunity—I am sure Members would like to join me—to place on record my eternal gratitude to all those based at Monklands and across NHS Lanarkshire, as well as across all the nations of the UK, for the incredible work that they do all year round. We wish them all a safe and peaceful Christmastime. I spoke to my surgical constituents to get a real feeling of the impacts of such events, but also of any prolonged or psychological effects of such incidents on staff and patients. The information I received from my surgical constituents was illuminating and very concerning.
Recent research conducted by the National Reporting and Learning System found that from January 2012 to December 2018, 37 reported surgical fires were identified, in which 52% of patients suffered some degree of harm and 8% were recorded as receiving severe harm. Those statistics are of course alarming for us all. However, the data does not show the full scale of incidents that occurred from surgical fires because of the discrepancies between data held at national and local levels. That raises a question about the true number of incidents across the health boards. Is it greater than what has already been suggested? Is there even more cause for concern than we already believe? We need to explore that to get the answers to those questions.
We need a standardised approach to conduct a clear and effective reporting of incidents and decide on the correct steps to mitigate the risk of further surgical fires. It might surprise right hon. and hon. Members that the last time the term “surgical fires” was even uttered was almost seven years ago in 2015 by NHS England’s surgical services patient safety expert group—that is a mouthful—and yet nothing ever came of its work.
Three years later in May 2019, a short life working group for the prevention of surgical fires was established by a group of experts from healthcare organisations and bodies across the UK. The group aims to compile a series of recommendations and guidance that would make the case for surgical fires being ruled out and made the never event that the hon. Member for Strangford wishes to see. I join him in recommending to the Minister that it is crucial for theatre staff to have the training and for professional associations to explore the value of a national awareness campaign for healthcare professionals. We should mandate the inclusion of surgical fire prevention in the surgical and perioperative education and training syllabus.
NHS bodies should explore how to evolve the procurement process of sanitising products, to reduce surgical fire risk and encourage the procurement of proven surgical fire-safe technologies. I call upon all boards across the UK to explore the development of the standardised patient safety alerts system that aligns the processes and outputs of all bodies and teams. It is vital that such recommendations are implemented, especially given the expertise of those who have provided such information.
The prevention of surgical fires is an urgent and serious patient safety issue in all UK hospitals. It is also very costly, as research has found that nearly £14 million has been paid out in damages and legal costs on behalf of NHS organisations across the UK for such fires. It is essential that we understand when these incidents happen and fully examine whether we should successfully implement changes that prevent their future occurrence. It would be helpful if the NHS published an update on its progress on this matter, so that we can better understand the urgency of the action that is being taken.
Surgical fires are recognised as an international patient safety concern, so for all patients across the UK it is vital that we seek to mitigate their potential impacts as soon as possible. Sadly, it is not always possible to prevent patient safety incidents from happening, but preventive actions can and should be taken to prevent further harm to our patients in the near future.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I apologise on behalf of the shadow Minister for patient safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who is isolating, so I am afraid that you are stuck with me, the shadow Secretary of State for Health, which at least gives me the opportunity early on to place on the record my commitment to patient safety.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate and on underlining—in terms of the policy detail and what the data tells us or does not tell us, as well as in very stark human terms—why this issue is so significant. As he said, I have no doubt that there would have been more hon. Members present for this debate if it were not for the omicron risk and the fact that this is the final afternoon before the House adjourns for Christmas.
Surgical fires are a serious patient safety issue. In the contributions we have heard today—from the hon. Member for Strangford and the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar)—the case for further action to prevent these incidents is clear.
Although rare, surgical fires can cause serious harm to both patients and healthcare professionals, and, as we have heard, in some cases they tragically result in life-changing injuries. The Department for Health and Social Care has declared that it does not know how many surgical fires happen across the NHS, because it does not collect such data centrally, but we know that they happen. In the period between 2010 and 2018, there were a total of 96 recorded surgical fire incidents declared by NHS England acute trusts and Welsh health boards. A search of the NHS’s National Reporting and Learning System for the period between January 2012 and December 2018 identified 37 reports of surgical fires. There is a discrepancy between those two figures. In my opinion, even one preventable incident of surgical fire in the NHS is one too many.
Although surgical fires are preventable, the absence of national guidelines has resulted in an inconsistent approach within UK hospitals to their prevention, with fewer than 40% of healthcare organisations in England having specific protocols and training programmes in place to address the prevention and management of surgical fires. Among healthcare organisations across the UK, 50% of healthcare organisations in Northern Ireland have specific surgical fire prevention guidelines, compared with 38% in England, 20% in Wales and 10% in Scotland, and only a limited number of trusts across the UK—23—have protocols and training programmes that specifically address surgical fires.
We know that these incidents occur as a result of particular circumstances, yet the majority of local trusts rely on general fire safety guidelines, in which there is often no mention of surgical fire risks and prevention processes for them.
The hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have discussed the findings of the expert working group’s report, which was published last year, so there is no need for me to go over the report’s recommendations; we have already heard them. However, it would be good to hear from the Minister this afternoon as to whether she has had the chance to consider those recommendations and understands where the Department intends to go in taking action to respond to them.
As the hon. Member for Strangford said in his opening speech, the report also supported surgical fires becoming classified as a never event. The NHS in England defines never events as
“serious incidents that are entirely preventable because guidance or safety recommendations providing strong systemic protective barriers are available at a national level and should have been implemented by all healthcare providers.”
Patient groups have argued that surgical fires should be classified as never events. They argue that if they were classified in this way, they could be monitored and investigated as such. Staff would also be empowered to manage incidents in the appropriate way.
However, the Government have recently said that they have no plans to revise the NHS never events policy and framework to classify surgical fires in operating theatres as never events. As the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, the reason for that is that we currently have no national guidance or safety recommendations to prevent surgical fires in operating theatres. I endorse what he said. I think that the way to address that is to ensure that we have national guidance and safety recommendations and then to update the NHS never events policy. It would be good to hear from the Minister what progress, if any, has been made in developing that guidance and, if the Government intend to act in that way, when it might be published.
I would also like briefly to address some wider issues related to patient safety that are relevant to the debate. Unfortunately, in the last financial year prior to the pandemic 472 serious patient safety issues were classified as never events across the NHS in England. Clearly, that figure demonstrates that there is work to be done across the NHS to ensure everyone gets the best care and that improvements still need to be made. In striving for that, we of course need to listen carefully to the experiences of the patients affected and to ensure that staff feel safe to come forward during patient safety investigations and that processes are transparent, so that lessons can be learned.
We also need to do more to ensure that the environments in which care is delivered are safe. Currently, there is a £9.2 billion repair backlog across the NHS estate. That means that broken pipes and crumbling buildings are putting patients at risk. In the past financial year there were more than 1,600 serious patient safety incidents with an estates and facilities cause.
Although I am responding on behalf of the Opposition, I am sure the House and the Minister will indulge in me making a parochial constituency point. Whipps Cross hospital is in urgent need of redevelopment and refurbishment, and I think that is very much on the Government’s radar—I am led to believe that Whipps Cross is near the top of the list. The Minister may not be able to reply on Whipps Cross this afternoon—I appreciate that it is probably without the scope of what she was expecting to talk about—but the issue is none the less on the record for the Department to consider, and we will be very persistent about it on a cross-party basis locally.
Chronic workforce shortages across our health and care services are also putting patients at risk. We went into the pandemic with 100,000 vacancies across the NHS, including a shortage of 40,000 nurses. I am struck whenever I speak to staff working in the NHS, including the shadow Minister for mental health, my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who has enormous experience in this respect, that too often staff are coming home from work worried about staffing shortages, patient safety and whether they have been able to deliver the best care. That is really important for patient safety and the confidence of staff working in challenging environments. In June, a report by the Health and Social Care Committee warned that staff burnout caused by workforce shortages was at an emergency level and posed
“an extraordinarily dangerous risk to the future functioning of”
healthcare services.
Last month, NHS leaders warned that pressures on the system were likely to have an impact on patient safety, and a survey revealed that nine out of 10 felt that staffing pressures were putting patients’ health at risk. It is clear that the NHS is now in desperate need of a serious plan to provide the modern, safe facilities and equipment that patients deserve, alongside a long-term strategy to recruit and retain the staff to deliver safe, quality care. The safety of patients must be the golden thread running through every aspect of healthcare delivery, and I want our healthcare system to be the safest in the world. I hope that the Minister will consider the points raised in the debate carefully and assure the Members present that the prevention of patient safety incidents, including surgical fires, is of paramount importance to her Department.
Since this is the last day before we rise for the recess, and in the light of the wider challenges facing the country, I wish you, Ms Rees, and all hon. Members and staff throughout both Houses of Parliament a very merry Christmas. I say a special thank you to Ministers and staff at the Department of Health and Social Care, the agencies for which they are responsible, the entire workforce across health and social care, the armed forces and the emergency services for all that they are doing to get our country through the pandemic, to respond to the challenges of the omicron variant and to get Britain boosted. I ought to wrap up, because I am due to get my booster later this afternoon, and I do not wish to miss my appointment. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says, and I wish her and all her civil servants and colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I echo everything the hon. Gentleman said in wishing everyone a merry Christmas and thanking them for everything they do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this hugely important debate. While he is right that we may be small in number this afternoon, it is the quality not the quantity of the Members that counts.
Health is a devolved matter, so I can really only respond on behalf of the NHS in England to the issues the hon. Gentleman raised, but, as the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), said, surgical fires are a priority area of concern in all the devolved nations. Patient safety is our absolute focus. We want to provide the public with the safest care possible. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, a fire affects not only patients but the NHS staff working in those units. We traditionally think of surgical fires as taking place in hospital-based settings such as theatres, but more and more minor surgery is taking place in community facilities such as primary care facilities. This issue is expanding to other areas of the NHS, so it is important that lessons learned in hospital trusts are learned in the community as well.
Supporting a culture of safety in the NHS is critical, and we have put in place a number of measures aimed at supporting the NHS. The key is learning from incidents. Where there have been surgical fires in the past, it is important to identify their causes and how they could be prevented in the future. It is also important to hear from staff, who will sometimes not be surprised when an incident occurs or who may have flagged issues a number of times before attention is taken.
We are taking a number of initiatives to improve patient safety across the board. The first is establishing the health safety investigation branch, which conducts independent reviews and investigations into any patient safety concerns, including surgical fires. We are also introducing a statutory duty of candour to ensure that NHS organisations are open and honest towards patients. If a surgical fire happens, as in the hon. Gentleman’s tragic example, a patient who may have been asleep at the time should be made aware of that and receive an apology and support afterwards. Sometimes the fires are quite minor and the patient is not affected, but it is important that they know that an incident happened. We are also setting out in legislation the first ever patient safety commissioner, which will be for England only. They will be a champion for patients in relation to medicines and medical devices and will certainly look at the issue of surgical fires.
Regrettably, despite some of the progress and some of the measures we are putting in place, and despite the high quality of care provided by NHS staff, incidents happen that cause harm to patients and put staff at risk. If a surgical fire is extensive enough to take a theatre out of service for a time, that has a knock-on effect for other patients on surgical waiting lists, who may be delayed as a result. Minimising the risk of surgical fires is an area we take very seriously, and although rare, when they do occur in or around the operating table, they can cause extensive damage and put patients and staff at risk.
The issue is how to best minimise the risk of fires in the first place. As has been pointed out, work is going on into this area. NHS England’s national patient safety team has been involved with the expert working group on the prevention of surgical fires, which the hon. Gentleman referred to and which is chaired by the chief executive of the Association for Perioperative Practice. We will continue to support the development of its guidance. I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to follow this up, because as highlighted by the shadow Minister the working group published a report in September last year on the prevention and management of fires and made a number of recommendations. It is the view of the national patient safety team that further work on surgical fire prevention following the report is best developed alongside the wider national safety standards for invasive procedures. Those standards were created to support all aspects of patient safety in the surgical environment and are currently being led by the Centre for Perioperative Care, which is responsible for ensuring that national safety standards for invasive procedures continue to be fit for purpose.
Jim Shannon
I am very encouraged by the Minister’s response. I referred to four key recommendations, which she referred to. She also referred to the fact that there are ongoing negotiations and discussions with the expert group. Has there been an opportunity to push for those four key recommendations as part of the change that is needed?
Maria Caulfield
That is certainly an area that we can discuss further when we meet. I am very happy to do that. The hon. Gentleman is right that experts in this field are best placed to consider whether we have the right standards in place. Work is ongoing to ensure that the standards in place are the correct approach to minimise the risk of surgical fires happening in the first place and to advise the NHS on the issue.
The hon. Member for Strangford talked about the fire triangle of ignition, heat and oxygen. There are potential risk factors in all three of those areas that can make a fire more likely. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, we are working on learning lessons about where fires have happened, to make sure that we learn from those experiences.
In terms of the data, I am obviously concerned that there is no central record of how many surgical fires are taking place, but a new learn from patient safety events service is coming in next year and will better record patient safety events, improve data collection and help NHS trusts to collect the data, use it and learn from it. Although that is not specific to surgical fires, I am keen that fires in general, including surgical fires, are reduced as much as possible and that we learn from these events when they happen.
I am also keen that staff training is a priority. There is a legal duty on NHS trusts to ensure that their staff are trained in fire safety when first employed but also on an ongoing basis. Very often, particularly in theatre, new equipment comes in. The hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) talked about lasers and diathermy equipment. As those machines and that equipment are introduced and upgraded, it is important that staff are trained properly and are able to flag faults with the equipment and ensure that action is taken quickly, for a whole host of reasons. A theatre is a very risky place not just in terms of fire but for a number of reasons.
All colleagues touched on never events. By its very nature, a never event is something that should never happen, but there are not many classified never events if we look on the list. In theatre, there is a never event on swabs used in theatre procedures. We have very clear guidance and procedures in place when swabs are used—they are counted in and counted out to absolutely make sure that nothing is left behind after an operation. That is key.
Surgical fires are not a never event at the moment because there are no clear guidelines that staff can follow that can absolutely rule out any particular fire from happening. That is the crux of the matter. Fires should absolutely be preventable and we should learn the lessons when a surgical fire takes place, but we do not have the guidelines to be able to say to staff what has to be followed to absolutely prevent a fire from happening in the first place. When I meet the hon. Member for Strangford, we need to look at the guidelines and make sure they are coming forward. I have been informed by NHS England that it cannot classify surgical fires as a never event at the moment, until the national guidance or safety recommendations are in place. It has also confirmed that it always reviews any new guidance when it is published. That is the nub of the issue.
The shadow Minister touched on the Whipps Cross hospital renovation. Sadly, that is not in my portfolio, but it does come in the portfolio of the Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), so I will speak to him to try to get an update on progress.
In conclusion, I want to reassure the House that patient safety remains a top priority for the Government. The risk of surgical fire is a real issue, and surgical fires do put patients and staff at risk. The issue is taken very seriously by the Department, and work continues in this field to ensure that the correct guidance is there to minimise the risk of surgical fires occurring in the first place. I look forward to, hopefully, sharing some progress with Members in the new year.
I thank all Members and staff for their hard work this year. It has been a very tough year for everyone, so hopefully everyone will get to enjoy their Christmas. Like the shadow Minister, I also thank all the staff at the Department of Health and Social Care and across the NHS, who may be having a very tough Christmas this year, and I place on record our thanks and gratitude to them—their hard work has not gone unnoticed. With that, I thank everyone, and especially the hon. Member for Strangford for securing the debate.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Thank you for your remarks, Minister—they are much appreciated.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) for his contribution. He developed the debate in the way we hoped he would, referring to the strong evidential base, the urgent need and the update on progress, as well as patient safety and preventive action.
I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), in his place. I wish him well in his new role—I should have done that at the beginning, and I apologise for not doing it. Being the true MP that he is, he took the opportunity to make a mark for his constituency, as we all would, by the way—none of us misses that opportunity. I thank him for a very constructive contribution, in which he referred to the training that is needed now, the national guidelines and the never event. Incidents can be prevented—I think that is the thrust of the debate. I thank him for that and wish him well for the future in his new role.
I want to say a big thank you to the Minister, who clearly responded on the key issues. The first one, which is important in relation to the example I gave, was that if we get it wrong, we apologise and we change the system. That is a key issue. It is never hard to do, but sometimes difficulties seem to arise. I thank her for her comments on that. She also referred to the four key recommendations and the data to be collated. I thank her for agreeing to a meeting—we will do that.
On staff training, this is not just about patient safety; it is about the staff as well. On the never event, I think that that will be really important when the expert working group meets the Minister and her officials. For patients and staff, work continues to progress, and I very much thank the Minister for her constructive response to all three of us here today.
I take this opportunity to wish a merry Christmas and a happy new year to you, Ms Rees, to my colleagues the hon. Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and for Ilford North, and especially to the Minister and her Department. The Minister and I have worked together on many things, and we will work on many more if God spares us to the new year. Her Department, her Parliamentary Private Secretary—the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies)—and all the officials certainly make our jobs easier. We could not do this job without them.
I am a very simple person when it comes to these things. I wish to make progress and to do that alongside people. I never want to score a point—that is not my form. I think that we have made progress today and that we will make progress on other things in the new year, which I am looking forward to. Once again, I wish a merry Christmas and a happy new year to all of you and your families. I hope that we will see each other here on 5 January 2022.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his good wishes. I wish you all a merry Christmas too.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of preventing surgical fires in the NHS.
Written Statements
Independent Review of Construction Frameworks
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Steve Barclay)
My noble Friend the Minister for Efficiency and Transformation, Lord Agnew Kt, has today made the following written statement:
The Government have today published the “Independent Review of Construction Frameworks Report”. The review is a key part of implementing the Construction Playbook which was published in December 2020 to deliver the Government’s ambition of transforming how we assess, procure and deliver public works projects and programmes. This work has been led by Professor David Mosey of King’s College London and supported by the invaluable input of over 120 participants from across the construction industry and public sector. The recommendations in the review will help to ensure the principles of the Construction Playbook apply to the many projects that utilise commercial frameworks and not only those that run standalone procurement exercises. This will help change the face of the construction industry and enable better, faster and greener project outcomes.
The review reflects the Government’s focus on delivering for the taxpayer by getting projects right from the start, driving better outcomes and achieving a more productive and sustainable construction sector. It sets out the components of a gold standard framework that will help the Government to make informed procurement and contracting decisions. The report makes specific recommendations and highlights examples of good practice that provide value for money through reducing waste and supporting innovation.
Applying the gold standard will enable us to easily identify those frameworks which embody the policies and principles of best practice while providing a number of options to ensure competition and flexibility. This will be achieved through:
An outcome-based strategic approach that drives economic, social and environmental value;
Collaborative, multi-party relationships that align objectives, success measures, targets and incentives with commitments to jointly work on improving value and reducing risk;
Improved framework call-off systems, cost models and incentives that provide a fair return for suppliers and that drive value rather than a race to the bottom.
Construction is a key UK industry and we are committed to underpinning the economy through investing in infrastructure. By improving our approach to construction frameworks, we will progress towards a sustainable and more productive construction sector which benefits all of our citizens. A full list of the recommendations is available as part of the report published today on gov.uk.
A copy of the “Independent Review of Construction Frameworks Report” has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS502]
Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement 2022-23
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Michael Gove)
Introduction
Today, I have set out the provisional local government finance settlement for 2022-23. This is a settlement that, at a national level, makes available an additional £3.5 billion to councils, an increase in local authority funding for 2022-23 of over 4% in real terms. This will ensure councils across the country have the resources they need to deliver key services.
The proposals I am announcing today focus on providing stability by:
Making available up to £3.5 billion more funding for councils across England compared to 2021-22. Overall, this means up to £53.9 billion of funding available for core services.
Providing a new, one-off 2022-23 services grant worth £822 million.
Striking a balance on council tax that helps councils invest in the services they provide to residents while protecting hard-working taxpayers from unfair hikes in rates, with a 2% core referendum threshold and 1% of additional flexibility for councils with adult social care responsibilities.
Making available over £1 billion of additional funding for social care.
Alongside this settlement, the Government will be providing further support to local communities through: £2.6 billion of UK shared prosperity funding, which helps people access opportunities in places in need; a £4.8 billion levelling up fund, which seeks to level up the country by investing in infrastructure that improves everyday life across the UK; and a further £2 billion of investment across the next three years to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.
2022-23 services grant
Local government delivers a range of services that are at the core of every community.
I therefore propose to create a one-off 2022-23 services grant worth £822 million that will be distributed through our existing settlement funding assessment. We will then take the time to fully consider its future distribution in consultation with councils.
This funding would be excluded from any proposed baseline for transitional support as a result of any proposed system changes.
Adults’ and children’s social care
The Government are committed to ensuring local government has the resources it needs to support the most vulnerable through adult and children’s social care.
I propose, therefore, allocating £700 million of new grant funding going to social care. This means:
£636 million more into the social care grant, including funding for equalisation against the 1% adult social care precept.
providing an inflationary uplift to support integrated working with the NHS.
Local authorities can make use of over £1 billion of additional resource specifically for social care in 2022-23. This includes the increase in social care grant and the improved better care fund, a 1% adult social care precept and deferred flexibilities from last year’s settlement.
For many councils, adults’ and children’s social care are key priorities and the largest areas of spending. Councils are not expected to rely solely on this earmarked funding to meet the inflationary and demographic pressures facing these services; they also have access to funding from un-ringfenced grant, including the 2022-23 services grant, and from council tax.
On top of this funding to address core pressures, £162 million in adult social care reform funding will be allocated in 2022-23 to support local authorities as they prepare their markets for adult social care reform and to help move towards paying a fair cost of care. The funding made available to councils means overall local government core spending power can increase by over 4% in real terms in 2022-23, including the investment in adult social care reform.
Council tax
This Government recognise the importance of high-quality local services and believes in empowering local decision makers to shape thriving communities. This includes ensuring they have the flexibility to generate their own income through council tax, while protecting residents from excessive increases.
I have proposed the following package of referendum principles for 2022-23:
A core council tax referendum principle of up to 2% for shire counties, unitary authorities, London boroughs, the Greater London Authority (GLA) and fire and rescue authorities.
A principle of up to 2% or £5, whichever is higher, for shire district councils
An adult social care (ASC) precept of 1% for all authorities responsible for ASC.
The ability to add up to an additional 3% of unused ASC precept from 2021-22.
A £5 referendum principle for the eight lowest-charging fire and rescue authorities.
A referendum principle of £10 for police and crime commissioners (PCCs), including the GLA charge for the Metropolitan Police and the PCC component of the Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire Mayoral precepts.
No other council tax referendum principles for Mayoral Combined Authorities (MCAs) and no council tax referendum principles for town and parish councils.
The Government’s manifesto commits to continuing to protect local taxpayers from excessive council tax increases, and it is for the House of Commons to set an annual threshold at which a council tax referendum is triggered. This is an additional local democratic check and balance to avoid the repeat seen under the last Labour Government when council tax more than doubled.
This package of referendum principles strikes a fair balance. The council tax referendum provisions are not a cap, nor do they force councils to set taxes at the threshold level.
Councillors, Mayors and police and crime commissioners and local councils will rightly want to consider the financial needs of local residents at this challenging point in time, alongside the public’s support for action on keeping our streets safe and providing key services.
Stability of funding
Through this package we are providing local authorities with a firm foundation for funding throughout 2022-23. This means we are proposing to roll over much of the 2021-22 local government finance settlement, including:
Rolling over the current approach to the new homes bonus worth £554 million.
Keeping the rural services delivery grant at £85 million.
Maintaining the lower tier services grant at £111 million with an updated cash terms funding floor.
Increasing the revenue support grant in line with inflation; an increase of £70 million.
Continuing with the 100% retention authorities in the five devolution deal areas and 67% for Greater London overall.
Updating the system
The Government are committed to ensuring that funding allocations for councils are based on an up-to-date assessment of their needs and resources. The data used to assess this has not been updated in a number of years, dating from 2013-14 to a large degree, and even as far back as 2000. Over the coming months, we will work closely with the sector and other stakeholders to update this and to look at the challenges and opportunities facing the sector before consulting on any potential changes.
As part of this we will look at options to support local authorities through transitional protection. Councils should note the one-off 2022-23 services grant provided in the local government finance settlement in 2022-23 will be excluded from potential transitional protections.
Conclusion
In outlining these proposals, my priority is to provide stability in the immediate term so I can work closely with local government and other partners on options to update our assessment of local authority needs and resources. I welcome representations from all interested parties on the four-week consultation we have launched today.
The consultation can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/provisional-local-government-finance-settlement-2022-to-2023-consultation (www.gov.uk).
[HCWS510]
Nuclear Third Party Liability Framework
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)
Today I am notifying Parliament of the ratification of the 2004 protocols to amend the convention on third party liability in the field of nuclear energy (the “Paris convention”) and the convention supplementary to the Paris convention (the “Brussels convention”) (together the “2004 protocols”) that will come into force on 1 January 2022. The 2004 protocols were laid before Parliament in September 2015 under cover of miscellaneous series 6 (2015), Command Paper 9135 and miscellaneous series 7 (2015), Command Paper 9136 respectively.
The Paris and Brussels conventions are implemented domestically through the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. This has been amended prospectively by the Nuclear Installations (Liability for Damage) Order 2016 to implement the 2004 protocols. Ratification of the 2004 protocols will trigger the remainder of the 2016 Order coming into force in the UK on 1 January 2022.
Nuclear has a key role to play in our transition to net zero by 2050. Nuclear safety and regulation are of paramount importance and the risk of any accidents in the UK remain very low. Nevertheless, ratification of the 2004 protocols mean that in the highly unlikely event of an incident, an increased level of compensation would be available to victims and the period during which claims can be brought would be extended. The 2004 protocols, once in force, increase operator liability in the event of a nuclear incident from the current €140 million to a maximum of €1.2 billion over a period of five years and extend the period for which claims can be made from 10 to 30 years.
The Government recognise that in the short term, there is a gap in the insurance market. Therefore, the Government have agreed initially to provide an indemnity, for a charge, to cover increased personal injury liabilities for the 10 to 30 year period. For each individual site, the maximum HMG liability is between €70 million and €160 million depending on the site's classification, operator’s uptake of the indemnity, and whether transit of nuclear material takes place. The indemnity will be reviewed annually to ensure that it remains the best value for money option. In relation to this, I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute giving notice of the Department incurring this contingent liability.
Additionally, the Government are also providing an indemnity to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA). The NDA are a non-departmental public body who are responsible for the decommissioning of several civil nuclear facilities, and who will be required to have appropriate cover in place. This creates a maximum contingent liability of €700 million in the first year, rising to €1.2billion for the Government per site over a five year period.
We also intend to build on our well established nuclear third party liability regime by seeking accession to the convention on supplementary compensation for nuclear damage (the “CSC”), by working with the International Atomic Energy Agency (“IAEA”) as depository for the CSC, and legislating when parliamentary time allows. Accession to the CSC would expand the number of countries to which the principles of channelling liability to the operator, and capping that liability, apply. This further improves the investment climate for new nuclear in the UK, without placing any additional burden of liability for developers or operators. In the event of a nuclear incident in a country that is party to the CSC, the UK would contribute an amount to the shared international fund, based on its installed capacity and UN contributions at the time. Similarly, in the events of an incident in the UK, we would be able to draw on these pooled CSC funds.
[HCWS504]
Future Nuclear Deterrent Annual Update 2021
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
On 18 May 2011, the then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), made an oral statement to the House (Official Report, column 351) announcing the approval of the initial gate investment stage for the procurement of the successor to the Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines. He also placed in the Library of the House a report “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: The Submarine Initial Gate Parliamentary Report”.
As confirmed in the 2021 integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy, this Government have committed to publishing an annual report on the programme. I am today publishing the ninth report, “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: 2021 Update to Parliament”.
A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-12-16/HCWS506/.
[HCWS506]
School and Early Years Funding
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
Today I am confirming schools, high needs and early years revenue funding allocations for 2022-23. This announcement covers the dedicated schools grant (DSG), the pupil premium, and supplementary funding to allocate an additional £1.6 billion announced at the spending review.
Overall, taking the DSG allocations and the supplementary funding together, core schools funding is increasing by £4 billion in 2022-23—a 5% increase in real terms per pupil from 2021-22. This includes an increase in mainstream school funding, for the five to 16 age group, of £2.5 billion. This is equivalent to a 5.8%, or £300, cash increase in funding per pupil on average. Every local authority area is forecast to see an above-inflation increase in mainstream school funding, with each local authority seeing at least a 4.7% increase per pupil.
Nationally, high needs funding, including the supplementary funding, is increasing by over £1 billion (13%).
In July 2021, the then Minister of State for Schools informed Parliament of the publication of primary and secondary units of funding for the schools block of the DSG, and the provisional allocations for the high needs block and central school services block. These have now been updated with the latest pupil numbers to show how much each local authority will receive in 2022-23.
For early years, we are announcing initial allocations for local authorities of £3.6 billion for 2022-23 based on the early years hourly funding rates that were published on 25 November 2021. These initial allocations will be updated later using census data from January 2022 and January 2023.
The DSG also includes funding for the Department’s safety valve intervention programme, which targets the local authorities with the highest DSG deficits, accumulated where LAs have struggled to manage their high needs systems within their allocated funding. With £150 million of additional funding secured through the spending review, we are expanding this programme in 2022-23 to target more local authorities with the highest deficits, to rapidly secure the sustainable management of their high-needs systems and reduce their deficits. This expansion will sit as part of a new, wider programme of intervention and support for local authorities, including the Delivering Better Value in SEND programme, which will provide some support with attached funding to help more local authorities with less substantial deficits to establish sustainable and effective practice in managing their high needs systems. I will announce further detail about the Delivering Better Value in SEND programme in due course.
In addition to the DSG, mainstream schools will receive a supplementary grant in 2022-23 worth £1.2 billion. For early years and post-16 provision, the grant is being provided in respect of the health and social care levy. For primary and secondary provision, the grant is being provided in respect of both the health and social care levy and other cost pressures, giving schools the resources they need to raise attainment, increase teacher pay and continue to rise to the challenges of covid response and recovery.
Today I am announcing how that supplementary grant will be allocated. Mainstream schools will get:
A lump sum of £3,680 for schools that have primary and/ or secondary provision. (Schools with only early years or post-16 provision will not receive this lump sum.)
£24 per pupil for their early years provision
£35 per pupil for their post-16 provision
£97 per pupil in primary
£137 per pupil in key stage 3
£155 per pupil in key stage 4
Additional funding of £85 per primary pupil and £124 per secondary pupil who are recorded as having been eligible for free school meals at any point in the last six years (FSM6).
The grant rates will be uplifted with area cost adjustments for schools in areas with higher wage costs.
Special schools and other providers funded from the high needs block of the DSG will benefit from an additional £325 million in 2022-23, through a top up to the DSG allocations referred to above. This is an increase of 4% to the allocations announced in July 2021.
This core schools funding comes alongside the Government’s investment totalling nearly £5 billion, up to 2024-25, to help children and young people recover from the impact of the pandemic, which includes spending £1.5 billion on a national tutoring revolution in schools and colleges.
Funding for disadvantaged pupils: the pupil premium
The pupil premium provides additional funding to schools to improve educational outcomes for disadvantaged pupils. Today, I am announcing that pupil premium rates in 2022-23 will increase by 2.7%, in line with forecast inflation as published by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) at the 2021 spending review. This will ensure that this targeted investment continues to support the most disadvantaged children in our schools.
With the increased funding rates, total pupil premium funding is forecast to be its highest ever, in cash terms, in 2022-23. Total pupil premium funding is forecast to increase to over £2.6 billion in 2022-23 (up from £2.5 billion in 2021-22, and from £600 million when the pupil premium was introduced in 2011-12). Funding rates in 2022-23 will be the highest ever in cash terms, with primary pupils who have been eligible for FSM at a point over the past six years attracting £1,385, and secondary FSM6 pupils attracting £985. This means that, compared to when the pupil premium was introduced in 2011, funding rates are now almost £900 higher in cash terms for primary FSM6 pupils, and almost £500 higher for secondary pupils. The Department for Education continues to ensure that all schools must have regard to high-quality evidence-based interventions when deciding how best to support eligible pupils.
[HCWS508]
Adult Social Care Funding and Reform
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
As set out in our adult social care reform White Paper, “People at the Heart of Care”, on 1 December 2021, the Government are committed to a wide-ranging and ambitious reform of the adult social care system.
To make social care fairer, we are protecting people from unpredictable care costs, are supporting local authorities to move towards paying a fair cost of care to providers and ensuring that more self-funders will be able to ask their local authority to arrange their care for them to give them a choice of better-value care.
To move us towards the 10-year vision for reform set out in “People at the Heart of Care”, the Government are today publishing the “Fair Cost of Care and Market Sustainability Fund: Purpose and Conditions for 2022-23”. This sets out how the Government will provide £1.4 billion over the next three years to support local authorities to prepare markets for reform and move towards paying providers a fair cost of care. This breaks down into £162 million in 2022-23 and £600 million in both 2023-24 and 2024-25.
Some local authorities are promoting efficient and effective operation of care markets, with sustainable rates of care. However, a significant number of local authorities are paying residential and home care providers less than it costs to deliver the care received. In many areas, this has resulted in higher self-funder fees which we are addressing by further bringing into effect section 18(3) of the Care Act 2014. The market effect of this change will be that some providers will over time need to reduce reliance on subsidising state-funded care from self-funders. This £1.4 billion will enable local authorities to ensure local care markets can respond to the changes reform will bring and will also help to address under-investment and poor workforce practices.
It is important this additional funding reaches the places and parts of the social care system that need it most. The Government propose to distribute 2022-23 funding on the basis of the adult social care relative needs formula, as is used for the social care grant. Local authority level allocations for 2022-23 have been published alongside the provisional local government finance settlement.
Today my Department is publishing a policy statement that sets out:
Funding conditions for 2022-23
As a condition of receiving further grant funding in the two following years, we will expect local authorities to conduct cost of care exercises, set out their plans for driving market sustainability, including progress towards a fair cost of care, and to report to DHSC on how funding is being used. The Department will use this information to monitor progress and provide public assurance that local markets are being managed successfully.
Practical guidance and support tools
From January 2022, we will work closely with the sector to develop a practical support offer for those local authorities who may require it to meet the funding conditions. This includes guidance and templates on cost of care exercises; workshops, webinars and market shaping tools.
The funding and conditions set out in this statement today are part of the new health and care levy announced in September this year, of which £5.4 billion is being invested into adult social care over the next three years.
We will work closely with local government to determine appropriate grant conditions, national guidance and distribution mechanisms for funding allocations in 2023-24 and 2024-25.
Beyond this additional £1.4 billion, we are proposing today in the provisional local government finance settlement to make available over £1 billion of additional funding for social care in 2022- 23.
Councils are not expected to rely solely on this earmarked funding to meet the inflationary and demographic pressures facing these services; they also have access to funding from unringfenced grant, including the 2022-23 services grant, and from council tax. The funding available to councils means overall local government core spending power will increase by over 4% in real terms in 2022-23, including the investment in adult social care reform.
Today’s publication is a further milestone on the Government’s journey to reform adult social care, creating a system that is fit for the future and of which we can all be proud.
[HCWS509]
David Fuller Case: Update on Actions
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
Yesterday, David Fuller was sentenced at Maidstone Crown court for the murders of Wendy Knell and Caroline Pierce, as well as over 100 sexual offences in a mortuary, and several other sexual offences.
This is a profoundly distressing case and I would like to reiterate my apologies to the friends and families of all of David Fuller’s victims. While nothing can undo the damage that has been done, he has been brought to justice for his crimes.
I would like to provide an update on the steps we are taking to ensure something like this never happens again.
First, all NHS trusts have undertaken risk assessments on their mortuary and body store facilities and assured their practices against existing Human Tissue Authority guidance. NHS England and Improvement is working with all trusts to ensure that the additional steps already requested are in place early in the new year, if they have not already been delivered.
Secondly, we have made good progress in establishing the independent inquiry chaired by Sir Jonathan Michael to look into the circumstances surrounding the offences committed at the hospital. It will help us understand how these offences took place without detection, identify any areas where swift action is necessary and consider wider national issues, including for the NHS. Sir Jonathan has developed draft terms of reference and will seek views on these from families who have been affected in the new year before they are published.
Next, Ministers have received initial advice from the Human Tissue Authority and they will be reviewing this carefully.
Finally, families have quite understandably approached the trust seeking compensation. I have asked NHS Resolution to work with the trust and engage on plans for providing settlements. More details will be set out on this soon.
[HCWS505]
Independent Inquiry Report into Issues Raised by Former Surgeon Ian Paterson
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
On 4 February 2020, the independent inquiry into the issues raised by the disgraced surgeon Ian Paterson published its report, which was welcomed by the Government. On 28 April 2020, we reluctantly announced a delay in the Government response due to the unprecedented pressures of the covid-19 pandemic. On 23 March 2021, we provided an update on the progress made and committed to publishing a full response during 2021. Today, the Government have published that response.
We want to thank the Right Reverend Bishop Graham James and the inquiry team for their thorough report which provides a detailed analysis of the issues which allowed this malpractice to take place and recommends steps to better protect patients moving forward.
Our thanks also go to the patients who shared their experiences with the inquiry and to their representatives who subsequently continued to engage with the Government through the process of preparing this response. Patient voices have rightly been central to this entire process.
The Government’s response
The inquiry’s findings point to several important themes where action is needed to improve protections for patients being given hospital-based care—whether in the NHS or independent sector. These actions must improve the way our health system works for patients at every stage of their treatment journey.
The health system has to provide patient-centred information to enable patients, their families and carers to make informed decisions about their treatment and care. Medical practitioners should face regular challenge to improve the standard of care they provide as part of their overall learning and development, with concerns about their practice from any source heard and acted upon. There must be accountability across the healthcare system, ensuring quality of service from the frontline to the boardroom. Finally, when things do go wrong, patients must have the confidence that the entire system will work to put things right—meeting the needs of the patient and learning the lessons to prevent the same mistakes being repeated.
Working with patients and stakeholders, we have carefully considered all 15 recommendations the inquiry made for improving the health system. We are accepting 12 of these recommendations either in full or in principle with a further one recommendation still pending. There is one recommendation we are not accepting but keeping under review and one recommendation that we do not accept. Whether we are accepting the recommendation or not, we are taking action to improve healthcare against every recommendation.
The response outlines actions which have been taken since Ian Paterson’s malpractice came to light, in addition to detailing 40 actions for our further implementation plan. The Government will review the progress made in this implementation in a further publication after 12 months to ensure adequate action has been taken and update where additional action is planned.
Recommendation 1
Recommendation 1 calls for a single repository of the whole practice of consultants in England containing critical consultant performance data. This would be made accessible for use by both managers and healthcare professionals, and by members of the public. We accept this recommendation in principle. A significant amount of progress has been made on the collection of consultant performance data in both the NHS and independent sector. We commit to making more progress on the collection of data, use of the information it allows us to develop, and the publication of useful metrics. In 2018, the acute data alignment programme was launched to move towards a common set of standards for data collection and reporting across the NHS and independent sector. This brings together data collection through NHS Digital, with the use and processing of this data in parallel in the NHS and independent sector through the national consultant information programme (NCIP) and the private healthcare information network (PHIN). This is currently in pilot, with the potential to be fully implemented, dependent on the results of that pilot, in 2022-23. This data will be made available for managers and healthcare professionals across the system to support learning and identify outliers. PHIN is already mandated to publish information on consultant practice in the independent sector and will be continuing to roll out the publication of further metrics in the coming years. Over the next 12 months, we commit to reaching a decision with key stakeholders on what further information should be made publicly available and whether further Government action will be needed to achieve this.
Recommendation 2
Recommendation 2 asks that it become standard practice for consultants to write directly to patients about their treatment and care in language they can understand. We are pleased to accept this recommendation. Guidance across the system makes clear that this is best practice and a range of key stakeholders have agreed to write to their members to encourage the uptake of this advice. We will continue to explore with providers how their systems can change to embed this process and to monitor that best practice is being followed.
Recommendation 3
Recommendation 3 requires the publication of information explaining the differences in how care is organised in the NHS and the independent sector, so that patients can make informed decisions. We have accepted this recommendation. We will be commissioning the production of this independent information, to be created in partnership with patients, families and carers. This will be published in 2022 and made widely accessible.
Recommendation 4
Recommendation 4 calls for the introduction of a short waiting period in the decision-making process for surgical procedures, to enable reflection on the diagnosis and treatment options. We are accepting this recommendation in principle. While a specific period for general surgery is not being introduced, as the time required will depend on the patient and the procedure in question, the General Medical Council has updated its guidance to confirm that patients should be given sufficient time to consider their options before making decisions about treatments. During appraisals, doctors must demonstrate they are meeting the principles set out in GMC’s “Good Medical Practice”, and CQC takes all GMC guidance into account during its assessments across the NHS and independent sector.
Recommendation 5
Recommendation 5 relates to multi-disciplinary teams, asking CQC to assure that all hospital providers are complying effectively with national MDT guidance. We have accepted this recommendation. CQC has added more detailed prompts to its inspection framework on multidisciplinary team working. When assessing providers across the NHS and independent sector, CQC will continue to seek assurance that patients are not at risk of harm due to non-compliance in this area.
Recommendation 6
We have considered recommendation 6, which relates to complaints processes, in two parts. The first part calls for more effective communication to patients of the means to escalate a complaint to an independent body. We have accepted this part of the recommendation. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is piloting the NHS complaints standards which set out in one place the ways in which the NHS should handle complaints. This includes the need for organisations to ensure people know how to escalate a complaint to the ombudsman. These have been developed with the Independent Sector Complaints Adjudication Service, ISCAS, who have included it in their code of practice.
The second part of recommendation 6 proposes that all private patients are given the right to mandatory independent resolution of their complaints. We have accepted this part in principle. CQC will strengthen its guidance to make clearer that it expects to see arrangements in place for patients to access independent complaints resolution. We will review the impact of this guidance in the coming year and will explore whether legislative action is needed, if insufficient action is taken.
Recommendations 7 and 8
Recommendations 7 and 8 both relate to the recall of patients of Ian Paterson by providers—University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and Spire Healthcare. These recommendations have already been accepted in full. UHB has contacted all known living patients of Ian Paterson and ensured that all cases had been reviewed by June 2021. Spire had proactively contacted all known living patients by December 2020 and have now reviewed the care of over two-thirds of the patients concerned. We have asked Spire to provide an update on progress in 12 months on reviewing the remaining patients.
Recommendation 9
Recommendation 9 calls for a national framework to be developed for the recall of patients. We have accepted this recommendation. This framework has been developed and outlines actions to be taken by organisations in the NHS and independent sector in the event that a patient recall is necessary. This framework will be published in 2022 and will be owned by the National Quality Board, who will ensure it is periodically updated.
Recommendation 10
Recommendation 10 relates to indemnity products for healthcare professionals and asks for the shortcomings in clinical negligence cover identified by the inquiry to be resolved. The outcome of this recommendation is pending. We recognise that a system needs to be in place to ensure that patients have confidence that they can access compensation if harmed while receiving care, and we will bring forward proposals in 2022. These proposals will build on the consultation at the end of 2018 on “Appropriate clinical negligence cover” for regulated healthcare professionals. The summary of responses to this consultation will be published in early 2022. We have put forward an extended programme of actions in our response to work towards change in this area, and we will ensure any reforms are robust, meeting the needs of both patients and professionals, before implementing them.
Recommendation 11
Recommendation 11 calls for the Government to ensure that the system of regulation in healthcare serves patient safety, that regulators collaborate effectively and that weaknesses identified by the inquiry are resolved. We are accepting this recommendation. The healthcare regulators referenced in the Paterson inquiry (the GMC, Nursing and Midwifery Council, and CQC) exist to protect patient safety and this is reflected in their new corporate strategies. They have also taken a number of actions to encourage collaboration and information sharing between organisations. The Government’s consultation on “Regulating Healthcare Professionals, Protecting the Public” sets out proposals which address issues raised by the inquiry, including a proposed duty to co-operate for all regulators. We plan to bring forward legislation in relation to the GMC in 2022.
Recommendation 12
We have considered recommendation 12 in two parts. The first part required that any investigation of a healthcare professional’s behaviour should result in a suspension, if there is any perceived risk to patient safety. We have not accepted this recommendation. Exclusion and restriction of practice can be a necessary and appropriate response during an investigation in some instances. However, we do not believe it would be fair or appropriate to impose this step as a blanket rule in all cases. It is vital that investigations are robust and conducted in a timely manner. Guidance has been implemented in recent years to ensure concerns are taken seriously and appropriate action taken, including clear advice on when exclusion is the right step to take.
The second part of recommendation 12 proposes that any concerns about a healthcare professional at one provider should be shared with other providers they work with. We accept this recommendation in principle. Where patient safety is at risk, information should be shared. Providers must use their judgement, though, as they are taking on responsibility to ensure the information is appropriate and accurate when shared. Regulators have taken key steps to make it easier for people and organisations to share information regarding patient safety risks.
Recommendation 13
Recommendation 13 identifies a specific issue relating to the engagement of consultants through practising privileges in the independent sector. This is where the consultant is self-employed and allowed to work in the hospital’s facilities, rather than employed by the hospital. In the case of Ian Paterson, this led to a gap in responsibility and liability for the consultant’s actions. The inquiry reported the impression that private providers were just renting consultants a room, and claims for compensation took significant time and effort from patients to resolve. We accept this recommendation in principle. Independent sector providers must take responsibility for the quality of care provided in their facilities, regardless of how the consultants are engaged. The Independent Healthcare Providers Network published the medical practitioners assurance framework in 2019 to improve consistency around effective clinical governance in the independent sector. We encourage all private providers to take up this framework, and CQC will continue to assess the strength of clinical governance in all providers as part of its inspection activity. We will be using the response to recommendation 10 on indemnity products and the programme of action laid out there as the initial response to the challenges faced by patients of Ian Paterson in accessing compensation. We will additionally keep the potential liability held by providers in the independent sector under review.
Recommendation 14
Recommendation 14 says that apologies should be given at the earliest stage of investigation when something goes wrong, and that potential liability should not hold anyone back from apologising. We accept this recommendation. Healthcare organisations have a statutory duty of candour—which sets out specific requirements providers must follow when things go wrong with care and treatment, including providing truthful information and an apology. This duty is regulated by CQC. NHS Resolution consistently advises members to apologise when things go wrong and that this has no impact on potential legal liability. We continue to ensure this guidance is promoted.
Recommendation 15
Finally, recommendation 15 says that private providers should not be eligible for NHS contracted work unless they have implemented all the other accepted recommendations from this response across the entirety of their workload. We are not accepting this recommendation, but will keep it under review. Across all the issues raised in this inquiry report, independent sector providers are fully committed to implementing changes alongside NHS providers. These providers must meet the same regulatory standards as NHS providers, as required by CQC. Independent providers must meet the conditions of the NHS provider license and the NHS standard contract to be able to deliver NHS-funded treatment. Accepting this recommendation would create a duty on the NHS which would need to be carefully implemented to ensure it could be monitored effectively and would not reduce the capacity available to the NHS for providing care—particularly given the numbers of patients waiting for treatment as a result of the pandemic. We do, however, recognise the importance of ensuring change takes place. We will continue to work with the independent sector to implement the changes related to the inquiry’s recommendations and will review progress in 12-months’ time. We commit to taking robust action should progress not meet our expectations.
This response forms part of the Government’s broader commitment to patient safety, including our response to the independent medicines and medical devices safety review as previously published and the measures included in the Health and Care Bill.
Copies of the Government’s full response will be laid before the House and will be available from the Vote Office and at: https://www.gov.uk.
[HCWS499]
Medicine Supplies to Northern Ireland
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Under the Northern Ireland protocol (NIP), medicines moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland are required to comply with the EU pharmaceutical acquis. This creates a number of additional and duplicative regulatory barriers which risk the continuity of supply for medicines moving into NI.
Negotiations are under way to seek a bilateral agreement with the EU to tackle these problems. In order to support this, it is essential that we do everything we can to ensure that our regulations are fit for purpose, regardless of the outcome of these negotiations, and that the supply of medicines to patients in Northern Ireland is not put at risk.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and officials from my own Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC), have been working closely with officials from the Northern Ireland Department of Health (DHNI) in recent months to design a robust contingency measure which can be operational, if necessary, to support the flow of medicines into Northern Ireland from 1 January 2022.
Today the UK Government will be introducing a statutory instrument titled the Human Medicines (Amendment) (Supply to Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 to establish the Northern Ireland MHRA Authorised Route (NIMAR).
NIMAR provides a route for the lawful supply of prescription only medicines that are unlicensed in NI, where no licensed alternative is available. This route will be tightly governed, with all medicines supplied via NIMAR already complying with the strong regulatory safeguards required for a product to enter the GB market. All medicines supplied this way into Northern Ireland will meet the MHRA’s robust standards that are in place for the rest of the UK.
Supply using the NIMAR route will be closely monitored by DHSC, in partnership with officials at DHNI. It will only be used where clinical need cannot be met by a licensed alternative, in the interests of public health.
It will allow citizens in NI to continue to access the prescription only medications that they require for their individual treatment.
The required statutory instrument will be laid before the house today, along with the accompanying explanatory memorandum, and I invite members to refer to this for more detail on the functionality and detail of NIMAR.
[HCWS507]
Interpol General Assembly
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
Interpol’s 89th General Assembly took place in Istanbul, Turkey between 23-25 November, during which elections took place for the role of Interpol president and membership of the executive committee.
The General Assembly voted to elect the UAE candidate, Major General Al-Raisi, as Interpol president for a period of four years, on a majority of 104 to 47. Voting was conducted in secret.
The UK candidate for election to the executive committee, Deputy Chief Constable Will Kerr of Police Scotland, was also elected, and will take a seat alongside Turkey and Spain to represent the European region in Interpol for a period of three years. In addition, a UK lawyer, Ms Susie Alegre, was elected to the Requests Chamber of the Commission for the Control of Files (CCF).
Interpol remains a vital tool for UK law enforcement in tackling international crime worldwide and we will work with the newly elected executive committee to ensure that it continues to operate in accordance with its constitution and with full respect for human rights obligations.
[HCWS501]
Provisional Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2022-23
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today published the provisional police grant report (England and Wales) 2022-23. The report sets out the Home Secretary’s determination for 2022-23 of the aggregate amount of grants that she proposes to pay under section 46(2) of the Police Act 1996. A copy of the report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Today the Government are setting out the provisional police funding settlement in Parliament for the 2022-23 financial year. Overall funding for policing will rise by up to £1.1 billion compared with the 2021-22 funding settlement, bringing the total up to £16.9 billion. Within this, funding to police and crime commissioners (PCCs) will increase by up to an additional £796 million, assuming full take-up of precept flexibility. This would represent an increase to PCC funding in cash terms of 5.8% on top of the 2021-22 police funding settlement.1
This Government are absolutely committed to keeping the public safe; the police have a critical role to play in this, and in reducing crime. We are determined to strengthen our police service and, by providing a three-year spending review settlement, we are giving the police the financial certainty and stability needed for longer-term, strategic reforms. We have confirmed total grant funding for police forces for the next three years, with increases of £550 million in 2022-23, at least £650 million in 2023-24 and no less than £800 million in 2024-25. In addition, PCCs will have up to £10 of precept flexibility in each of the next three years to use according to their local needs.
With this substantial investment, this settlement supports the police to:
1. Successfully complete the 20,000 officer police uplift programme by March 2023, building on the outstanding progress to date.
2. Accelerate progress on the Government’s key policing priorities: reducing crime, ensuring the criminal justice system works for all, driving forward improvements in the service the public receive, and transforming critical capabilities and infrastructure.
3. Ensure an increase in productivity using enhanced technology and investigative tools. In return for this significant investment, we expect police leaders to become more efficient and effective with officers’ time, and in the fight against national threats.
Recruitment
This Government are delivering on their commitment to recruit 20,000 additional police officers, and the three-year spending review settlement gives the police the investment and financial certainty they need for this. We have already invested significantly in increasing the number of police officers, providing £700 million in 2020-21 and a further £425 million in 2021-22. Forces have leaned in to this commitment, and as at the end of September, over 11,000 officers have been recruited, 55% of our 20,000 target. As a result of this policing is more diverse than ever. Since April 2020, more than four in 10 new recruits were female and 11.4% identified as belonging to a black, Asian, mixed or other minority ethnic groups. Good progress is also being made on deployments into regional organised crime units. Forces are recruiting officers to support deployments across the policing system, and we expect this growth to be seen over the spending review period. Forces must not be complacent in their efforts to ensure policing is open to all in modern Britain and to bring in the best talent from across their local communities.
For 2022-23, PCCs will receive an additional £550 million of Government grants which include funding for the recruitment of the final 8,000 additional officers, and continued growth in police staff to support officers, by the end of March 2023. To ensure recruitment is maintained, £135 million of the grant increase will be ringfenced and allocated in line with funding formula shares. As in previous years, PCCs will be able to access this as they progress towards their recruitment target.
Building on the commitments in the beating crime plan, we are continuing to strengthen capability to confront serious and organised crime. Therefore, 425 officers will be deployed into regional organised crime units and equivalent capability in London. Recruitment allocations for year three of the programme are set out in the tables attached to this statement.
Precept
Spending review 2021 confirmed that PCCs will be empowered to raise additional funding through precept flexibility. We propose to enable PCCs to increase their band D precept by up to £10 in each of the next three years without the need to call for a local referendum, the equivalent of less than £1 per month. If all PCCs decide to maximise their flexibility, this would result in up to £246 million additional funding for local policing next year. It is for locally accountable PCCs to take decisions on local precept.
Counter-terrorism policing
The Government will continue to provide vital support for counter-terrorism (CT) policing, ensuring they have the resources they need to meet and deal with the threats we face. For the first time, CT police funding will total over £1 billion in 2022-23. This significant investment will aid in supporting the ongoing CT policing investigations to keep the country safe, and includes continued funding for both armed policing and the CT operations centre. The funding includes the transfer of £44 million for special branch from core PCC budgets to the CT policing grant, protecting local CT assets while providing forces with greater access to specialist expertise and resources to keep our citizens safe from harm.
PCCs will be notified separately of force-level funding allocations for CT policing, which will not be made public for security reasons.
National priorities
This Government will continue to support PCCs and forces through increased investment in national policing priorities. This settlement provides £1.4 billion for the following national priorities in 2022-23 (as set out at tables 1 and 5):
Maintaining our focus on cutting crime to make communities safer, we are continuing to invest in critical priority areas. This includes drugs and county lines activity, violent crime reduction, child sexual abuse and exploitation, fraud, and modern slavery. Next year we will see:
Further investment in law enforcement intelligence and investigation capacity, taking these capabilities one step closer to intercepting the rise of economic crime.
Regional organised crime units equipped with the capabilities they need to tackle serious and organised crime and protect the most vulnerable citizens from abuse, building on the provision of more officers through the uplift programme.
A national crime laboratory to drive the use of innovative data science techniques to prevent and reduce crime.
This Government recognise that transparency, governance and accountability have a key role to play in building public confidence in the criminal justice system. This settlement will enable us to:
Fulfil key commitments from the rape review, including the expansion of Operation Soteria to additional pilot areas to test innovative ways for the police and CPS to investigate rape cases.
Deliver on our commitment to ensure that no victim of rape and serious sexual assault is left without a mobile phone for more than 24 hours and explore how we can further exploit technological advancements and new ways of working to improve investigation outcomes.
Drive improvements in local police performance, including measuring responsiveness to 101 and 999 calls and providing a peer support function through the College of Policing for poor performing forces.
We must ensure that there is no place left for criminals to hide that carry out serious and organised crime and rely on sophisticated digital communications to evade detection. That is why this Government will be:
Investing in a set of critical investigative tools to help deliver the drugs supply attack plan and support a range of other national priority threats. These tools will provide better-quality intelligence, expand law enforcement’s ability to tackle international crime networks, homicide and neighbourhood crime, and boost prosecution rates against high-harm offenders.
Providing greater investment in tackling fraud and improving the way in which intelligence on firearms is collected and managed.
This settlement also includes continued investment in major law enforcement programmes, and other critical national police and law enforcement IT capabilities. This Government will invest in:
Strengthening the ability to share, analyse and act on all available intelligence data to counter drugs, county lines and other high harm offences.
Collaborating with industry to leverage technology in support of safeguarding the vulnerable.
Simplifying the technological capabilities that are delivered so that they can be easily adopted and exploited by operational users.
The Government expect PCCs to continue to take responsibility for crime outcomes both locally and nationally, and we will support PCCs and forces to deliver well-evidenced crime interventions as part of their core business. The spending review has provided £150 million of Government funding for crime reduction in each of the next three years, which will allow the continuation of existing programmes as well as some new investments to prevent crime and keep our communities safe.
We will confirm funding arrangements for specific crime reduction programmes in due course. These will follow a match-funding principle where funding for local intervention is supported via funding allocated to or raised by local leaders. This approach will maximise PCC investment in crime reduction and increase the total funding spent on crime priorities, making our communities safer.
Outcomes and efficiency
While we continue to invest in policing, it is only right that the Government hold the policing sector, as with other public services, to account on delivering for the public. The police must demonstrate to taxpayers that they are using this funding effectively, meeting the needs of their community and ensuring the public receive the highest possible quality of service.
As part of the spending review settlement, the Government will expect to see over £100 million of cashable efficiency savings delivered from force budgets by 2024-25. For 2022-23, we expect to see £80 million of efficiency savings—which have been reflected in the funding set out as part of the settlement.
Ensuring the value of the Government’s investment in policing goes beyond efficiencies. Following greater investment in modern technology infrastructure and interoperable systems, we expect to see an increase in productivity. This will enable more efficient data sharing and analysis, reduce the risk of service disruptions, and provide a foundation for future enhancements and innovations. We will continue to work with and support the policing sector through the Efficiency in Policing Board with a renewed focus on improving the measurement and delivery of productivity gains.
This Government have once again set out their commitment to giving the police the resources they need to cut crime and keep the public safe—setting out today how up to an additional £1.1 billion will be invested in the policing system in 2022-23. We will continue to work with policing to achieve the outcomes set out here. I would like to pay tribute and express my sincere gratitude to our police officers and police staff for the extraordinary bravery and dedication they display each day, to keep us all safe from harm.
I have set out in a separate document, attached, the tables illustrating how we propose to allocate the police funding settlement between the different funding streams and between police and crime commissioners for 2022-23. These documents are intended to be read together.
1 Funding for special branch has been transferred from existing PCC baselines and now will go to PCCs through the CT policing grant.
The attachment can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2021-12-16/HCWS503/.
[HCWS503]
UK Anti-Corruption Strategy: Year 3 Update
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Borders (Damian Hinds)
Today I am pleased to be publishing the third annual update to the UK anti-corruption strategy 2017 to 2022 which covers the year 2020. As part of the strategy, the Government are committed to providing an annual written update to parliament on progress.
It is particularly pertinent that we are publishing this update as countries are gathering to assess progress with implementation of the UN convention Against corruption. This serves as a reminder to us all of the need for domestic and international action to address the evolving threat from corruption. This month we also saw the UK join our US partners in their summit for democracy, which similarly focuses on actively tackling the corruption challenges at home and abroad.
This update highlights the progress made against the anti-corruption commitments in 2020 and focuses on a number of key areas:
securing the public commitment with all Crown dependencies and inhabited overseas territories to implement publicly accessible registers of company beneficial ownership information. This will help strengthen the international effort to counter illicit finance;
extending the remit of the national fraud initiative and helping local authorities to undertake bank account and active company checks;
reforming the police complaints and disciplinary systems to make them more transparent, independent and proportionate;
securing endorsement from G20 Ministers of a G20 call to action for countries to combat corruption in the covid-19 response and recovery;
publishing a review of procurement risks in local government that improves understanding and strengthens our response; and
publishing the Green Paper on procurement reform with specific proposals to further strengthen transparency and integrity across Government.
This update covers activity made against the Government’s commitments in the Strategy during 2020. Activity in 2021 will be reported on in the Year 4 Update due to be presented next year.
The year 2020 has been dominated in so many ways by the covid-19 pandemic.
The challenging global environment has required the whole of Government to respond to the pandemic focused on public health. Whilst recognising 2020 was a challenging year, this update provides more details and highlights achievements which have gone beyond the original strategy commitments as well as an explanation for those off-track commitments.
The Government will continue to implement their strategy commitments to combat corruption and to promote integrity and transparency at home and overseas. There is still much work to do and it is important to recognise that a number of broader issues are considered as we look ahead. The Government will update Parliament on progress made in 2021 in the fourth annual update due next year and I am pleased also to announce that Government have started to develop the successor to the strategy which expires at the end of 2022. In addition, a policy statement in response to the “Upholding Standards in Public Life” report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life and the review into the development and use of supply chain finance in Government by Nigel Boardman will be published in due course, in the new year. Alongside this the Government will be providing an update to its work to reform the business appointment rules.
I have written to the devolved Administrations as the update is of direct interest to them.
Finally, I would also like to thank the ongoing work of the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), throughout this period.
A copy of the update will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and also published on gov.uk.
[HCWS500]
Home Office Delivery 2021
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
Today I am updating Parliament on Home Office delivery over the last 12 months.
Dealing with the effects of covid-19 has been a challenge for the entire country, but it has also brought out the best of us as communities stepped up to deal with those challenges. Few have played a more important role than our emergency service workers and I put on record my particular thanks to the police officers and firefighters who have continued selflessly to serve the public in sometimes trying circumstances, as well as all Home Office staff and Border Force officers who have played their part in the fight against covid-19.
Despite covid-19, the Home Office has continued to deliver on the people’s priorities and as we recover from the pandemic, we will continue to build back safer in 2022.
Cutting crime and law enforcement
We are delivering our manifesto commitment for new police officer recruitment, having recruited more than 11,000 of the 20,000 new police officers we have pledged for England and Wales to help cut crime and protect our communities. Every region in the country has more police officers keeping our streets and communities safer day and night—both beating crime and preventing crime.
The College of Policing has continued to connect all those working in the police and law enforcement, with the chair of its board, Lord Herbert of South Downs, launching a fundamental review of the College’s work. This is important if we are to ensure that it continues to meet its potential and that its work and role within policing is valued across the service.
We have published several landmark strategies on the safety and security of our nation.
Our beating crime plan establishes how the Government will ensure the public is better protected across all parts of the country, with each neighbourhood having contactable, named police officers who know their area and are best placed to ensure that persistent crime and antisocial behaviour is tackled.
Our tackling violence against women and girls strategy set out plans to increase support for victims and survivors, increase the number of perpetrators brought to justice and reduce the prevalence of violence against women and girls in the long term. The need for the strategy became all the more stark following the tragic murder of Sarah Everard and immediate measures taken included the creation of the new online tool “StreetSafe”. This provides women and girls with a way to anonymously and quickly pinpoint areas where they have felt unsafe and say why—an innovative crime prevention tool. The appointment in September of Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth as the national police lead for violence against women and girls means that police action in this vital area is now being co-ordinated across England and Wales.
In June we published the end-to-end rape review report on findings and actions, in which we committed to deliver lasting improvements to the way we investigate and prosecute rape so that victims are properly supported and they—and the public—can have confidence that perpetrators of this sickening crime will feel the full force of the law.
The Domestic Abuse Act, which gained Royal Assent this year, provides for the first time in history a wide-ranging legal definition of domestic abuse and delivers important new protections and support for victims, such as ensuring that abusers can no longer directly cross-examine their victims in the family and civil courts. It also gives police new powers, including domestic abuse protection notices which provide victims with immediate protection from abusers.
We also published our tackling child sexual abuse strategy—a first-of-its-kind national strategy to protect children from all forms of child sexual abuse in which we set out how the Government will use new legislation and enhanced technology to stop offenders in their tracks and bring the perpetrators of these heinous crimes to justice.
We have also enhanced our work tackling the scourge of drugs with a new cross-Government 10-year strategy which includes pursuing and closing down the ruthless gangs who exploit and threaten the most vulnerable in society for financial gain through the illegal drugs trade. We have already closed down 1,500 county lines and this new crackdown aims to dismantle a further 2,000, as we seek to continue driving down crime and delivering safer streets for all.
During the course of this year, we have also expanded Project ADDER, the programme which seeks to ensure that more drug users get effective treatment, with enhanced treatment and recovery provision. Its overarching aim is to reduce drug-related deaths, reduce drug-related offending and reduce the prevalence of drug use while disrupting high-harm criminals and networks involved in the supply and importation of drugs. Having launched the programme in January 2021 in Blackpool, Hastings, Middlesbrough, Norwich and Swansea Bay, in July 2021 it expanded to take in Bristol, Newcastle, Wakefield, the London boroughs of Tower Hamlets and Hackney, and three local authorities in Liverpool city region.
Meanwhile, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill—legislation to restore confidence in the criminal justice system—is approaching its concluding stages in the House of Lords. Once enacted, this will give our police officers more of the powers and tools they need to keep themselves and all of us safe, while introducing tougher sentencing for the worst offenders and ending automatic halfway release from prison for serious crimes. Following recent antisocial protests which have caused misery and disruption for countless road users and citizens going about their lawful business, the legislation will give the police the power to stop and search people in order to seize items such as glue and chains intended to cause serious disruption by “locking-on”. It will also introduce mandatory life sentences for those who kill an emergency worker in the course of their duty.
Following the mass shooting in Plymouth in August, a review of police firearms licensing procedures was completed, including a review of licences which had been surrendered, seized, revoked or refused, only then to be returned following further checks or appeals. Following this review, eight of these returned licences were either re-surrendered or revoked, providing further reassurance to the public that their safety remains our priority.
We have also continued to establish what needs to be done to protect people from being exposed to harmful content online, whether that be publishing incitement to terrorism or images of the sexual abuse of children. I will continue to hold technology companies to account for the harmful content they host on their platforms and if they neglect public safety when designing products; and in due course our Online Safety Bill will place on those technology companies a binding duty of care to their users—and end-to-end encryption will not release them from that duty. This is fundamental to ensuring public safety and keeping people safe from evil.
Figures published last month show a 14% decrease in total crime (excluding fraud and computer misuse) across England and Wales for the year ending June 2021, compared with the year ending June 2019. This includes an 11% decrease in the number of homicides, a 6% decrease in the number of police recorded offences involving firearms and an 8% decrease in offences involving knives or sharp instruments.
Controlling our borders
Following the UK’s exit from the European Union we have been able to take back control of our borders by ending free movement and introducing our new points-based immigration system, which has now been in operation for over a year. We have also created new routes to attract the most talented and highly-skilled workers and global leaders in their fields to the UK.
These include the graduate route, which will allow talented international graduates who have been awarded their degree from a UK university to stay in the UK and work, or look for work, at any skill level for at least two years, and the new fast-track international sportsperson route, which will make it easier for professional athletes across sports to work in the country.
Additionally, we have improved the employer sponsorship system to enable UK businesses and educational institutions to become sponsors and attract global talent faster, while adding more illustrious prizes to the global talent visa, making it simpler for more of the world’s most gifted minds to come to the country.
We have also created an immigration route for British nationals overseas status holders in Hong Kong, reflecting our historic and moral commitment to the people of Hong Kong who have had their rights and freedoms restricted. As of 30 September, since the route launched on 31 January 2021 there had been 67,300 applications with 57,300 successful grants.
Recognising the considerable public concerns about illegal migration, the Nationality and Borders Bill is a critical piece of legislation whose aim is to deter illegal entry into the UK and reduce the pull factors. It was given its Third Reading in the House of Commons by a majority of 67 earlier this month.
This legislation will deliver long-overdue reform to our broken asylum and immigration system and will be critical in making unviable the business model of the people smugglers who threaten the lives of every person from whom they take money to then place in unseaworthy vessels to cross the English channel.
Once enacted, this legislation will: make the system fairer and more effective so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum; deter illegal entry into the UK and save lives by breaking the business model of those criminal trafficking networks; and remove from the UK those with no right to be here.
We have also continued to work closely with our international partners on tackling this shared problem emanating from the global migration crisis and specifically signed a new agreement with the French Government to strengthen UK-France co-operation on tackling illegal immigration across the channel.
The tireless work of the National Crime Agency tackling organised immigration crime has also played an important role in helping bring to justice people smugglers, having been involved in more than 140 arrests in the first 11 months of this year and with around 50 ongoing investigations linked to organised immigration crime. (The NCA has also played a critical role in other areas, such as keeping children safe online throughout the pandemic and disrupting high-risk offenders.)
We have also signed a new agreement with the Albanian Government to remove Albanian nationals who have no right to be in the UK, and established a new migration and mobility partnership with the Indian Government, supporting people coming to the UK through legal routes, while stopping the abuse of the system and speeding up the removal of those who have no right to be in the UK.
Protecting the homeland
Most of the work of our counter-terrorism police and security agencies is done out of public sight for good reasons, but they play an essential role in keeping the public safe.
They constantly review where threats exist and take the necessary action to clamp down on those with malign intent. To that end, this year Parliament has proscribed the entirety of Hamas, the militant Islamist terrorist movement, as a terrorist organisation, as well as Atomwaffen Division and The Base, predominantly US-based white supremacist groups.
During the year, the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Act received Royal Assent, further protecting the public by completely ending the prospect of early release for anyone convicted of a serious terror offence and forcing them to spend their whole term in jail. It also enhances the tools available to counter-terrorism police and the security services to manage the risk posed by terrorist offenders and individuals of concern outside of custody.
The Covert Human Intelligence Sources Act was also given Royal Assent, providing a clear and consistent statutory basis so that our intelligence and enforcement agencies and public bodies have the right tools to keep us safe. This longstanding critical capability supports the work of undercover agents in preventing and safeguarding victims from serious crimes, including terrorism, by ensuring they can gain the trust of those under investigation.
This year also saw the unveiling of the first elements of the new counter-terrorism operations centre in London, including a cutting-edge counter-terrorism operations suite which is now fully operational and helping to keep the public safe.
During the summer, the Home Office stepped up to help in the evacuation of people from Kabul airport—the largest evacuation mission undertaken since the second world war, which involved getting more than 16,000 people out of the Afghan capital. The Home Office’s dual priorities during this evacuation were to save as many lives as possible while keeping the British public safe and I am very proud of all who worked on that immense response.
Likewise, I was proud of all the Home Office teams, police and our partner agencies who were involved in safely delivering the COP26 conference in Glasgow in November—the largest international event the UK has hosted since the 2012 Olympics—as well as the G7 summit earlier this year. UKVI staff and Border Force officers efficiently processed and welcomed tens of thousands of visiting delegates from around the world; meanwhile, police officers from across the UK and our security agencies kept attendees and the public safe throughout—as they do without fanfare across the UK every day of the year. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
International engagement
In September I chaired the G7 Interior Ministers in London, showing how the UK is taking a lead on the international stage in the spheres of counter-terrorism and illegal migration, as well as tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation online. We agreed to work together to take action to prevent and combat violent extremism and terrorism; to protect people against harms enabled or exacerbated by the internet; to ensure security is not undermined by the threat of serious and organised crime; to support global action to confront emerging issues for national and border security; and to strengthen international action against corruption and kleptocracies.
Throughout the year I and ministerial colleagues have engaged with numerous counterparts from around the world. In November I visited Washington, where I met with senior members of the US administration, and it was agreed that the UK and US security services will undertake joint work to further strengthen the vital counter-terrorism relationship between our two nations.
EU settlement scheme
Following the UK’s departure from the European Union, a considerable number of our EU friends and neighbours decided to make the UK their home and secure the status to which they are entitled through the hugely successful EU settlement scheme. By the end of November 2021, more than 6.3 million applications had been received, with over 5.9 million (94%) applications concluded. We have continued to work as quickly as possible to conclude applications, as well as supporting people with late applications, and the scheme remains opens indefinitely for late applications.
Windrush
Finally, this year, we have continued to put right the wrongs suffered by the Windrush generation under successive Governments. Following the overhaul of the compensation scheme I announced in December 2020, it is now easier for people to get higher payments more quickly, and as a result of my changes, more than £38 million has been paid or offered in compensation.
We simplified the application process, including changes to the primary claim form, designed in consultation with stakeholders, to make it easier to complete and easier for caseworkers to process; and for those who need support, we have funded an organisation to provide free, independent claimant assistance to individuals for the duration of the scheme.
We have also worked at pace to implement the recommendations of the Windrush lessons learned review, with Wendy Williams having recently returned to the Home Office to undertake a progress review on delivery of her recommendations.
[HCWS511]
Disability Workforce Reporting Consultation
(3 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chloe Smith)
Today the Government are publishing their consultation on disability workforce reporting, as announced in the national disability strategy.
Our strategy, published in July 2021, set out over 100 wide-ranging practical actions to improve the everyday lives of disabled people. The strategy focuses on the issues that disabled people have told us matter most to them.
Supportive workplaces, where disabled people feel valued and able to be open about any additional needs, are vital to driving progress. It is also important that employers have the information required to create inclusive workplaces.
Through this consultation we will build an evidence base to better understand:
current reporting practices, and what works well
the case for and against implementing a mandatory approach to reporting
how a mandated approach to reporting, if adopted, might be implemented in practice
if there are alternative approaches that could also be taken to enhance transparency and increase inclusive practices.
I would encourage Members to make constituents and networks aware of the consultation, and to respond before the closing date on 25 March 2022.
I will deposit a copy of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses and publishing it online at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/disability-workforce-reporting.
[HCWS498]
House of Lords
School Curriculum: First Aid Training and Home Nursing
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rawlings
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to include (1) first aid training, and (2) home nursing, as core parts of the school curriculum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we know that first aid and good care saves lives. Schools are now required to teach first aid as part of statutory health education. Pupils are taught how to deal with common injuries, call the emergency services, administer CPR and understand the purpose of defibrillators. Schools have the flexibility to deliver content that meets the needs of their pupils, such as learning about caring for others.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I asked one of the most experienced paramedics in Norfolk what he thought would save most lives in the National Health Service in his field. His answer was: “Please include teaching standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation—CPR—in the school curriculum, especially as you can no longer give the kiss of life, along with basic first aid and home nursing classes”. However, could these classes be taught not just once a term but every week? UK ambulances attend 60,000 calls every year, with many calls made through a lack of basic knowledge. A degree of serious teaching, as evidence shows, saves three times as many lives and would save the National Health Service millions of pounds. Can the Minister take this to her department as a project for 2022?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I said in response to my noble friend’s main Question, all state-funded schools are required to teach first aid and the curriculum includes CPR. We have also recently issued implementation guidance to schools, which says that they should decide the most appropriate method of teaching. Many use excellent charities to help them implement that training.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry to say this, because I know the noble Baroness raised this Question in good faith, but it is unhelpful because it deflects from the pressing need for the national curriculum to be rescued from the confines imposed upon it by the English baccalaureate. The EBacc comprises the subjects most sought after by Russell group universities; it does not cater for young people who want to pursue the arts and creative subjects, such as design and technology, drama or music. Does the Minister have any concerns about young people being force-fed subjects that may not be in their best interests, and is it now the time to think about adding a sixth pillar to the EBacc?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I hear the noble Lord’s level of concern, but the EBacc gives pupils the foundational skills and knowledge they need to pursue a very wide variety of careers. As he and I debated over many hours during the skills Bill, there are also lots of opportunities in both T-levels and BTECs to pursue a range of other careers.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I chaired the Sub- Committee on Allergy in 2007, which recommended adrenaline autoinjectors in schools, which are now available. Can the Minister confirm whether teenagers—a third of whom with allergies are known often not to carry their adrenaline injectors with them—and the risk of bleeding out from stab injuries to them are specifically targeted in first-aid teaching in senior schools?
Baroness Barran (Con)
If I may, I will write to the noble Baroness with more detail, but the spirit of the guidance is certainly that schools have an element of discretion, and rightly so, in what they include in their curriculum. However, she will be aware that we are doing a great deal of work in relation to stab injuries and violent crime.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, wishes to speak virtually. I think this is a convenient point for me to call her.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I watched primary schoolchildren get involved in these classes some years ago and saw CPR being taught in a secondary school. To what year groups do the Government intend to teach these excellent skills? It is all right doing it just for seniors, but what about primary school- children as well?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and the curriculum is also included in all primary schools in an age-appropriate manner.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that one of the best ways of teaching first aid in schools is through the Combined Cadet Force? The Government’s school cadet expansion programme has a target of 60,000 young people participating by next year. Can my noble friend tell us how far along the road we are with that? I remind your Lordships of my charitable interest as chairman of the Cadet Vocational Qualifications Organisation.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right to bring attention to the CCF and the great work that it does. But I am sure he would agree that there are a number of other organisations, such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and the National Citizen Service, that also focus on equipping young people with a range of skills, including first aid. I will write to my noble friend with an update on recruit numbers.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I wonder if I could draw two answers together by asking the Minister if she agrees that, apart from the important health benefits already mentioned, there is a social dividend in what is being suggested? As with playing an instrument, as we have just heard, or drama, the self-esteem resulting from an acquired discipline and the ability to help others promotes social cohesion and friendliness.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord. The curriculum supports the development of a range of essential behaviours and life skills promoting confidence, team working, emotional well-being, compassion and resilience.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, first aid and CPR are not available in the curriculum in Northern Ireland. To address this, my colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly has brought forward a Private Member’s Bill to introduce CPR as part of the curriculum and have it available in all types of schools. Will the Minister use her great offices when meeting ministerial colleagues in the devolved Administrations to encourage them down this route as a safety measure and part of good curriculum education?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am delighted to reassure the noble Baroness on that account and to share that with my ministerial colleagues in the department.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, it has been mentioned that the kiss of life is no longer part of CPR because of Covid, but in fact it was given up before that because it was recognised that there was enough oxygen in the blood. The great thing is to get the circulation going as the essential part of CPR.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that very helpful technical clarification.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, many children of black and Asian descent suffer from sickle cell. Will the noble Baroness consider getting schools to talk about sickle cell and teach children, when a child in their class has a crisis, about what they are going through?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am delighted to share that with colleagues in the department and confirm that that is happening.
Environmental Land Management Schemes
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Scott of Needham Market
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the answer by Lord Benyon on 27 May (HL Deb, col. 1097), when they will publish details of how new Environmental Land Management schemes will deliver the “very clear access commitment, backed by funding”, to which the Minister referred.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend, and at her request.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register. The Government remain committed to investing in access. On 2 December the Secretary of State confirmed that we will
“continue to pay for heritage, access and engagement through our existing schemes and we will consider how to maintain investment in these areas as part of future schemes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/21; col. 40WS.]
This includes environmental land management schemes. Our ongoing commitment is visible through other funds, including the nature for climate fund and the farming and protected landscapes programme, among others.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that unless you have effective co-ordination between making more footpaths and greater access to the countryside available within the existing structure, and things like public transport, you are going to underutilise any possible benefit? Would the Minister cast his eye over one of the recommendations made in the report entitled A national plan for sport, health and wellbeing? I was a member of the committee that produced it, and in it we suggest that the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities—not a very snappy title—should undertake this work to make sure there is a cross-government approach.
Lord Benyon (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right: we can provide all the footpaths and access we want, but it is about getting people out there to use them and demystifying the natural environment for some people. I was interested in that report, as it produced the rather worrying finding that physical activity levels in the UK have significantly declined, in part as a result of Covid. Much more can be done to join this up and it is absolutely a job across government, not just for one department.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, may I raise access of a different kind, in connection with the ELMS: access for tenants and how we can encourage and incentivise longer tenancy agreements? Will the Minister use his good offices to interact with the Treasury to ensure that the tax changes needed for this purpose can be made in time, before the ELMS come into effect?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I thank my noble friend. There are ongoing discussions with the Treasury on a variety of different aspects of agricultural transition and reform, not least our exit scheme. But we also want to encourage a length of tenure which encourages people to invest in a wide variety of different activities in the countryside, including access.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition. Can the Minister confirm that the funds allocated for the implementation of the Glover review are totally separate from the funds allocated for ELMS?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The right reverend Prelate raises a very good point. For example, we have put some money into the farming in protected landscapes scheme, which many different access groups are using to work with farmers and organisations like national parks and AONBs to get greater access. We absolutely intend that these are part of the environmental land management schemes, but that other funding streams can be accessed as well.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, on 2 December the Minister wrote to your Lordships giving an update on the transition from CAP. The annexe indicated that 70 applications have been received for trials on landscape recovery. Could the Minister give an update on how these are going and whether any include access to the countryside?
Lord Benyon (Con)
A wide variety of different activities are being looked at as part of the tests and trials. Our announcement on local nature recovery and landscape recovery will be made next year. We are working with the test-and-trials farmers and land managers to ensure that access is part of this, as well as the very important work we need to do to reverse the declines in species.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
In reply to an earlier question, the Minister used the phrase “ongoing discussions with the Treasury”, a phrase beloved by civil servants and Ministers. Can the Minister tell us when he expects these ongoing discussions to be concluded, and how they are going to be reported to Parliament?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I shall certainly keep the House informed about this. My discussions with the Treasury are very fruitful in this area. The noble Lord seems sceptical of that, perhaps, but I assure him that there is a cross-government intention to provide better security for farmers in future and that schemes such as our exit scheme have the right tax framework to make them a good incentive—but also that the other aspects that we are talking about here, such as access and getting more people out in the countryside, are understood. The work that I have been doing with my noble friend Lord Agnew has been really important in trying to make sure that we get more people into the countryside.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I refer the House to my minimal interests in agriculture. Does my noble friend not think that there is an inevitable conflict between rewilding and public access, because nobody actually wants to walk through countryside that is covered in stinging nettles and brambles?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I am not sure that I agree with my noble friend. What people want in our countryside is variety. Rewilding Britain, the charity promoting rewilding, has an ambition of 5% of the UK to be rewilded by the end of this century, which seems a perfectly achievable figure. The work that we have to do in the farmed environment, as well, is really important —so I do not think that he can make a sweeping statement like that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister knows, financial support for improving public access to the countryside is a key commitment of the new regime in the Agriculture Act. I would be interested to hear his response to the many rambling and walking groups that are expressing anger and frustration at the moment that the department is not prioritising access to the countryside.
Lord Benyon (Con)
I was disappointed by the response of the Ramblers Association, an organisation for which I have a great regard. As set out in a Written Ministerial Statement of 2 December:
“We will also continue to pay for heritage, access and engagement through our existing schemes and we will consider how to maintain investment in these areas as part of future schemes.”—[Official Report, Commons, 2/12/21; col. 437WS.]
What we were talking about was the sustainable farming incentive, which is only one of three schemes. Of course, there are many other examples, such as the £500 million nature for climate fund and the £124 million announced for the net-zero community forests. I could go on, but I would incur the wrath of the House if I did.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has just raised a number of schemes available to the public. I welcome the Government’s general direction but will my noble friend be careful to ensure that they do not overcomplicate those schemes and make them too complicated for people to have access to them?
Lord Benyon (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. One reason why we have done this iterative process, with tests and trials and piloting these different schemes, is because we want to make sure that they are brought in in as effective a way as possible. We have already reduced, with the sustainable farming incentive, the amount of guidance to make it as simple and clear as possible. Farmers should not be paying land agents huge amounts of money to do those schemes; they can do it themselves.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, in this season of good will, should we not congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his wonderful passion for the countryside and express the hope that he is able in the new year to extend that passion ever more widely?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I do not know what I can say in answer to such a generous question, expect to say a very happy Christmas to my noble friend and everybody else.
Children and Young People in Care: Accommodation
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Laming
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that children and young people in care are placed in safe and appropriate accommodation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, all children in care deserve to live in homes that meet their needs and keep them safe; that is why we are reforming unregulated provision for children aged 16 and 17 and have banned the placement of under-16s. This week, we have announced that we will invest over £140 million to introduce mandatory national standards and Ofsted registration. We are also investing £259 million to maintain and build more places in open and secure children’s homes.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the Minister for that helpful Answer. As the House knows, no child is taken into care without there being clear evidence of the child’s safety being severely at risk. Indeed, some of us, or I guess all of us, wish that some local authorities had acted more quickly in respect of recent terrible cases. The Minister knows that the Competition and Markets Authority recently highlighted in its report the number of children who are still being placed in unregulated and inappropriate accommodation. Can the Minister kindly expand on what steps are being taken to rectify this worrying situation?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question, and echo his sentiment, and the sentiment of the House, in relation to the two recent cases to which I think he was referring.
In relation to the CMA report, the department is extremely grateful to the CMA, which is addressing fundamental and important issues. We believe that the steps that we have announced this week will make an important difference in securing the safety of 16 and 17 year-olds in particular. The investment that we are making in open and secure children’s homes will also help to boost supply—but we are waiting for the full report to give our official response.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will know that this year a record number of unaccompanied minors have arrived in this country seeking asylum, and many have been placed in hotels, with minimal supervision, making them vulnerable to exploitation and trafficking. What arrangements are the Government making to make sure that these vulnerable children get the support that they need?
Baroness Barran (Con)
Earlier this week, the national transfer scheme for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, to whom my noble friend refers, was made mandatory for local authorities. As a result of that change, the majority of local authorities will be required to accept transfers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children into their care. We believe that this will provide those very vulnerable children with the care and support that my noble friend rightly says they need.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, on this day 30 years ago, the Government made a pledge to the United Nations that they would honour the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which contains comprehensive state obligations towards children. Yesterday’s announcement, referred to by the Minister, on national standards for unregulated supported accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds was, sadly, a further sign that this Government have reneged on that pledge. Instead of making those establishments follow the quality standards for children’s homes, Ministers are pressing ahead with an alternative, rudimentary set of standards, which are devoid of any requirement to provide care to children. How can it possibly be acceptable for children to be in the care of the state and not receive any care where they live?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand why the noble Lord asks the question, and I am grateful for the opportunity to try to clarify the point. There are children with a foster placement or a placement in a children’s home, which cater for the vast majority of children in care, whose placements have broken down multiple times or who have come very late age-wise into the care system, who live in semi-independent living, which aims to give them the skills that they will need later in life. I hope that the noble Lord will acknowledge the important step that is being made with the introduction of these standards and the powers that it will give Ofsted to make sure that we give children that care.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, 75% of children’s residential care homes are run by private firms, making huge profits, and the average placement now is around £4,000 a week. In spite of this, many London boroughs are having to place vulnerable children hundreds of miles away, outside the city and away from their homes and friends. I came across a case just recently in which a north London borough has to pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds in taxi fares to bring children and young people back into the borough to receive appropriate educational support. These are children who have severe mental health problems. What is being done to mitigate this? Surely it cannot be right to send vulnerable children out of the borough—hundreds of miles away—and then to have to bus them back again for them to get the support that they need. Surely that is a terrible waste of funding.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness will be aware that the majority of looked-after children, 74% as at March 2021, were located 20 miles or less from their home, which is a slight increase on 2020. Only 6% of children are placed more than 20 miles away from their home.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, is it not clear from the questions to the Minister that we are dealing with a broken system that is letting children down? Will the Government think really deeply about this and seek ways to make sure that care is not the only alternative for children who are vulnerable? If more families get the right support at the right time, fewer children will end up at the risk they are at today—we know this from those places where effective early intervention is taking place across the age ranges, where they have been able to hold stable the number of such children or even reduce them. When will the Government switch their perspective and go for early intervention?
Baroness Barran (Con)
With respect to the noble Baroness and to the House, these children were originally let down within their own homes, sadly. That is the tragedy, which I know she knows very well. She will also be aware that the Government have announced a really ambitious plan, in terms of family hubs, with a great focus on the first 1,000 days of a child’s life—she and I have discussed the importance of that in previous conversations. It is not an either/or choice: there will be children who need support and intervention earlier on, and we are committed to doing both well.
Lord Bird (CB)
Is this the place to talk about a very big issue—pardon the pun—which is the fact that the flow of children out of care into homelessness and on into the prison system is still carrying on to such an extent that probably 25% of the people I work with in and around homelessness and 25% of people in prison have come from a care background?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for the unique perspective and experience that he brings to this question. He is right, and that is why, together with the Department for Levelling Up, the Department for Education published guidance last year to make sure there are common standards for supported accommodation for young people aged 18 and over. That is an important basis, as the noble Lord understands well, but we are committed to providing additional support also.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Do the Government remain committed to helping those children in care who would benefit from a boarding education to obtain places in our excellent state and independent boarding schools, through their boarding school partnerships unit at the DfE? Is it not clear that children in care suited to a boarding education obtain good results in our national examinations? Are the Government supporting charities, such as the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which are working with boarding schools and local authorities to increase the number of places for children in care, mindful always that many children will not benefit from or be suited to a boarding school education?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Government recognise the opportunity offered by both the state boarding and the independent sector to provide good outcomes for children in care. I am extremely pleased to report to my noble friend that the first cohort of 28 children commenced boarding placements this September as a result of the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation’s work on creating a national network of schools.
Uighurs in Xinjiang
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Alton of Liverpool
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the conclusion of the Uyghur Tribunal on 9 December that a genocide is underway against Uyghurs in Xinjiang; and what steps they intend to take in response.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and in doing so declare that I am a patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we have followed the Uyghur Tribunal’s work and are studying its conclusions carefully. I welcome the tribunal’s contribution to international understanding of the deeply disturbing situation in Xinjiang. The UK has led international efforts to hold China to account at the UN, imposed sanctions and announced measures to help UK organisations avoid complicity in human rights violations. We will continue to work with our partners to increase pressure on China to change its behaviour.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his, as ever, helpful reply. Does he agree that International Court of Justice jurisprudence is clear on when a state has an obligation to prevent genocide? It is, and I quote:
“the instant that the State learns of … a serious risk“
of genocide. Given that the Uyghur Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, who prosecuted Slobodan Milošević, has conducted easily the most comprehensive examination of the Uighur crisis, having reviewed hundreds of thousands of pages of evidence and declared in a very tightly drawn judgment there to be a genocide, will the Minister, instead of perhaps telling the House again that genocide determination is a matter for courts, tell us whether the Government have performed the required assessment under the genocide convention of whether Uighurs are at serious risk of genocide and, if not, whether they will now do so?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will know my response. Obviously, the British Government’s position on genocide and the declaration of genocide has not changed, but I believe that the tribunal—he will know this from our own exchanges—has again provided what I would describe as the most harrowing evidence of what has happened and continues to happen in Xinjiang, and we are looking at that very carefully.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, what contact have the Government had with Sir Geoffrey and the tribunal? Have there been official meetings? If not, will my noble friend undertake to ensure that he meets Sir Geoffrey at an early date?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we have met Sir Geoffrey Nice—indeed, I have met him on several occasions over various reports and work he does. Our officials followed the tribunal very closely and engaged directly with Sir Geoffrey Nice.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that we have led the way, and I certainly appreciate the actions of the United Kingdom’s Government. He has also stressed before that sanctions really become effective when we act in concert with our allies, so can he explain why the United States is able to sanction more people and a broader range of people to stop this genocide than the United Kingdom? Why can we not match the actions of the United States on this important issue?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that it is important to work with our allies: the US is one, as are other countries. When we did act together—indeed, we acted with 29 other countries with the sanctions we announced in March—that sent the clearest possible signal. Of course, I am very mindful that the United States has further sanctioned additional individuals, and we will continue to look at the situation on sanctions, but I cannot speculate any further.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the Government have accepted that the human rights abuses against these people is carried out on an industrial scale, but in response to a question I asked the Minister on 23 March, he confirmed that no preferential access arrangements for Chinese trade to the UK and access to our financial services have been suspended or notified to be suspended. One of those would allow a state entity in Xinjiang to own more than 50% of a UK pension fund, so why have the Government not even signalled their intent to suspend any preferential access to Chinese finance companies to the British market?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I welcome the noble Lord back and we will catch up on his travels. On 8 December, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade announced, via a WMS, a package of measures to update the UK’s export control regime. This included an enhancement to our military end use control that will allow the Government to better address threats to national security and human rights and completes the review of export controls as they apply also to Xinjiang that was announced to Parliament. The point he makes on financial services is a specific point and I will continue to engage with him on that issue, but we are sending quite specific signals and the announcement made on 8 December is a good example of that.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I understand that the BBC has film evidence of the atrocities that have been addressed in the Uyghur Tribunal, but has been reluctant to show the programmes to date, having set the evidential test so unrealistically high that it cannot be met. Will the Minister ask for these films at least to be available for a private viewing to inform parliamentarians, so that people may be better informed in their own thinking and have another source of information?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will certainly reflect on and take back that suggestion. I often see the written details of reports which come through, some of which are quite detailed, and they are harrowing—I use the word deliberately. I can only imagine what some of these pictures would depict, but I will certainly reflect on what the noble Baroness has said.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I think the vast majority of the population welcomes the Government’s decision to diplomatically boycott the Olympics along with other countries, but do they really believe that Coca-Cola and other major multinational corporations should be sponsoring the Beijing Olympics and thereby indicating support for a Government who are willing to commit the atrocities to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as someone who worked in the private sector, I think it is important that companies look at the responsibility of their own actions. I am sure they will take note of the decision not just of the UK but of other countries to announce that diplomatic boycott.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, these findings clearly have major implications for businesses’ ESG policies. When do the Government plan to follow the lead of the US and produce an investment ban list of firms known to be exercising or participating in the worst human rights abuses?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, presenting specific lists is always a challenge, though I hear what my noble friend has said. Certainly, the announcement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade reflects our continued concern in looking at this very carefully and systematically. Equally, I feel that companies, as I just said to my noble friend Lord Hayward, need to reflect on their actions and the business they are conducting.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, given the importance that the FCDO has attached, for example in the Trade Bill debates, to securing unrestricted access to Xinjiang for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, what steps has it taken to support her in seeking that access? What progress has been made since this was last discussed in Parliament, which I believe was in March?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we championed that proposal and suggestion; it was in my meeting with Michelle Bachelet that we proposed that directly to her. We have been very supportive. She has been challenged by the Covid crisis, which has prevented her travelling. I know that she has agreed in principle and we will continue to make the case, as we have since March, that the first step—I know the noble Lord, Lord Collins, is seized of this—must be for Michelle Bachelet, in her capacity as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to be given rights of access to Xinjiang.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, turning a blind eye or looking the other way is no answer; we know that from history. We know what is going on and I welcome the Government’s announcement of the diplomatic and political boycott of the Winter Olympics, but that should just be the start. Do the Minister and the department have a list of activities through which we can keep the pressure on the Chinese Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend. I assure him, as he will know all too well from our conversations, that it is not a question of turning a blind eye. We are very clear-eyed in our relationship with China; we accept that it makes some important contributions on the global stage, particularly on climate change, but all options remain on the table in what we are considering. As I have said, we have exercised leadership at the UN and resorted to exercising sanctions as and when necessary.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, what assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of kitemarking products which originate in Xinjiang province so that people can be informed that they may be produced by slave labour? That would help the economy take action in this important area, where we face such atrocities.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an important point on supply chains, ensuring that the sourcing of particular products is clearly identified. This was a matter specific to supply chains which we discussed during the recent G7 meeting of Ministers. I will certainly write to him on his point about identifying products from specific sources.
EU–UK Partnership Council
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) what is the agenda for the next meeting of the EU–UK Partnership Council, and when that meeting will take place.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, we have not yet agreed a date for the next meeting of the Partnership Council. The trade and co-operation agreement requires the council to meet once a year, unless otherwise agreed by the co-chairs. This condition has been met with the Partnership Council’s meeting on 9 June to begin the process of implementing the TCA’s governance structures. All TCA specialised committees are now scheduled to meet before the end of this year.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
As someone who may be nominated to be on the PPA overseeing the Partnership Council, I hope it will meet a little more frequently and with a little more content. The TCA included a declaration on the UK’s participation in EU programmes such as Horizon; it was agreed in principle but there was no time to finalise it before the agreement was signed. The issue was to go to the appropriate specialised committee for action “at the earliest opportunity”. A year on, nothing has happened on Horizon. Can the Minister ensure, even if the Partnership Council is not meeting, that the other committees he mentioned meet and get on with this so that we can participate in Horizon, which is so important for all our researchers?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I very much agree with the thrust of the question of the noble Baroness. I think it is well known that we have wanted to get the Horizon arrangements up and running for some time; it is a matter of great disappointment that we have still not managed to do so. It is not 100% clear why, but that is the situation. However, the good news is that we have now agreed that there will be a meeting of the relevant specialised committee before the end of this year, provisionally on 21 December. I hope that might mark a change in the approach being taken and enable us to move this forward.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, the very first of those declarations made that day concerned financial services. There was an agreement that, by March 2021, an MoU would be concluded to get regulatory framework co-operation. That has not happened, although there were some technical discussions. Will this declaration feature on a future agenda for the Partnership Council, as it is certainly important? Until that MoU has been done, the EU will not assess us for the various equivalence decisions that are so vital to the City. China has 14 equivalence decisions, Mexico has 13 and we currently have two, which are time-limited.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the noble Earl is right that there is a provision to agree an MoU. Indeed, there were discussions at the start of this year provisionally to agree that text. Those discussions have paused, again for reasons that we are not 100% clear about, although we can speculate. Naturally, we hope it will be possible to pick them up and move this forward, given that, as the noble Earl knows, some of the equivalence decisions are now imminent if not quite yet urgent.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, in addition to the Horizon programme, which is causing some concern, my noble friend will be aware of the ongoing anxiety about the REACH programme. For those who have been affected by the fact that the unilateral UK REACH programme is not as comprehensive but is proving more expensive than the EU REACH programme to which all were subscribed before, what representations can be made to the EU-UK Partnership Council in this regard?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, obviously we have inherited the REACH programme in the retained EU law that came on to the statute books and in the TCA. It is something we keep under close review, and it is certainly true that the costs of reregistering through REACH are considerable. We keep under close review the possibilities of trying to streamline and reduce them.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister not agree that a slightly more proactive approach to holding meetings with the TCA might be better than simply standing at the Dispatch Box and saying that we have fulfilled the minimum requirement under law? Would he perhaps answer the part of the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that related to matters which might be discussed at such a future meeting? Has he given consideration, for example, to raising the issue of performing artists so that the work that the Government are doing bilaterally is supplemented by work with the EU where the EU has competence in these matters—for example, with cabotage?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the Partnership Council is, of course, the highest body of the governance structure created by the TCA, and as such it does not need to meet very frequently. That is why the treaty commitment is to once a year. However, the specialised committees are important and look through the detail, and those have been running since June. As I said, all of those will shortly have met. So the governance structures are working well. We obviously have been giving thought to the agenda of the Partnership Council; it will no doubt take the issues that are of highest priority at that point. We touched on the question of touring artists at the 9 June meeting, and I imagine that we will do so again at the next meeting.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, wishes to speak virtually. I think this is a convenient point for me to call him.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, could we seek to place on the council agenda the whole issue of French threats to blockade channel ports, transport arrangements and compromised channel fishing rights? Can the Minister raise at such a meeting that it might be prudent for the United Kingdom to start moving cross-channel, roll-on roll-off trade to Belgian ports? We cannot go on under constant threats from France to block our European trade routes, because British jobs are at stake—and I say that as someone who loves France.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s opinion about France, and it is therefore all the more regrettable that France made threats against us earlier this year as a result of the ongoing disputes on fishing. I am very glad that those threats were withdrawn, and actually we have been able to continue the fishing discussions on a relatively constructive basis and bring them more or less to a conclusion recently. I think those threats would have been a breach of the treaty and therefore would have been something that it would have been necessary to raise at the Partnership Council—but I hope that we will not be in that situation when the Partnership Council meets.
Baroness Foster of Oxton (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on the Government’s engagement with the fora set up for the trade and co-operation and withdrawal agreements. Does he agree with me that if the EU is willing to show the same spirit of constructive engagement and flexibility required, the problems concerning the Northern Ireland protocol could be speedily resolved, enabling both the EU and the UK to benefit from a more constructive and long-lasting relationship as neighbours and trading partners?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I of course very much agree with my noble friend’s question, and she is right to refer to the spirit of constructiveness. It is natural that the disputes catch attention, but it is worth dwelling on the fact that a huge amount of business in this very wide-ranging trade and co-operation agreement is carrying on satisfactorily. I hope that the same spirit might be shown in the ongoing discussions on the Northern Ireland protocol, which no doubt we will touch on.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the key word in my noble friend’s Question is “partnership”. Both our economy and our place in the world will be stronger if disputes can be resolved amicably. Some commentators have likened the Minister’s negotiating strategy to puffing out his chest for weeks or months before finally getting down to the serious business of achieving consensus. On the issue of Northern Ireland, will he assure us that he is not intending to use the issue of the supply of medicines to the people of Northern Ireland as leverage in his negotiations?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, there has been a lot of discussion of my negotiating strategy over the last two and a half years. The fact that we achieved the broadest, most wide-ranging and most comprehensive trade and co-operation agreement ever reached is testimony to my wish to achieve partnership with the EU. On the issue of medicines, we continue to be in discussion with the EU on this subject, and I will talk again to Maroš Šefčovič tomorrow. I am not convinced that we are going to reach agreement on it by the end of the year, but we will try. Of course, it is a national priority that medicines should be available in Northern Ireland, as they are everywhere else in the UK.
Retained European Union Law
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost), further to his Written Statement on 9 December (HLWS445), how Her Majesty’s Government will consult Parliament in their reviews of (1) the substance of retained European Union law, and (2) the status of retained European Union law in United Kingdom law.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the Written Ministerial Statement referred to sets out full details of the two reviews of retained EU law. I and other responsible Ministers are of course ready to engage with Parliament in an appropriate way—for example, directly with this House, with interested Select Committees and with noble and learned Lords who have a particular interest in this question. Of course, we wish to establish proposals which are likely to be acceptable to the largest possible number of parliamentarians while achieving our policy aims.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, Parliament agreed with the Government that a snapshot of EU law at the point of exit should be onshored into UK law in the 2018 and 2020 withdrawal Acts. This was for the sake of continuity, certainty and stability for manufacturers and service providers, and thus the economy, throughout the UK, including Northern Ireland, beyond the protocol. A mere nine months on, the Minister expressed his desire—in what seems a highly ideological and unnecessary move when all the practical issues of financial services, Horizon, and so on are unresolved—not only to take a wrecking ball to the settlement but to do so in a way which takes back control for the Executive such as to represent, in the words of EU law expert Professor Catherine Barnard,
“a full takeover by Whitehall of Westminster”.
The announced intention is only to “incorporate Parliament’s views”, which is not good enough. I thus ask the Minister now for a commitment not only to involve Parliament fully in the review but then to make any changes via primary legislation and not Henry VIII powers.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is of course right in saying that retained EU law was brought on to our statute book for reasons of convenience and a smooth transition. It does not mean that it can never change; indeed, it must change, because that is how we get the benefits of reform and change after leaving the European Union. That is the process we intend to begin. As I have said before, I do not think that it makes sense for rules which never had proper scrutiny in this House to require full dress processes to remove them. The way they were incorporated was not normal in terms of parliamentary procedure, and therefore we should look at other ways of dealing with the consequences.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, in the spirit of good will, could I wish the Minister a very happy Christmas? When he reads A Christmas Carol, who does he like most? Is it the ghost of Christmas past, when he was a huge enthusiast for the European Union? Is it the ghost of Christmas present, when, like Mr Scrooge, he carries his own low temperature always about with him? Or is it—I hope—the ghost of Christmas future, when we rejoin the European Union and he can buy all his nieces and nephews glorious presents in the single market and customs union?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his good will, and I extend good will to all Members of this House. If I am forced into a false choice, it will be Christmas future, because I believe that our future outside the European Union is a great one. I must say that I have not noticed any difficulty in access to products from the European Union, and our exports to the European Union are continuing well. I am sure we will prosper on that basis.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree as a matter of principle that in this pandemic, government support for business should be distributed equitably throughout the United Kingdom, and that it really is not appropriate that the Government should need to go off and ask a foreign power for permission to do that with regard to Northern Ireland?
Lord Frost (Con)
I very much agree with my noble friend. It is of course a problem that, even though we have agreed new subsidy control provisions in the TCA—and of course we are bringing our own Subsidy Control Bill through Parliament—we are still working with the arrangements that were agreed in 2019 as regards state aid in Northern Ireland. It is excessively complex and difficult for companies in Northern Ireland to deal with these two regimes, and it does not make sense for us not to be able to support businesses in Northern Ireland in the recovery from Covid as we can everywhere else in the UK. I hope we can find solutions as we take forward the discussions on the protocol.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, central to this question is the principle of democracy. The Minister is having ongoing discussions and negotiations with the European Union. Maybe he would like to tell the House today about those discussions in terms of addressing the democratic deficit in the protocol and how Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly will be able to have decision-making authority in relation to EU legislation and all other matters.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, obviously we are in the middle of a negotiation that continues to cover a wide range of issues, including the democratic deficit that the noble Baroness mentions. Unfortunately, we are not likely to complete those discussions this year; I expect that they will run into next year. However, it would not be a good solution to give the Northern Ireland Assembly or Executive decision-making roles in the European Union. The UK is not a member of the European Union, and therefore it would not be right or appropriate to try to resolve these questions in that way.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister may remember that one of the studies in preparation for the single market demonstrated that the UK, before the single market, tended to take US regulations as the standard for British regulations under a sort of extraterritorial jurisdiction. The business media now tells us that the world is moving towards three focuses of regulation: American, Chinese and European. Do we intend to add a fourth, which would be purely national, to the great disadvantage of exporters within Britain, or do we intend to return to incorporating American regulations as British, perhaps without fully consulting Parliament on the unsatisfactory compromises we have to make?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, regulatory freedom is one of the advantages of Brexit, not one of the disadvantages. We now have a choice as to whether we proceed nationally in regulations and standards, if we wish to get ahead of other international bodies and organisations, or whether we wish to track other organisations’ rules. US regulations, European Union regulations, others’ regulations or national ones may be the best ones for this country in future, but we have the ability to make that choice now, and that is one of the advantages of Brexit.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, it is fair to say that the relationship between the EU and the UK has become very complicated, and that has been added to by the arrangements with the protocol. Would my noble friend be prepared to publish an organogram that would set out for us what all these committees are and who populates them, so that we have some grasp of the relationships between the EU and the UK, including the very complicated committee structure under the protocol?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I would be very happy to publish such an organogram—I think we will need an A2 or maybe an A1 piece of paper to get it all on. But it is still a lot less complicated than it was when we were a member of the European Union, and the arrangements still fit within the norms of a trade agreement. I appreciate that they are complex, and I am happy to try to make that as clear as we can in public.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
On the crucial issue of democratic accountability and proper scrutiny of legislation and the legislative process, which I am sure we all want to see enhanced, will the Minister, with his experience, care to compare the degree of scrutiny and democratic accountability that exists in respect of laws that were made in Brussels and the degree of scrutiny and democratic accountability that exists in respect of legislative processes in this Parliament?
Lord Frost (Con)
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. It is obviously possible and has been the case for a regulation with direct effect to be agreed in Brussels, perhaps despite us having voted against it, and for that regulation then to become the law of this country without further ado, despite the best efforts of the scrutiny committees in both this House and the other place. There is no ability to amend such rules. It is right in a democracy that Parliament should be able to set the rules by which we live, and that is a principle that we will try to take forward.
European Union: Border Control Checks
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Purvis of Tweed
To ask the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) what plans Her Majesty’s Government have, if any, to extend easements to border control checks on goods from the European Union on 1 January 2022.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Frost) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are fully prepared for the introduction of border import controls and, as previously announced, will introduce these controls on 1 January for EU goods coming from mainland Europe. However, in order to create the best possible environment for negotiations on the protocol and to avoid complexity and uncertainty, I announced yesterday, on 15 December, that the current arrangements for goods coming from the island of Ireland will be extended on a provisional basis.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in an earlier answer the Minister said that he had noticed no difficulties in securing trade with the European Union. But the cross-party European Affairs Committee report on trade in goods with the EU, published today, found that small businesses and agri-food sectors have been hardest hit by the changes of the TCA, resulting in GB exports becoming
“slower, less competitive, and more costly.”
The committee calls for an urgent SPS agreement with the EU. When the Minister is discussing this with the vice-president tomorrow, will he signal that an urgent SPS agreement with the EU is a priority, to support our small business and agri-food sectors that have been so hard hit?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I have had the opportunity to look briefly at the report that is referred to, which as always is an extremely comprehensive and worthwhile assessment of the state of play. We have never denied that there are new processes that need to be followed by UK exporters, but experience over the year is that UK business has come to grips with them very successfully and we have brought in, for example, our new export support service to help support smaller companies. On the question of an SPS equivalence arrangement, we asked last year for the TCA to include an equivalence process. That was not possible and, as far as we know, still is not possible, but obviously it would help if the EU was willing to look at that again and move forward.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Further to the Question from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, he and I are both members of the committee that reported today. Part of the recommendations is a warning that there is likely to be further Brexit disruption in the new year as these controls are phased in. The Minister has indicated that he made a statement yesterday, but will he spell out exactly what the attitude of the Government will be? That will be crucial to whether these rules will cause further disruption, particularly to small and medium enterprises.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, as I said, businesses have already shown a great capacity to adapt to new rules; people will need to adjust to them. The controls coming into force in January are UK controls, so we can handle them in a sensible and pragmatic way as they come in. We are in close touch with key border industry players and have been running online events such as webinars with companies. We talk constantly to border industry bodies and hauliers both in the UK and in the EU, and we have published explanatory material and so on. We are doing the best we can, and it is our belief that companies and bodies are engaging well with this and that the controls will be introduced successfully.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
On SMEs in the EU and the UK, our thoughts were twofold. First, the Brexit support fund was not fully spent because it had rather narrow confines. Secondly, does the Minister agree that the Brexit support fund and similar things should be redoubled to help our SMEs and that our old friends the trade specialised committees under the TCA should be fired up and meeting to try to ameliorate matters for SMEs both in the EU and in the UK?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, the Brexit support fund was indeed not fully used, which suggested to us that it was not the best means of providing support to companies. That is why we have brought in the export support service, which I hope will grow and become more focused in time—in particular to help SMEs, which obviously have most difficulty in dealing with the new arrangements.
The noble Lord is obviously correct to say that this is business for the trade specialised committees, and when we have particular evidence of difficulties, we will certainly raise them in those fora.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, in the week that the Government have announced, for very understandable reasons, that they will extend free, unfettered access for firms from the Irish Republic—part of the EU—to the UK market, is it too much to hope that British firms sending goods to the other part of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland might also benefit from free, unfettered access? Surely that is not too much to ask, and can the Minister tell us when we are likely to see that?
Lord Frost (Con)
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point. If I may dwell on it for a moment, it is obviously true that the legal framework for Northern Ireland and Ireland goods coming to Great Britain is different because of the unfettered access commitment. In practice, at the moment, it is not always possible to distinguish between the two categories of goods, but that will change in future and we will need a definitive solution to this question. Of course, the degree of pragmatism that we show in future to Irish goods coming to Great Britain will be related to the degree of pragmatism and flexibility that the EU shows in allowing goods to move freely around all parts of the UK.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lord, in the light of the questions and answers about Northern Ireland, did the Minister see the report in the Financial Times last week that the most rapidly growing region in the United Kingdom is in fact Northern Ireland? Does this not show that, whatever the problems surrounding the protocol, Northern Ireland is doing extremely well at present from being part of the United Kingdom and part of the EU?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that I share the characterisation that Northern Ireland is both part of the United Kingdom and part of the EU. It is certainly in a somewhat different position as regards goods trade. Northern Ireland is a very successful part of the United Kingdom, has some great companies and has a very bright future. I am very happy that, as the FT article noted, it has grown well. Nevertheless, the burdens of the protocol are significant and will probably grow over time, so we need to find a solution.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, this continued failure to reach a stable agreement with the EU is expensive for business and the UK taxpayer. We have one set of checks that were postponed back in September, another waived in December and others that are still due to come into force. The Government are spending £360 million on trader support, £150 million on digital agri-food certification and IT systems and £50 million on checking facilities. What is the Minister’s assessment of how much of this money we would get back should he trigger Article 16?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I think it is reasonable that we should bring in controls as we see fit, in a staged and controlled way over time, so that companies have time to adjust to them. That staging means that the process is spread over a year or two, but that is reasonable and makes life as easy as it can be for businesses both exporting and importing.
The noble Baroness is correct to refer to the substantial sums we have spent on implementing the Northern Ireland protocol. That demonstrates that the accusation sometimes made against us that we are not interested in implementing the protocol is not correct. We have spent a lot of money in an attempt to mitigate the burdens, but there are obviously simpler ways of mitigating the burdens than requiring every good moving to Northern Ireland to go through a customs process and paying the heavy costs of that—and it is those new solutions that I hope we can find in the coming months.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for all he has done in very difficult circumstances this year. What positive news can we expect on EU and UK matters in the years ahead?
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, I think we are ending the year on a positive note. We have had a year’s experience of running the Trade and Co-operation Agreement; we have the governance arrangements in place; all the disasters predicted about threats, problems and the collapse of trade—one set of difficulties after another—have not materialised and we end the year in a good place. It is my hope that we will have a constantly improving and very friendly and warm relationship with our EU neighbours, based on free trade and friendly co-operation. That is where we want to get to, and that is where, I am sure, the Government will be taking things forward next year.
Emissions Reduction (Local Authorities in London) Bill [HL]
Thursday 16th December 2021
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Emissions Reduction (Local Authorities in London) Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Emissions Reduction (Local Authorities in London) Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord Tope (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as co-president of London Councils and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Tributes
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before we depart for the Recess, it is traditional for the usual channels to take an opportunity to pay particular tribute to those members of staff who have left the House after long and distinguished service. I know I speak for the whole House in saying that we are hugely grateful to all the staff of the House for the work they have done this year, in some of the most challenging times we can remember.
We have all witnessed how hard they have worked in these unprecedented times, involving multiple changes to the working environment. Their resilience, innovation and patience have enabled the House to carry out its functions virtually, in person and in a combination of both, to the highest of standards.
First, I will say a few words about Helena Valencia Cruz, a long-standing early morning housekeeper, who sadly passed away in May while still in the service of the House. Helena worked on many of our floors since 2007 and always took pride in her job, ensuring that everything she did was of the highest quality. Helena will be particularly remembered for her flexibility during the pandemic and maintenance of high-quality work across the House of Lords at such a crucial time.
Nigel Sully, the former director of human resources, retired at the end of last year. In his time at the House of Lords, Nigel transformed and modernised the human resources function. He was the first professional HR director for the House. He also played a pivotal role in the Covid-19 response from day one of the first lockdown, leading the change to remote working. Nigel is remembered by his colleagues as being passionate about making the House an inclusive place for all who work here. He has continued to combine that passion with his other love as a member of the Inclusion Advisory Group at the Wiltshire Football Association and as a county-level football referee.
Barbara Rougvie was an early-morning housekeeping team leader who retired in January after working in the House for 24 years. She was responsible for cleaning many of the offices on the Principal Floors, including mine. She was exceptionally committed to her work and will be remembered especially for her care of her team and their work to ensure that they were safe during the Covid restrictions.
Lastly, I thank the officials and special advisers in the Government Whips Office for their dedication to supporting me and the whole House through all the changes over the last year. They have done so with great calmness and almost never-ending humour. I particularly thank Victoria Warren, Ben Burgess and Anishaa Aubeeluck, who sadly left the office in the course of this year, although I am pleased to say that they have not gone far—Victoria and Ben to the House of Commons and Anishaa to DCMS. Their legacy in the Government Whips Office will remain for a long time.
I wish them, the staff and Members of the House a healthy and peaceful Recess and a very happy Christmas.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I join the Government Chief Whip in paying tribute to all the staff of the House. We are all grateful for their service in the most challenging of times.
I pay particular tribute to three members of staff. Abiodun Aina was a housekeeper in the book team. Abi started work in the Victoria Tower in January 2012. She was a conscientious worker who cleaned the books, parchments, bookshelves and floors on the 12 floors of repositories. Abi was a team player who, during Covid, would change her shift pattern and help the early housekeeping team to complete their sanitising duties. Sadly, Abi passed away in July this year.
Caroline Bradford and Gill Reding retired from Hansard earlier this year. Caroline joined the Hansard team a decade ago. When she applied for her reporter post, she was asked in the interview what she thought her role was. She replied that she saw herself partly as everyone’s mother and partly as the class clown. This made the interview panel laugh. She got the job and in the following decade was true to her word. The office is a quieter place without her, and her warmth and energy are sorely missed. We hope that her retirement has not been too full of grandmotherly babysitting duties and that she has plenty of time to enjoy herself.
Gill retired from the Hansard team after more than 30 years’ service. Through her humour, the outstanding quality of her work and the open, honest and respectful way in which she related to everyone, she earned the respect of the whole Hansard team. Her whispered comments at the Hansard table will be sorely missed—although now it will be easier to keep a straight face when sitting there. The whole Hansard team wish her and her husband Jonathan well and the very best for her retirement.
I also join the Government Chief Whip in paying tribute to the staff in the Whips Office. They are always respectful when dealing with me and my colleagues in the Labour group, and we thank them very much for that. I worked closely with Victoria and Ben over many years. They are missed and we wish them well in their new roles.
I also thank all the staff who work in the Labour Whips Office. They managed to keep me on my feet and briefed, as well as all my colleagues. We would not be able to do our jobs without them. We thank them very much.
It is always a privilege to be in this House, and we would not be here if it were not for all the staff who serve us in every job they do. We thank them all and wish them and all Members here a happy and peaceful Christmas, and a good and happy new year.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, I join in the tributes to all the staff who have kept us going this year, which has been exceptionally difficult. I would like to pay tribute to three members of staff.
I start with Pat Young, someone important to Peers. For 10 years she was the Members’ finance clerk, well known to Peers for courtesy, good service, efficiency and a very happy nature. We are missing her greatly, particularly at the moment. She had special skills and a love for shopping. She was always able to find things for her colleagues, particularly those difficult-to-find and popular items. She worked quickly and had an extraordinary sense of humour, which was possibly necessary when dealing with us. She has retired to spend time with her family and grandchildren, support Chelsea Football Club and enjoy holidays in the sunshine.
Martin Lake joined the House in November 1998 as part of a new deal placement introduced by the new Labour Government at the time. He worked in the House for 23 year, being part of the Black Rod’s Department and there at the start of the new Department of Facilities. He became a principal attendant in April 2012, reaching the top of the attendants’ tree. He was very professional and always very well respected by his team and Peers.
Belinda Franzmann retired as a Hansard reporter this year after 34 years’ service. She had an endless capacity for hard work and, over the years, must have reported many thousands of speeches with a characteristic passion for language. She was regarded as a very supportive and valued colleague who everybody in the Hansard department misses. They wish her well on her retirement. We wish all three and all the other members of staff who have retired in the past year well in a happy and healthy retirement.
I also join in the thanks to the Government Whips Office, particularly to Ben and Victoria who have moved on to greater things in the Commons. We wish them well and have greatly appreciated all the support and help they have given us. I also thank my office team and, more importantly, all staff members who have supported us through what has been a very difficult year.
On behalf of our group, I wish everybody a very happy Christmas and, hopefully, a much easier year ahead.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I want to highlight three members of staff who are retiring.
Patronilha Ramos came to this country from Cape Verde in 1979 and worked in the National Health Service before she came to the House of Lords 15 years ago. Since then, she has worked predominantly in the River Room. Indeed, she was one of the first members of staff to work in the River Restaurant in its current location next to the Lords Terrace. She was a well-liked and respected member of the Catering and Retail Services team. Reports on her say she was a very positive person who was regarded as a loyal and hard worker. Just in case noble Lords all think that is dull, she could also be the life and soul of the party. Her ambition on retirement is to spend some quality time with her grandson, as well as visiting her 92 year-old mother in Cape Verde. Great-granny will have a lovely time when she goes.
Sally Nicholas was a Members’ finance clerk. She is remembered for her special talent as a walking thesaurus and dictionary, which is a wonderful attribute. I wish I had that myself. She worked here for 14 years. Her bright and sunny disposition was evidenced by her habit, which must on occasions have been slightly disconcerting, of bursting into song while still at work and bringing cheer to the office by finding an appropriate song for any occasion and conversation. If anybody wishes to start singing now, I will defer to them. No? I will not defer, then. She was also characterised with that great quality, which so many members of our staff have, of staggering quickly—staggering under the burden but getting on with it.
The only thing I can say against her, which I will, is that she is a supporter of Chelsea Football Club. As a Leicester City supporter myself, we have in common a liking for a blue jersey. She will be greatly missed by her colleagues in the finance team but they know that she will enjoy her retirement—even if she is following Chelsea.
Donald McPherson was a kitchen porter for 11 years. He started working with us in 2010 and will finish tomorrow, on 17 December. He has worked in all of the Lords catering departments and is described by his colleagues as a man of a very friendly disposition who is always willing to help the team, and will be much missed.
I join in the general recognition, already paid by all the Whips, to the staff throughout the House, including those whom we will see, I hope, on 5 January when we come back. They have had a rough time but they have done wonderfully well. I thank them particularly for their patience in dealing with Members of this House who have occasionally failed to realise what huge pressures they have been working under.
I also thank the retiring people in the Chief Whip’s Office—indeed, in all the Whips’ offices. I do so with great pleasure because, sitting where I do, I realise how much of the business that goes on in this House and the ease with which it does, at least most of the time, is the result of careful work along that Corridor. I also hasten to point out on behalf of the Cross Benches that we do not have any Whips. We do not need them: we have Kate Long, who is worth anybody’s office. I thank her and everybody who has helped.
International Development Strategy
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale
That this House takes note of the plans by Her Majesty’s Government to announce a new international development strategy for the United Kingdom in 2022.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity. I draw attention to my entry in the Lords register.
This week, across the United Kingdom, families of all faiths have been worrying about how they will manage to spend the holiday season, beginning next week, with their families and, perhaps, their friends. However, my thoughts have been drawn constantly this week to those millions of people around the world for whom daily life is so unbearable and the future so threatening that, whatever small luxuries they might enjoy this holiday season, they are looking forward to 2022 with dread. Wherever they come from, those who are hungry and worried, who have been displaced and who are experiencing extreme weather events or conflict and violence, will look at the Christmas period as a time when those relentless pressures continue and are not abated.
This year, that is perhaps more true in Afghanistan than anywhere else, given the events of recent months. Not only is there drought, a vaccination rate below 10% and 2 million people in the country currently hungry as a result of this year’s events, it is reckoned that perhaps as many as 1 million children under five could die in 2022 if emergency assistance is not available. Yesterday, the Disasters Emergency Committee launched an appeal for Afghanistan. I urge Members of your Lordships’ House to support it this Christmas and think about those in much less fortunate circumstances than us.
This is a rare opportunity to debate a strategy that has not yet been published. I therefore very much welcome this opportunity and am grateful to be able to lead the debate. I thank the Minister for attending and for what I am sure will be an interesting summation of the debate. I also thank him for his work this year in ensuring that COP 26 focused not only on climate change but on moving the emergency of our natural resource depletion up the agenda and putting biodiversity at the centre of the debate in a way that had not been the case at previous climate summits.
I thank noble Lords for speaking in the debate but I am sure that we all miss Frank Judd, who would of course have contributed today had he been with us at the end of this year, as he was last Christmas. I hope that his regular call to think about the interdependence of our world will be at the forefront of our minds in our contributions today. I made my first contribution in your Lordships’ House on 8 July 2010, speaking just after Lord Judd. At that time—it was a debate on international development—I referred to “signs of hope”. In my summation, I said:
“Let us build on them and help to build a safer and more prosperous world for us all.”—[Official Report, 8/7/10; col. 360.]
That seems like a very long time ago.
In the years following that debate, the new Government appeared as enthusiastic as the previous one about international development and making a positive contribution overseas, with the establishment of the Building Stability Overseas Strategy, which evolved over the years into the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, and the commitment to 50% of ODA going to fragile and conflict-affected states. The commitment given by the previous Government to spend 0.7% of GNI on official development assistance was also enacted during that period.
The emerging consensus, which was perhaps stronger than it had ever been in our country, was that the UK’s role as a development superpower was a key part of our soft power around the world and not just a moral obligation—it is a moral obligation, of course; I will always insist that that is the primary purpose of the contribution that we make—but it was also in our own self-interest in building a better and safer world for all. Even in 2019, after all the division of the previous two or three years and that very divisive election campaign, there was still some consensus between the parties and their manifestos. The party that won that election, of course, had firm manifesto commitments to increase spending on girls’ education, end malaria and maintain the commitment to 0.7% of our GNI being spent on official development assistance.
How different 2021 has been. In a year when our call to action should have been much stronger than ever before, with so many around the world suffering from vaccine inequality and the economic, educational and health challenges of lockdowns, we were the only leading nation in the world to cut our official development assistance. In a year when millions of youngsters missed out on school and millions of girls will not return to school, we cut the funding that we were going to give to girls’ education. In a year when we led the climate summit in Glasgow and had a responsibility to show an example to the rest of the world, we fell short on transitional funding for the countries that will suffer most from climate change and will now potentially suffer most in the transition to a greener future. This year, we have seen the migration and displacement of people go to their highest levels ever. We have seen the number of people around the world in extreme poverty go up, rather than down, for the first time in a generation. We continue to see vaccine inequality causing difficulties and problems in every part of the world.
Since 2010 and that speech I made in my first month in your Lordships’ House, I have tried very hard to work on a cross-party basis on international development and conflict issues, and to build friendships and collaborations across this House and another place to ensure that we take this agenda forward. I have tried to be optimistic at all times—even at the end of 2021, when I believe that the Government have made so many mistakes in this area of policy. I will try to be optimistic again today because the integrated review gave a commitment to a new international development strategy. It said that we would continue as a country to be a world leader on development. It said that we would restate our commitment to poverty eradication. It said that we would align our development spending and work with the Paris Agreement. It said that we would continue to work to achieve the SDGs by 2030. I welcome those commitments; I want to see them at the heart of this new strategy.
Today, I do not want to talk about how much is in the budget or how we spend the money; that is, the mechanics of delivery. I want to concentrate and what and why. This review should be an opportunity to review some of the inexplicable decisions that were made in 2021, such as the decision to almost completely clear out all UK funding for mine clearance around the world, which was just shameful. It should also be an opportunity to reinforce bilateral programmes again and give our ambassadors the sort of clout they could have had with an FCDO that was on the front foot rather than the back foot.
As the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, recently suggested in your Lordships’ House, it should set out a plan to work towards 0.7% being back in place, not just as a hope, an aspiration or a surprise in some budget in two or three years’ time, but as a step-by-step rebuild of the capacity and the spending. Also, much more importantly, it should set out priorities and a strategy. The objective and purpose of that strategy should be our contribution to the international effort to eradicate extreme poverty. That is the primary purpose of our official development assistance. The primary purpose of international development work should be to leave no one behind.
There is, of course, a role for the UK and others to contribute to immediate emergency humanitarian needs and, of course, we build into these strategies environmental considerations, the need for economic growth to sustain development, and the need for better governance and security, but poverty reduction is the moral purpose of development and the best way to ensure that our interests are met in the long-term, as well as the interests of those who suffer extreme poverty.
I suggest three key priorities for this strategy, which we hope will be published in the new year. First, it should be crystal clear throughout that we align our development spending and our work with the Paris Agreement and now, of course, with the agreements that were reached in Glasgow, and that we support the continuing UK COP 26 presidency by ensuring that we are working in a joined-up way between our development work and our work towards a greener and more environmentally friendly world. We should not be substituting development spending for the spending on the other initiatives that the Government should be pursuing in the UK’s role as president of COP 26. We should focus our development spending on supporting just transitions and mitigating the impacts, and on disaster resilience in the meantime for those countries that suffer the most from extreme weather events and climate change.
The second priority that should run right through the strategy is a focus on girls and women. The new Foreign Secretary has already mentioned economic development as a key priority, and of course we want to see economic growth in the developing world that sustains development over the longer term. Women’s economic empowerment, bringing women to the centre, will be by far the best investment for the long term to secure sustainable economic development. Alongside that, equal access to health, human rights, and the freedom to enjoy a childhood without being married early or having your body abused are fundamental, as is the need for girls’ education, not just in primary school but right through secondary school and into further and higher education. Education is the great liberator. I think that the Prime Minister understands this and believes it. I implore him to turn it into action and funding, and to deliver more than just the words of the commitment.
The third area, which the Government have had a reasonably good record on over the last decade, is the commitment to conflict-affected and fragile states; I sincerely hope that that will be at the heart of the new strategy. Support for peacebuilding and conflict prevention has been the hallmark of UK development work for two decades. In that debate in 2010, I said that
“development is the mortar of peace.”—[Official Report, 8/7/10; col. 360.]
Development and peace are completely interlinked. Nelson Mandela said that you cannot get peace without development and you cannot get development without peace. We see today in Ethiopia how quickly incredible levels of development can fall apart when conflict re-emerges. We see in Afghanistan that without governance and stability, and without trust in institutions and a functioning democracy, how people’s lives can be turned around in a matter of months.
We must retain our commitment to conflict prevention and peacebuilding. I would like to see the strategy reaffirm the commitment to 50% of the budget going to those states and these projects and development initiatives, putting democracy, human rights, trust in institutions and the rule of law, fighting injustice and protecting security at the heart of our development work. It is long-term, tough work, working with people—not “to” people or “about” people. This work is vital and makes such a difference. We have a ready-made framework for these priorities and for our development work if, as the G7 said in Cornwall back in June, we are serious about launching a drive towards what was then called the “build back better” world—a slightly strange title for a new initiative but welcome in its positivity.
The sustainable development goals agreed in 2015, which the UK played such a role in agreeing, pulling together and then promoting, address the key social needs of the world. They address the economic growth and security that are required to deliver those needs, and they address the foundations of a better-protected planet and of peace and security that will ensure that will ensure that development can be consistent and sustainable. The integrated review said that achieving the SDGs by 2030 remained a UK commitment. In the words of the Prime Minister at the last election, it is a ready-made framework for sustainable development and for building back a better world. I hope that those goals are embraced as part of this strategy.
In conclusion, I refer to the speech made by the new Foreign Secretary earlier this month at Chatham House, where she laid out her priorities. She talked in that speech of a “network of liberty”, of putting freedom, in economic and political terms, at the heart of the UK’s vision in the world. Liberty comes in many forms. You cannot trade if you do not have anything to trade. Freedom from oppression, fear and violence is important, but the freedom which allows people to go to school, to earn money, to have a job, to see opportunities and to take them up—these are the freedoms which will change the world. Just as I said in 2010 that development is the mortar of peace, I believe that development is the enabler of freedom. I hope that the new Foreign Secretary remembers that when she agrees this international development strategy.
We can all do better than we did in 2021 as we go into 2022. We should clearly resolve this Christmas and into the new year that 2022 will be very different from the 12 months that we are leaving behind. I beg to move.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I look forward to the publication of the international development strategy. A lot has changed in the UK since the previous strategy was published in 2015. Some of that change has been caused by factors beyond our direct control, such as the Covid pandemic, crises from Afghanistan to Ethiopia, and the impacts of extreme weather and climate change around the world. However, some of that change has been due to decisions made by this Government: the merger of the FCO and DfID, and the move from our commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on international development, while we have been assured is temporary. I look forward to that returning.
I do not want to dwell on this but will make one point on vaccines. The events of recent weeks have shown that we must redouble our efforts. As well as causing millions of deaths around the world, Covid is putting at risk the gains that we have made on development in recent decades. Counting our funding for vaccines within the self-imposed ceiling of 0.5% will inevitably hamper our efforts to help the rest of the world—and, therefore, ourselves—to deal with the virus and the variants that we will continue to see emerge from unvaccinated populations. There is little better investment that we can make at the moment. I strongly encourage the Government to think again and to fund global vaccination efforts over and above that 0.5% so that we can do more. The economic case, even if we look solely at the UK, could not be clearer.
There was little on development in the integrated review, so I look forward to the strategy fleshing out the details. In an attempt to be constructive, I acknowledge that the merger may bring some benefits, if the strategy recognises that development genuinely sits at the heart of the new department, as we have been repeatedly reassured. I hope that a new international development strategy, a new framework, will give a new impetus and direction of travel to the department, and involve the traditional diplomatic expertise from what was the FCO alongside the development expertise from what was DfID.
This strategy must lay the groundwork for rebuilding back to 0.7%, so it is critical that we get it right. While our work in international development is firmly in our national interest, I hope that we do not lose sight of the belief that tackling the world’s biggest challenges is a reason in itself. The strategy must recognise the continued need to work to end extreme poverty, to leave no one behind and to achieve the sustainable development goals ably championed by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, whom I thank for tabling this debate.
I hope that the new international development strategy has women and girls at its centre. I have been very pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary repeatedly say that her focus will be on women and girls, and I look forward to seeing the detail of what that means. It is certainly needed: global progress on gender equality is under threat, and the welcome advancements of recent decades are at risk, with the coronavirus pandemic and its secondary impacts disproportionately affecting women and girls. We are seeing a shadow pandemic of gender-based violence. Women remain economically restricted in many regions and, in some countries such as Afghanistan, their rights are being radically rolled back.
Ultimately, I would like to see the UK adopt a fully integrated feminist foreign policy. I believe that this approach is the best way for the UK to enable women and girls to flourish. This in turn helps achieve sustainable peace, build our allies’ economic strengths, reduce poverty and support our national interest.
But, today, we are discussing the development strategy, so let us start there with a genuine feminist development policy. I have three suggestions for that, first on crisis response. Supporting gender equality around the world is one of the best investments the UK can make to help mitigate the impact of the pandemic, violent conflict and the climate crisis. The UK can improve the delivery of UK aid by using feminist principles to ensure that women and girls are included at every level of decision-making and that more resources are channelled directly to women-led organisations.
Secondly, the UK should lead the way to recovery from the pandemic by implementing the strong recommendations from the G7 Gender Equality Advisory Council. We will improve the pace and sustainability of economic growth if we adopt gender equality as a guiding principle for all economic recovery programmes.
Finally, sexual and reproductive health has sadly seen its funding cut by 85%. I declare my interest as co-chair of the APPG on Population, Development and Reproductive Health. Ensuring that women and girls can access vital health services and are able to make their own reproductive choices is critical to ending preventable maternal, newborn and child deaths. It is also essential to enabling all girls to receive a quality education to help them prosper, achieve their potential and contribute to economic growth in their countries.
Through the development strategy, the Government have a real opportunity to re-establish themselves as a leading supporter of the rights of women and girls to have control over their bodies and lives. The UK SRHR Network is calling for a commitment to spend an average of £500 million per year on sexual and reproductive health, which is only 4% of the UK aid budget and that is the same proportion as a year ago. That would make a critical contribution to supporting access to modern methods of contraception for the 218 million women and girls who want to avoid a pregnancy, and would help end the hundreds of thousands of maternal deaths and the millions of unsafe abortions we see every year.
I have just two questions for my noble friend the Minister on women and girls. First, will the Government publish the equalities impact assessment relating to the UK aid cuts? That has now been shared with the High Court as part of a recent legal case and, after nine months, I would welcome an answer on whether the Government will publish it. Secondly, I accept that we are waiting for the details on the announcement of the restoration of funding to women and girls to pre-cuts levels, but we should at least be told which year will be used as a benchmark for this.
The pandemic has impressed on us all that we are interconnected, and that the UK’s peace and prosperity cannot be secured unless progress on gender equality is made across the world. The international development strategy can and should help us achieve this.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I draw attention to two issues that relate to the alleviation of poverty, social justice, human rights, and trade and development. First, the Pandora papers, the Panama papers, the Paradise papers and many others provide abundant evidence of global tax abuses, which deprive countries, especially poorer countries, of vital tax revenues. Those leaks highlight the role of accountants, lawyers and finance experts based in the UK, Crown dependencies and overseas territories, but the Government are yet to investigate, fine or prosecute any of the big accounting firms involved in those abuses. I hope the Minister can tell us whether any prosecutions are in the pipeline and, if not, why not.
The OECD also estimates that African countries lose at least $50 billion in taxes due to corporate tax abuses, which is more than the aid they receive. The Government can help to curb these predatory practices by imposing trade sanctions on tax havens, including Crown dependencies and overseas territories, for facilitating this global looting. They can also embrace transparency by ensuring that country-by-country reporting evidence is made public and by requiring large companies to publish their tax returns. That can again help developing countries.
Secondly, can the Minister please examine the negative impact of stabilisation clauses imposed on poorer countries through foreign direct investment agreements? Many of these are brokered by the Government themselves. The FDI agreements are often between unequals and, in many cases, the corporations are financially and politically more powerful than the host countries. I have seen some agreements that are over 300 pages long and written in dense legal language. Most are not publicly available, as corporations insist on that, making it difficult for anybody in those poorer countries to seek redress for abuses.
Stabilisation clauses are widely used by transnational corporations to manage non-commercial risks by stabilising or freezing the terms and conditions of a project. In effect, the project becomes a state within a state, with its own laws and rules. These clauses generally guarantee for the investors, who are mostly in the western world, that the domestic laws affecting the investment will remain unchanged or frozen during the entire life of the project, which can be 50 to 100 years.
In many cases, such clauses exempt the investing company from local taxes, customs duties and other charges that local industry has to pay. One survey of 88 FDI contracts noted that
“the stabilization clauses in non-OECD countries are more likely than those in OECD countries to limit the application of new social and environmental laws to the investments”.
The clauses either do not allow new laws to apply to the project or force host Governments to compensate investors for compliance with new laws, which might be for a cleaner environment, cleaner water, better wages or better pensions. Corporations are supposed to be compensated by poorer countries.
Stabilisation clauses are usually accompanied by arrangements for arbitration. However, the arbitration is through business panels located in Washington DC, Paris or London, which are empowered to make what are often called “final and irrevocable” decisions. Local people, who have never had sight of these agreements, have to ask foreign panels to adjudicate and they rarely succeed in bringing corporations to book.
One consequence of these arrangements is that local courts, lawyers and institutions of government do not develop the capacity to adjudicate on disputes. The enjoyment of human rights requires the state to develop appropriate regulation, enforcement and investigative systems. It cannot easily tackle discrimination at work, and gender and minority rights, without developing appropriate systems of corporate governance, law enforcement and a capacity to investigate suspect practices. However, the opt-outs guaranteed by stabilisation clauses and supported by the Government do not enable host countries to develop regulatory capacity, or the ability to monitor corporate activity, identify transgressors and meet their human rights obligations.
I ask the Minister to consider including the following items in the government strategy. First, the strategy should ensure that all FDI agreements by UK-based companies are made publicly available. Secondly, all FDI agreements must pass the human rights test. Thirdly, the UK Government must not broker any FDI agreement that constrains the power and right of host Governments to levy taxes and apply new laws to foreign investment.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, on securing this important debate. In common with other noble Lords, I await the Government’s strategy with interest, although on my part, I am afraid, with little expectation. I will focus my remarks on three particular areas that, among others, need to be central to any development assistance strategy: first, strengthening health services; secondly, combating climate change; and, thirdly, underpinning democracy and the rule of law.
Strengthening health services must be a key focus of our strategy. The Government’s decision to slash the aid budget—and here I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her commitment and integrity on this issue—was not only morally wrong but has proved detrimental to the health and well-being of our own citizens. Omicron is teaching us a hard lesson, but it is one that should have been obvious from the start: it is no good pulling up the drawbridges and putting the national interest before the interest of others because, in a global pandemic, the global interest is the national interest. The rich world cannot discharge its duty to protect its own citizens until it also discharges its duty to protect all the world. It is a parable for our times.
On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, told the House that
“we are only as safe as everyone else is.”—[Official Report, 14/12/21; col. 135.]
So why are the Government making us all less safe by the savage cuts we are inflicting on aid budgets and the huge economic damage we are doing, and have done, to developing economies by the travel bans, now, happily, abandoned? It is no good the Government saying one thing while they do the exact opposite.
As the Government develop their aid strategy, they must learn from this pandemic, because it is unlikely to be the last. They must work with G7 partners and other allies to help strengthen health services in low-income countries. The cuts are catastrophic to that process—over 50% in the case in many countries across Africa.
But it is not just on this perhaps self-interested aspect of health that the cuts are impacting. Funding to the UN family planning agency, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, has been cut by 85%. The ACCESS programme and the women’s integrated sexual health programme have been cancelled, with projected cuts to family planning in 2021-22 estimated at over £132 million. The Foreign Secretary says that the Government are committed to prioritising women and girls, but once again their actions indicate the contrary. Cuts to sexual and reproductive health programmes not only undermine the health of women and girls but lead to unplanned and unwanted pregnancies, driving population growth, putting further pressure on resources and accelerating climate and ecological damage.
That brings me to the second plank in any strategy, which must be how we address climate change. Low-income countries are on the front line against climate change, despite being the least responsible for it. We have a solemn duty to use our aid budget to help those countries decarbonise their economies so that they can develop and grow without inflicting further climate and ecological damage to themselves and other countries. It is no good the Government telling us that they are increasing climate finance while slashing the overall aid budget. Low-income countries are not stupid: a cut in funding is a cut in funding, however it is distributed across different pots of money.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, underpinning democracy and the rule of law must be at the heart of our aid strategy, because without good governance there is little prospect of aid achieving its long-term success, and without the rule of law individuals cannot live in the security and freedom that they have a right to deserve, and economies cannot prosper. Again, however, the Government say one thing and do another.
Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said in his response to a question about supporting Zambia’s democracy:
“The noble Lord talks about Zambia, and of course we have worked very closely with other key partners in ensuring that democracy not only prevails but is sustained.”—[Official Report, 15/12/21; col. 300.]
Yet the aid budget sends the opposite signal. Zambia, a country that in August saw free elections that resulted in an orderly transfer of power, will see its aid budget slashed by 58.6%—more than any other country in the southern Africa region. Malawi, whose judges acted without fear or favour to uphold the rule of law and defend democracy in 2020, receives the second-largest cut, at 51.5%. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe, a country I care about deeply but whose autocratic, quasi-military Government have looted the country, oppressed its people and ruined its economy, receives the smallest aid cut, and continues to receive more in aid than Zambia and Malawi combined. Can the Minister tell us what signal he thinks that sends to democrats on one hand and to dictators on the other?
Let me be clear: I do not want vital humanitarian aid to be cut to anyone, and I am appalled that mine clearance work in Zimbabwe has been halted, particularly given that those mines were planted by the former racist Rhodesian forces. But I want us to signal clearly that we will stand with democracies by providing enhanced and practical support to those countries that uphold democratic norms and the rule of law. We are doing the opposite.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, during the Cross-Bench debate in April on the reduction in UK development aid, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, told us
“I am determined … that we return to 0.7% as quickly as we can”.—[Official Report, 28/4/21; col. GC 558.]
In thanking the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for initiating today’s debate, I agree with him that the sooner we can restore funding for initiatives such as girls education, cut by 25%, and humanitarian preparedness for famine, the better.
In addition to hard-edged aid, UK funding does other extraordinary things, with, for instance, BBC World Service audiences reaching 364 million people—up 13 million people last year. I hope the Minister can tell us when the World Service, a global force for good, is likely to receive confirmation of its funding figures for 2022 onwards, and whether it will be sufficient to ensure that the World Service can continue to build on the success of World 2020 programmes and further expand its global reach.
In every context, secure and sustained funding is crucial to the credibility we have in sustaining of our relationships, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, on many occasions. But so is the way we use the money. I will never forget seeing the bombed remains of a clinic, a school and the homes of villagers I visited in South Sudan during the civil war, which claimed 2 million lives. Along with lost lives, millions of pounds of development aid was destroyed by Khartoum’s aerial bombardment of what were its own citizens. Now independent, South Sudan still struggles against all the odds to recover from that unspeakable violence.
Conflict destroys development, so a primary objective of our new development strategy must be to prevent and resolve conflict. Conflict also drives displacement, contributing to the 82.4 million people displaced worldwide, 42% of whom are children and 32% of whom are refugees—an issue the House will debate on a Cross-Bench Motion on 6 January. How are we using the £400 million earmarked by the FCDO to promote conflict management and resolution? What progress has been made in developing recently created FCDO initiatives for conflict mediation and stability, and in co-ordinating all conflict work right across government?
I will give some specific examples of the urgency of this task. I co-chair the All-Party Group on Eritrea. We have held a series of meetings and hearings on the conflict in Tigray. This conflict erupted a year ago and has resulted in thousands murdered, injured and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment, and thousands subjected to sexual violence as a weapon of war. The exact numbers are not known and will not be until a comprehensive and independent investigation is conducted. In northern Ethiopia alone, more than 7 million people now need humanitarian assistance. In Tigray, more than 5 million people need food and an estimated 400,000 people are living in famine-like conditions. Assistance there is hindered by the ongoing inability to move cash, fuel and supplies into the region. No aid trucks have reached Mekelle amid continued airstrikes. This catastrophe is manmade. Only today the Africa Minister, Vicky Ford, wrote to me to say that the situation in Tigray is catastrophic.
Tomorrow, the United Nations Human Rights Council will host its 33rd special session, which will focus on the human rights situation in Tigray and consider a mechanism for monitoring and investigating human rights violations in the country. The mechanism would preserve evidence of those atrocities and, where possible, identify those responsible—a crucial step towards justice and accountability—but I am told that a lack of funding may delay its establishment. I implore the Minister to investigate this, consider making a UK contribution towards the mechanism and encourage other states to do so.
To stop the flow of refugees, we must focus on the push factors of war, conflict, persecution and instability. As a trustee of the Arise Foundation, I have seen the interplay between trafficking and modern slavery and the mass movement of people. The 10 countries on the global slavery index with the highest prevalence of modern slavery and exploitation are in the top 50 fragile states, from Afghanistan to the Central African Republic. This conflict has disfigured life.
Let us take Nigeria, which has a flourishing domestic and international trade in human trafficking, from so-called baby factories to forced labour and sexual exploitation. It faces an array of complex challenges, from food insecurity and political instability to what many believe to be a developing genocide in the north, where an estimated 2.7 million internally displaced people are living in camps. More than half the population live on less than $1.90 a day, with millions facing acute medical needs, including 30% of the global cases of malaria and more than 20% of the deaths. As many leave their homes in search of a promised life, who can blame them? Over the past decade, we have given Nigeria £2 billion in aid, but too little of it has tackled the root causes of violence and built resilience and safety at local level.
In 2019, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact found that DfID did not fully support the long-term health of the civil society sector in its funding and partnership practices. That must change. We need long- term relationships with trusted parties, which will often be small, local institutions, often those within faith traditions. The integrated review invited focus on initiatives that produce
“the greatest life-changing impact in the long-term.”
The new strategy must surely address this issue.
Finally, a new development strategy should also combat the malign influence of the CCP as it subverts international institutions, including the Commonwealth, and uses belt and road to further its military interests, especially in Africa. If the Government address some of these things and those initiatives receive commensurate funding, they will deserve our support.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall begin with two points that I do not think anyone will disagree with. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on obtaining this debate and, secondly, I reaffirm my support, which I think is widely reflected in the House, for 0.7% of GNI to be used as overseas aid. That is probably where I end the consensus.
I know this debate is about the Government announcing a new international development strategy. I hope that the word “new” will be kept to the fore, because I have thought for quite a long time that there are many things in our development strategy that could be bettered. One of them is that, as the brief says, we need a globally focused UK to maintain its commitment to Africa while increasing development efforts in the Indo-Pacific—but I think we have to look at what we spend the money on.
I have made many visits to aid projects. Some aid projects funded and excellently run by British NGOs are doing little more than running perpetual food banks. We should have the Trussell Trust out there. I recall one project I visited in India which was teaching women how to cook. I thought it was a very good thing that a number of mainly English people—I think there was one Scottish person—were teaching Indian women how to cook rice. Of course, they were doing something more serious and were looking at nutrition, babies and the like, but they were only scratching surfaces. They were not really dealing with problems. I often reflect on the statement that we had years ago on aid agency posters: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life.” We need to do far more to help people to develop.
If we are to integrate aid and have an international development strategy, it would not be a bad idea to have a closer look at arms sales. Look at the amount of destruction in the world—which aid is often there to try to get around—that is being caused by arms, often from British factories and very often from western factories. We go in, we bomb the place to bits and then we have an aid programme to build it up, presumably to get into shape for the next bombing. Forty years ago, I was involved with Ethiopia. We really thought that we were curing the problems of Ethiopia and that Band Aid, Geldof and all the initiatives that were run, principally in the 1980s and early 1990s, were going to rebuild a new Ethiopia, but it is back to where it was, and that must surely in part be caused by a failure of our aid projects.
I suggest that we should have two principal approaches in our aid projects. First, we need to look very carefully at the Chinese belt and road initiative with a view to us having set initiatives where we put money into projects that are good for the development of the country but that we see through as projects. Forty years ago, I worked for the Crown Agents; it was quite close to here. It used to set up projects in what were then the colonies to help get them ready for independence. Clearly, we are a long way on from there, but the principle of us looking at a project, sending the engineers, costing the project and either finding or lending the money was quite sound, and many of the institutions, such as the Nigerian railway system, which was built by the Crown Agents, have stood the test of time extremely well. We need to look at our own belt and road initiative.
Secondly, there is soft power. I very much take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the BBC. The BBC World Service is one of the great triumphs of British soft power. I am told that it is listened to by around 456 million people in the world. Its Arabic audience alone is more than 40 million people. This is an area where we can get over our values and get them over in a way that is acceptable, because the World Service is probably one of the finest neutral broadcasters in the world. By neutral, I mean that you do not turn it on and say, “We are going to find out what the Brits want today”. It is a genuine news service. I also say to the Minister: stop cutting the FCO budget. To move the FCO into increasingly grim surroundings is not a good idea. I ask the Minister to look at maintaining and, indeed, increasing the FCO budget. Those are a couple of points to think about.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for obtaining this really important debate and for his passionate and informed introduction, which set the scene so well for us.
The omicron variant is a powerful and topical reminder that there is only one world and only one human race. There are people around who want to make out the case that our concern for international development is an additional cost, something added on the side. Actually, when we truly grasp what it is about, it is a real win-win for us. Apart from it being morally right, it will make economic sense for us as well as helping us address many issues. For example, helping other countries to flourish and thrive will increase their health systems, address things such as the pandemic we currently face and even begin to address some of the issues of economic migrants, so it is vital for us.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, rightly pointed out that the endgame is to try to end poverty and move beyond it. That is right, but how are we going to do it? First, the immediate pressing issue is addressing the pandemic. Some might say that we are talking about a long-term strategy. Students of pandemics tell us that it typically takes five, six or seven years as a disease works its way through populations, and we are not even in year three yet—we have not even completed two years. This is going to be going on for some while, so it is vital that we address this issue. That touches on a number of the issues that people have already raised, such as doing what we can to help provide vaccines, trying to licence vaccine production in other countries and indeed, as we were talking about earlier this week, overcoming vaccine hesitancy. I will not say any more about that but we in the Anglican Communion are seeking to work with our overseas links, providing teaching materials in local languages, led by local community leaders, to try to overcome vaccine hesitancy.
In the longer term we need to invest in democracy and the rule of law. Many of the problems that we face, which the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Balfe, have mentioned, have come about because of conflict and poverty and because there is no investment whereby people are committed to making their own country thrive and flourish. As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed out, sometimes this is because of endemic corruption. So, in the long run these things are vital to any strategy we have for leading the world by example. It is vital that we continue to stump up and provide observers at elections, and that we seek to work for the international rule of law.
Equally important is the issue of fair trade. If countries can develop their economies they will be able to provide for their own people, which would address a whole range of the issues that now confront us. The establishment of fair trade, the democratic imperative and the rule of law relate deeply to some of the other issues that a number of noble Lords have mentioned today. For example, in a world of fake news where people are simply being misled, the BBC World Service is vital. Personally, I am sorry that we seem to have lost so many of our libraries in some parts of the country. Certainly, when I was travelling in the 1980s and 1990s around remote parts of Africa, you would find people travelling in in order to read the British press. Nowadays the equivalent would be to get on the internet. These are things that make a tangible difference to our future.
Equally important is education. One of the things that this new global Britain can compete in is education. I find it extraordinary that we seem to be making it more difficult for people to come here; that ought to be one of our major engagements. Not only are we able to train people, and it is a win-win when they come here, but many of them then go back to their own countries and they will be the key people—the doctors, the politicians—making a real difference in their own communities. Any international development strategy ought to look holistically at how we develop some of the things we are brilliant at, and which we ought to be celebrating and building on. We are not going to be able to compete in many aspects of manufacturing, because they are costly, but we can contribute hugely to education, not least by training more doctors, for example, so that other countries can deal with the terrible pandemic that is ahead of us. I also echo what the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said a few moments ago about cuts to the FCDO and the lack of investment in languages; at this time, we need to invest in these things.
Those are some of the issues that we need to navigate through the Covid pandemic if we are to develop our historic role in the world and play our part in building a stronger, calmer, more just and more peaceful world.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I draw the attention of the House to my interests. I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, on having secured this debate today and introducing it with his usual expertise.
Last Friday was Human Rights Day, a day to celebrate the anniversary of the 1948 adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to celebrate our shared humanity. It reminds us why international development is so important—helping to address extreme poverty, encouraging human rights and promoting democratic and peaceful societies—and how vital the sustainable development goals are, with their ethos of leaving no one behind.
At a time when the world is under such strain through Covid and climate change, it is deeply regrettable that the UK decided to reduce its contribution from 0.7% of GDP to 0.5%, and I look forward to aid being restored to 0.7% as soon as possible. However, we should not forget what those aid cuts have meant to those on the ground. The International Rescue Committee tells me that between 2017 and 2021 the FCDO decreased funding for one of its flagship Syria projects by 75%. This resulted in cutting support for the operation of 20 health facilities, impacting some 76,000 individuals. Their livelihood centres had to close, and cuts to programmes there affected over 36,000 people across northern Syria, over half of them women and most of them living below the poverty line. Some 10 million people may lose access to WASH programmes in this year alone.
I welcome the Government’s announcement of a new international development strategy for next year and the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of her commitment to putting women and girls at the heart of UK foreign policy, including reversing aid cuts to programmes targeting women and girls. As she rightly said, the UK’s
“core agenda of promoting freedom and democracy cannot happen without freedom for women.”
Covid has exacerbated existing gender inequalities, pushing women’s rights backwards. Women are losing jobs faster in the pandemic due to being in more insecure work; for example, in Africa 90% of women work in the informal economy. The UK’s present focus on girls’ education could not succeed without also addressing other issues, including combating the violence that many women face; ensuring healthcare, sexual health and reproductive rights; promoting economic empowerment; improving women’s meaningful participation in the public and political spheres; and funding women’s rights organisations.
I am also delighted to hear of the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative and the announcement of a summit next year. The PSVI was always going to be a marathon, not a sprint, and we need to keep building on the work already undertaken to ensure that sexual violence in conflict becomes a red line that should never be crossed.
The brutal takeover of Afghanistan by the Taliban is such an unnecessary catastrophe. After 20 years of work there, not to mention the lives lost of our courageous military, the many who have sustained life-changing injuries and the billions of pounds spent on aid, it is a tragedy to see the country slipping backwards. I am also somewhat mystified by the US, which keeps talking about how Afghanistan must not become a haven for terrorism when one of the world’s most wanted terrorists, Sirajuddin Haqqani, is now the Afghan Minister of the Interior. Although the Taliban says that it has formed a Government, it has no experience of actually governing and has been committing brutal atrocities. So it is not surprising that a terrible humanitarian crisis is unfolding there, with many starving, and terrible reports of some women having to sell their babies to feed the rest of their families. I welcome the announcements of aid going in, but we must make sure that it is delivered to the grass roots through the UN and the NGOs. How do we ensure that it reaches the most vulnerable—those fearful and in hiding, the widows who can no longer go out on their own, the young men fearful of being seized to be recruited into the Taliban, the young girls fearful of being snatched to become brides for fighters?
I also hope that my noble friend the Minister can assure me that funding will be restarted for educational projects such as Leave No Girl Behind, community-based education and, of course, health projects. One of the successes of the last 20 years was the empowerment of women in Afghanistan. It went from a situation in 2001 where there were hardly any girls in schools to one where its brave women had come forward to take their place in society as politicians, doctors, teachers and army officers. But now the country has reverted, with not a woman in any senior position and the majority of girls denied access to secondary schools.
Women’s networks and organisations have played an important role in Afghanistan. I hope that we will continue to fund them in this difficult time. Who can forget the harrowing scenes in the summer at Kabul airport? I congratulate the Government on getting out 15,000 people in such a short time. Many of the high-profile women have had to leave, which has been traumatic for them. They find themselves in a strange country with no job and no means of supporting themselves. This is very hard.
Perhaps the Minister can tell me: why are we talking only to the men in Afghanistan about the future? The women who have had to leave wish to participate and have their voices heard about the future of their country. We must not desert them now; we have a moral duty to help them and ensure that they are at the table in a practical way. Can financial support be found for them so that they can organise and lobby too, for the future of their country? I look forward to the new international development strategy and hope that we can continue to support the most marginalised in the world in these difficult times.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this important debate today, the last sitting day of 2021. As this year draws to a close, the Government are being criticised for many of their policies and decisions. As a Cross-Bencher, I do not want to indulge in party-political point-scoring but the decision of the Government to reduce foreign aid spending from 0.7%, as recommended by the United Nations, down to 0.5 % has been one of their worst actions to date.
The Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, has promised that this decrease is a temporary measure due to the pressures on spending caused by the pandemic. One can sympathise with the Government having to make difficult spending decisions at this time, but that is not the right decision to have made. The Government’s announcement of a new international development strategy in 2022 is welcome. This country must reset its priorities on the international stage, and it is an opportunity to restore Britain’s reputation and show that we are, once again, leaders in this area.
One of the Government’s development priorities is global health security; specifically, to position the UK at the forefront of the international response to Covid-19. In June, the Prime Minister promised that the UK Government would join other G7 countries in using surplus vaccines to immunise the whole world. In September, at a summit chaired by President Biden, a December target of 40% vaccination was set for the 92 poorest countries. Three months on, there is little chance of this target being met in at least 82 of those nations.
According to WHO figures, the UK has delivered only 11% of the vaccines that it had earlier promised to the developing world, with the European Union doing marginally better by delivering 19% of what it promised, and the US 25%. WHO figures show that in Zimbabwe, only 25% of the population have received their first Covid-19 vaccine and only 19% have had both doses. In Namibia, only 14% have received their first vaccine and 12% both doses. It is little wonder that Covid-19 has continued to spread and mutate, meaning that we are now having to respond to the omicron variant.
To quote former Prime Minister Gordon Brown
“our failure to put vaccines into the arms of people in the developing world is now coming back to haunt us”.
Instead of cutting the overseas development assistance budget, the money could at least have been redeployed to improve vaccination rates in the world’s poorest nations. We should have done so not just for global humanitarian reasons but because slowing the spread and mutation of Covid-19 internationally would have reduced pressure on the NHS and helped to keep the population of this country safe.
The other point I would like to make is on the Government’s support for the Leave No One Behind pledge, committing themselves to strengthening the inclusion of older people and people with disabilities in development strategy. Yesterday, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, responded to my Written Question asking whether the Government’s new international development strategy will include specific recognition of the contributions, rights, and needs of older women and men by saying:
“The forthcoming International Development Strategy will establish an ambitious vision informed by the new global context, aligned with our strategic development goals and demonstrate how the UK plans to remain a global leader on development. The forthcoming refreshes of the Disability Inclusion Strategy and Strategic Vision for Gender Equality will retain a life cycle approach to deliver transformative change for all”.
That commitment is reassuring, as the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office’s ministerial portfolios no longer publicly include reference to inclusive societies. Can the Minister please confirm that the Government are not deprioritising the inclusion agenda and how they will ensure that the implementation of this strategy specifically includes groups at risk of marginalisation, such as older people?
Also, given the Government’s previous commitments to include ageing as an important factor in the former Department for International Development’s efforts to tackle extreme poverty, how will they ensure that the rights and needs of people of all ages, including older people, are included? Will the international development strategy be explicit about poverty reduction, ensuring that those older people who are left furthest behind are included?
The international development strategy is, as the Minister said in his written response to me yesterday, an opportunity to
“establish an ambitious vision informed by the new global context”.
This country must show global leadership on international development; the new strategy is an opportunity for us to do much better than we have up to now. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I must declare that for much of my academic life, I studied development and have written a lot about it. I did a lot of work on human development. Coming from India, I have also been observing over the last 60 years the course of development aid.
While I am very impressed by the idealism shown by speakers today, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for introducing his debate, I am afraid I do not take part in the idea that foreign aid, development aid or overseas development aid—whatever you want to call it—actually does very much of what it is claimed to do. Ultimately, I am glad that DfID has become part of the Foreign Office, because development aid is an arm of diplomacy. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the right reverend Prelate talked about soft power and it is about that. You are buying soft power; that is why we give money away.
After all, if we want to cure poverty, there is a lot of poverty at home. There are food banks here; our pensions are the lowest in Europe. Of course, you could say that our poor are not really poor—the real poor are out there. But if you look at what has eliminated poverty in Asia, by and large, in China, India, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan, it was industrialisation, which was helped a lot by the entry of foreign capital. This is a professional observation; I am not making these things up. We deindustrialised and Asia industrialised—that is the simple story of the 1970s and 1980s.
When it comes to poverty reduction, if we really believe that foreign aid is for poverty reduction, we should give money to the poor—find where the poor are and give cash to them. I remember saying this in your Lordships’ House about 15 years ago, when the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, was the Minister for DfID. At the time, $50 billion was spent on overseas aid, and I said that we should give $50 to each poor person, and that is it—that would do more to cure poverty than anything I know of. Of course, we do not do that; we have a very elaborate model of what poverty is and what we want to eliminate.
As we have observed this afternoon, very sincerely, all sorts of things can be related to poverty—political unrest, gender discrimination and all sorts of other things, which I do not want to repeat. One has to have a clear argument as to how the many things we do are actually going to reduce poverty. In the very nice paper produced by the Library, I see that in the ODA allocations by thematic areas for 2021-22, 40% of the money goes on two items: “programmes with cross-cutting themes”, whatever that means, and
“Arm’s-length bodies, international subscriptions and other fixed costs”.
Those two items take £3 billion out of the £8 billion. I really do not know what they do, but they must do something. How much money goes on hiring consultants who tell us why teaching women cooking in India actually reduces poverty in India? I am sure that there is a lovely consultation paper that would tell us how to do that.
I am sorry to be a Daily Mail-like person here this afternoon, but after 60 years of studying foreign aid I am no longer starry-eyed about it. I would like the Government at some stage to do some thinking about whether money going abroad actually reduces poverty or whether it just encourages lots of NGOs. Secondly, is a pound spent abroad good enough, or should we spend it at home, because we have food banks, gender discrimination, disability problems and low pensions? Universal credit has just been cut in this country. What is all the money for? After 60 years of foreign aid, should we not leave our arrogance behind and say, “It is not really up to us to go out and cure poverty there, which we don’t even know anything about”? Give it a break.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, it is quite a challenge to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai. He used to sit opposite me, but now he is in the middle.
I come out of the CDC stable, which has been variously known as the Colonial Development Corporation and the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and now is known as the CDC Group. It used to be funded, in my day, by loan capital, on which we paid interest before we repaid the loans; we even paid corporation tax. The CDC Group is a limited liability company owned by us and controlled by the FCDO. It does not pay its shareholders any dividends, does not have to pay for loan capital, and it does not pay corporation tax. So one thing you can say about the strategy that has been followed is that life is a good deal easier than it was in my day.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for inviting us to think about strategy, which is a long-term business. I follow the noble Lord, Lord Alton, on the matter of conflict resolution in the document that we are all looking forward to as a strategic document. I hope that it will not duck some of the hard questions about conflict resolution. I shall raise only one. On the Commonwealth member Cameroon, is there going to be some hard information in this strategy about our contribution to resolving the quite unnecessary conflicts there?
In thinking about long-term strategy, another thing that should not be ducked, which is of course related to all the points that have been made about women’s education and life chances in this debate, is population. It is a very difficult subject. The birth rate in western Europe is now around 1.5 babies per fertile woman; in sub-Saharan Africa, it is about 4.5 babies—actually 4.7, I think—which is three times as many. Whereas the population of western Europe is now not estimated to grow very much more, the population in sub-Saharan Africa is predicted to double by 2050. All I want to say about that is that, in any strategic document, it is an amazing challenge: what are we actually going to do about it as a practical matter?
There are some signs—and I, like the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, am basically an optimist. The world’s peak population was predicted to get to 13 billion some 20 years ago, when predictions were being made. I think that we all agree that the world’s population is putting too much pressure on Mother Nature, hence the way that climate change and biodiversity loss have gone up the agenda. It seems to me that any strategic document cannot duck the issue of man’s pressure on Mother Nature. It must be in some way dealt with, or at least commented on. Silence will not do.
Now the world’s peak population is predicted to be about 9.8 billion, and then to go down a bit, so the world’s fertility rates are falling—and they are falling even in sub-Saharan Africa. The question is whether we welcome that. In the Times newspaper this morning there was an article about Italy that said it had its lowest recorded fertility rate for a very long time. The question is whether Italy should welcome that, or whether it should be in despair because it is not going to have enough young people to support old people like me. These are difficult decisions.
Finally, I welcome some of the things our new Foreign Secretary has done in preparation for this strategy. CDC, which is going to change its name, will be empowered to go back to work in many small and medium-income countries in which we have worked for most of our 73 years: the Caribbean, Papua New Guinea and so on. In small and medium countries—Malawi, for example —the economic opportunities are not very great, but unless you can develop the private sector those economies will not prosper, and CDC is an extremely good vehicle to achieve that development.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for bringing this important and very timely debate to the House. I will focus on two key issues: first, the longer-term impact of the Government’s decision to slash overseas aid by 30%, and secondly, the insufficient allocation of aid to Covid and global health. These two issues are of course connected.
With respect to reducing our contributions from 0.7% to 0.5% of GNI, many of us on all sides of the House have stated how unjust and poorly timed this measure is. It cuts our aid by almost £4 billion per annum, not just this year but for another two to three years by the Chancellor’s own estimates, and I fear probably beyond that. Why beyond? Because we may fail to meet the Chancellor’s two fiscal tests to restore the 0.7% contribution: that the UK is running a current budget surplus and that the ratio of underlying debt to GDP is falling. The Chancellor hopes to meet these tests by fiscal year 2024-25. But it was already a close call on both counts when they were announced six months ago. The OBR has since admitted to “modest headroom” on the debt target, which could be wiped out by the 1% lower growth or rising interest rates.
Since then, we have seen a slowing of GDP growth, we learned yesterday of a jump in inflation to 5.1%, and there is the rising menace of the omicron variant, all of which put government finances under further strain. Our overseas aid could be depressed for as many years as the Chancellor doggedly clings to these fiscal tests. I therefore ask the Minister: in light of the changing economic landscape, do the Government have any plans to reconsider these fiscal tests? Such uncertainty over our aid budget clearly undermines our international strategy and the aim for the UK to be one of the world’s leading development players—let alone our bid to become “global Britain”.
This brings me to my second point. If ever there was a need for the UK to step up and show some sorely needed leadership, it is in the area of global health. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, referenced the moral case for addressing vaccine inequality, as well as the economic case mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. The FCDO’s spend allocation for Covid-19 and global health for this year stands at just £1.3 billion. This includes our commitment to the WHO and COVAX, and the donation of 100 million vaccines—although we learned two days ago that only 16 million have been delivered so far. You can argue, as I do, that our contribution to fighting the global pandemic should not be coming out of the annual aid budget at all, especially in its newly diminished state. In the face of the world’s worst health crisis for 100 years, the sum of £1.3 billion sends out a feeble signal to the rest of the world, especially to our fellow members of the G7.
Omicron is a stark reminder that we need to vaccinate the world, and quickly. There are 5 billion adults to vaccinate—6 billion if that includes those aged over 15—and they may need three or even four doses each. Richer nations may therefore need to donate more than 10 billion doses a year, yet COVAX’s target this year is 2 billion doses and only 600 million of those have so far been delivered. Here we are in the UK, with 80% of us already double-vaccinated, now scrambling madly for our boosters to protect us against a variant that emerged from a continent where the single dose vaccination rate is less than 12%. Where will the next variant come from? It is very likely to be from another country with high population density, poverty, poor healthcare and low vaccination rates.
Turning to the economic argument, the cost of the pandemic’s damage to the world’s economy is approaching $10 trillion, while the cost of vaccinating the world is estimated at $50 billion to $100 billion. Such a cost would represent history’s greatest bargain, so why has there been such a gulf in world leadership? Where are the G7, OECD, IMF and others on this issue—or are we going to continue to leave it to COVAX and the WHO? The UK’s approach is symptomatic of the problem: we are aiming to contribute just 100 million doses from an emasculated aid budget. As the fifth largest economy in the world, the UK should be leading by example. A £5 billion contribution to help finance 1 billion vaccines would be nearer the mark; Japan, Germany, France and Canada are contributing at similar levels, and the US considerably more.
Beyond the economic damage, the secondary impacts of Covid such as collapsing healthcare, gender-based violence and deepening poverty are the very areas that need our aid and assistance. But our contributions cannot keep up with demands if we do not help to protect the world from the pandemic. My second question to the Minister is this: what plans do the Government have to radically review the UK’s global health contributions as we approach the third year of a global pandemic?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for securing this debate. I start from the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans: that no one is safe until everyone is safe, as has been so acutely brought home by Covid. To be more specific, current science suggests that the omicron variant probably arose in someone who was immunocompromised and untreated for HIV. That demonstrates how the world’s healthcare systems are crucial to the health of us all.
Even more broadly, no one is secure—we cannot be secure—until everyone in the world is. Our failed foreign policies, our role as one of the chief arms peddlers in the world and our refusal to accept the rightful desire of self-determination from peoples around the world has put the world, and us, in the position it is in today. I particularly commend the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. We have to stop being the world’s chief enabler of corruption. This is a neocolonial continuation of the colonial exploitation that made so much of the world so poor.
I will address the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, suggesting that it is not up to us to cure poverty. First of all, it is up to us to stop causing poverty through the actions of our institutions and our companies. It is surely up to us to repair some of the damage we have done and continue to do, both through overseas development assistance and through reparations. It is obvious that the need for the strategy we are all anxiously awaiting and previewing today is more acute in these times of straitened ODA budgets. It is estimated that this year, we are down to about £11 billion, from nearly £15 billion the year before.
Like other noble Lords, I am sure, I received a number of briefings from major institutions in the UK making entirely well-founded special pleadings. The noble Lords, Lord McConnell and Lord Oates, referred to the Mines Advisory Group and the fact that there has been a 75% cut in funding in that area, which is unconscionable. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists—picking up on points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, on the slashing of funding for sexual and reproductive health—says that at least 5% of the budget should go to mother and baby health. Save the Children points out that our bilateral aid to Africa is at a 15-year low in real terms, and likely to fall below that of most of the G7. It asks —I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on this—that poverty reduction be the chief aim of the strategy. Sightsavers makes a really important point about the need for disability-inclusive development.
In introducing all this, the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said that it was not about the budget but about how we use it. I am afraid this must be about the budget, because we cannot meet even our most urgent, crucial priorities in the current framework. I believe the Minister would love to go back to the department and say, “More money for ODA”, but I realise the barrier he faces. I have a different proposal for him to take back that is not just about more money. It does not come from me but from more than 50 Nobel laureates, who this week signed an open letter calling for a “peace dividend” campaign—for all countries to cut their military spending by just 2% a year for the next five years and put half the money into a UN fund to combat pandemics, the climate crisis and extreme poverty. To name a couple of the UK signatories, there is Sir Roger Penrose—UK mathematician, philosopher of science and physics laureate—and the biologist and Cambridge University professor Sir Venki Ramakrishnan. The Dalai Lama is also a signatory.
The proposers say that this fund could amount to $1 trillion by 2030. To look at the numbers in this, UK defence spending is currently about £50 billion—given that figure, the NHS, which gets about £200 billion, is remarkably good value for money. Taking 2% from UK defence spending—£1 billion a year—would not be utterly transformative but it would go a long way, particularly in the priority areas that NGOs have been making such powerful representations to us about. It would mean a 10% increase in the budget. Green Party policy, I must say, is to have 1% of GDP—about £20 billion—for the official development assistance budget, which would meet most of the most urgent priorities.
I finish by stressing that all this is a relative drop in the ocean compared to the damage we continue to do every day. We must really look at our place in the world; we often hear that the Government wish to be world leading. Here is a very practical example, which I hope the Minister will at least take back and ask for a discussion about, of how we could be truly world leading in stepping up to the peace dividend. Perhaps this is outside the Minister’s hands, but every government Minister could ask themselves over this festive season what they could do to make the world a better place and make everybody in the UK securer and safer in 2022.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for raising this important subject. I am heartened that the Government are considering the strategic implications of this country’s actions in the sphere of international development.
The skill and expertise with which so many programmes have been delivered by this country, in partnership with British NGOs, aid organisations and British business—including in educating girls and empowering people to contribute to their societies—are important factors in the esteem we enjoy, not least in Commonwealth countries, which are a cornerstone of our place in the world. In that context, many programmes, at the time of greatest need, have recently suffered from the temporary reduction in overseas development aid to 0.5%. I urge the Government to return to their commitment of 0.7% of GDP as soon as possible.
The stable environment we require to compete and succeed is best served by placing the United Nations sustainable development goals at the heart of our international development strategy, to support communities and countries in becoming stable and prosperous and to address the root causes as much as the symptoms of enforced migration. These goals—ending poverty and hunger, promoting well-being at all ages and ensuring education and gender equality among them—provide the best platform for building partnerships with the international community on the basis of shared values and objectives.
Our wider strategic aims in free trade and geopolitical influence would be well served by reinforcing our reputation as an international development leader in areas such as gender equality, education and empowerment, where we have a proud record. I draw particular attention to the urgent need to address the plight of Covid widows, who have lost their means of support and are marginalised in many of the countries most acutely affected by the pandemic. At times such as these, our focus must be to shine a light on those who are most in need.
Covid is a crisis that has affected us all—rich and poor, north and south—and we know there are lessons to be learned about being prepared for the unexpected from the public health emergency in our own country. This also applies to international development and how well prepared we are to respond to humanitarian crises. This is an area where global Britain should make the best of the advantages it has in being able to respond swiftly on our own. I urge the Minister to make this potential advantage a strategic priority in the Government’s international development strategy, with the aim of making our systems and processes fit for nimble and agile responses in an increasingly unpredictable environment.
It is true that the work of the FCDO is integral to the UK’s role in international development, but it is not the only relevant department, when you consider global Covid-19 vaccine inequity or climate change. Can the Minister tell us how the international development strategy will create a coherent whole-of-government approach to international development and when it will be published?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, we have been repeatedly told by this Government that global Britain policy is a result of a fully integrated policy-making process, but the integrated review came after the FCO-DfID merger. It did not inform it. Spending decisions on co-operation and overseas assistance came, and will come, after a much-delayed development review that we still have not had, rather than being decided by policy choices. A law, built on consensus, to maintain our level of co-operation and support at 0.7% of GNI has now been replaced by an executive target of 0.5%, with annual decisions on its future.
This approach is now the ceiling, whereby vaccine support or girls’ education, as has been referred to in this debate, will not go over this executive target—so that means that other areas will be cut even more. Reverse- engineering policy to fit budgets is bad government and it is worse when it comes to international policy. The fact that we have new business later today on FCDO staffing cuts is telling in itself.
With others, I commend the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for being so persistent in this House for the global goals and international development policy. His debate allows us to consider what should be in the next review, and we are grateful for it.
We on these Benches support the calls we have heard in the debate from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for UK international assistance policy to take a feminist approach. I have spoken to my colleagues in our sister party in Canada about how the Canadian Liberal Government put forward the first feminist international assistance policy. It had strands within it directing future policy, but through this gender approach, under the titles of human dignity; for quality healthcare, nutrition and education; for growth that works for everyone; for environment and climate action, and climate finance to reduce barriers for women, particularly in the services sector and finance; for investments; for inclusive governance; and for peace and security, all directed through a gender lens and all forming a very strong international strategy. I and my party want the UK to be the lead country in the Development Assistance Committee on delivering a feminist international assistance policy.
I will not refer to “aid” in my contribution, I will refer to “co-operation”. I believe very strongly that we should have not an aid strategy but an international co-operation strategy, because we share the 17 ambitions in the global goals on an equal basis with every other country in the world within the UN. The question should be how we play our part, as one of the richest countries in the world, for those who are less developed to meet all those 17 ambitions. We carry out a voluntary national review, as other countries do, on the global goals. We are no better or worse than them as a country, even though Liz Truss tells us that we are the greatest country on earth. We share our priorities and therefore the global goals should underpin all this approach going forward.
There are other areas we should reflect on in the changing world since the last review, but also looking forward. That is the case with climate finance. If we fail on climate, there is no development. There should be a particular focus on urbanisation. A projected extra 2 billion people will live in cities by 2050. What comes after the 2030 agenda? The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised a point about seeing Africa not as a development challenge but as a continent of opportunity. I will be meeting the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, the Investment Minister, on the prospects of an African prosperity commission and I hope that the strategy genuinely is an integrated document—that it does not just say so but genuinely is—so that it brings trade policy within these areas too.
As my noble friend Lord Oates said, however, words are not actions, and we have to see the Government’s policies as a result of their actions, in many regards. Across that area, they are shameful, because, at a time of global pandemic, which has impacted the world’s poorest people the greatest, the Government have made the choice—it was not an obligation upon them—to cut support in many areas with a direct impact on the lives of women, in particular, and children and their life opportunities.
In her Chatham House speech, as was referred to, the Foreign Secretary—who, incidentally, did not mention poverty once—set what the Government’s international strategy would be going forward. She seemed to indicate that the key element of this will be our alternative response to China. As International Trade Secretary, she saw trade with China grow at the fastest rate ever and we now have a £43 billion trade deficit, meaning that we are heavily dependent on imports. But she has refused, as a Trade Secretary and now as Foreign Secretary, to have a human rights policy integrated into our trade and reflected in a development strategy. So I hope the Minister can state categorically that the co-operation strategy will include key elements of human rights policy across all elements of our economic and trade policies.
What of the news today, which is breath-taking in its impact? Just a few days after the Foreign Secretary indicated that we would be looking for alternatives to finance, the UK has slashed its support to the International Development Association of the World Bank by 55%. This is a fund for the world’s poorest countries to receive AAA-rated funds and, in the replenishment this year, the UK has cut its contribution by $1.8 billion. I remind the Minister that the UK has been the biggest single donor to the IDA and whereas, in this replenishment, France, Japan and the US have increased their pledges, none of them could offset the UK’s cuts. It means that the Foreign Secretary says one thing to our domestic media, while in the global forum there are cuts that will actively undermine this approach.
On girls and women, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, said, we have waited long for the impact assessment, and I hope the Minister will state today when we are to receive it. At a time of global pandemic, when vaccine nationalism, as my noble friend said, does not work, the UK is slashing support for health systems around the world. Unbelievably, we have seen vaccines and medicines destroyed because we have prevented the health systems being able to distribute them to those most in need.
On conflict, as the noble Lord indicated, last week I was in north Iraq meeting Yazidi leaders. They told me quite heart-rending stories of how they feel they are now a forgotten population, with 280,000 IDPs still in camps, seeming to be forgotten, as the Lord, Lord Alton, indicated. I was reminded that when there was military action, the UK was raising this issue every week—there were Statements and elements of funding—but now on conflict prevention and peace- building we are silent. Why have we cut support for development for these people in Iraq in totality from £50 million in 2020-21 to just £3 million in 2023-24? Please give us an explanation as to why the Government have done that.
In my last moment, I appeal to the Minister to reflect on his answer to me when I raised the point about the massive jump that may come in 2024, if we are to return to 0.7%, of an extra £5.2 billion allocated. He said, “It’s not going to happen overnight, there’s ample time to prepare”—but none of the Treasury statements give any indication that there will be a smooth transition back to 0.7%. Every statement from the Treasury says that we will review it annually and, if next year’s figures meet their fiscal targets, we will then grow to £5.2 billion in one year, which will be impossible to programme and deliver sensibly. So I appeal to the Minister again: would it not make much more sense, if we are to return to the legal target of 0.7%, to do it in a staged manner, so we do not reverse-engineer all the problems we have created but start from this strategy now, with proper looking forward, so we can operate in a much better way? In that way we will be a better partner—and a more reliable one also.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend not only on initiating this debate but on his excellent cross-party work on the APPG for the SDGs. I also reflect on his words about Frank Judd, because I know that, had Lord Judd been here, he would have stressed, absolutely, the interdependence of our world.
In her recent speech on the network of liberty, the Foreign Secretary said she would be launching the new development strategy in the new year; I have heard that that is likely to be in March. Of course, that strategy was promised in the Government’s integrated review, which was published in March of this year. In the words of my noble friend Lord McConnell, the review reflected the work of all British Governments over a period of 20 years, reflecting, as he has repeatedly said, a cross-party consensus about trying to bring together in a coherent and strategic fashion the three Ds: development, defence and diplomacy. We have to deal with the root causes of conflict and instability. That is why defence, diplomacy and development have to go hand in hand.
The Foreign Secretary says that efforts to build a network of liberty must be firmly anchored in human rights and civic freedoms, both of which play a crucial role in the promotion of democracy and freedom globally. Being a force for good in the world means always taking a stand against injustices, human rights abuses and suffering, even when it is inconvenient to do so. We must strengthen our ties with civil society too. There was little of substance on this in the integrated review, which I hope will be corrected in the development strategy. Women’s organisations, charities, faith groups, trade unions and other organised communities have all demonstrated their role in defending democracy and human rights. When nations fail in their most important task of providing safety, security and freedom for their people, it is always civil society that leaps first to their defence.
Being a force for good in the world also means putting forward a vision for a more secure and prosperous future, delivering on the UN’s global goals and fulfilling our commitment to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable—not leaving anyone behind, as noble Lords have said. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Desai—it was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis—the SDGs are universal. They are not us preaching to others but apply here, to all of us, and that is why they are so important in terms of the strategy for the future.
I too pay tribute to David Cameron. His leadership on the SDGs was vital, building on the leadership of Gordon Brown in the millennium development goals. Sadly, that leadership has been missing from this Government. The 2030 agenda if achieved will end extreme poverty, hunger and gender-based violence and ensure that every individual has access to rights, including safe drinking water, quality education and clean energy. A strategy involving diplomacy, defence and development does not need a big department. Rather, it needs a commitment to work across Whitehall. We need a champion for the sustainable development goals in the Cabinet. Of course, the work of the FCDO is integral to the UK’s role in international development but, as we have heard in this debate, it is not the only department, particularly when it comes to issues such as global Covid-19 vaccine inequality or climate change. I hope that the Minister will set out further detail on how the international development strategy will create a coherent, whole-government approach to international development.
As the noble Lords, Lord Oates and Lord Purvis, said, the Government’s words must be matched by their actions. How can we champion human rights while selling arms to Saudi Arabia, which has contributed to creating the world’s most desperate humanitarian situation? How can we aspire to be a world leader in international development while breaking our legal commitment to 0.7%? Here I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, for her leadership on this issue and for building a cross-party coalition so that we return to 0.7% as quickly as possible. I hope the Minister will set out in more detail exactly what the timeframe is for that return. To maintain our enormous influence on the world stage and be a moral force for good, we must be consistent in our approach. The Government need to end the contradictions and inconsistency between their words and actions, and that starts with supporting once again the principles of sustainable development.
The global health, climate and humanitarian crises should result in more attention being given to the critical role that development plays in tackling global challenges. The global refugee crisis requires a joined-up strategic approach. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, the best way to help those people is to ensure that they can have a better life in the countries from which they originate. International development is key to unlocking many of the other strategic and diplomatic aims of the FCDO.
As my noble friend said—and I know that a lot of NGOs have focused on this—there are four key areas that we need a clear focus on. We need a clear articulation of the United Kingdom’s global leadership role, a cross- government approach to responding to humanitarian and peacebuilding activities, a plan to ensure that economic systems do not perpetuate poverty, and a clear commitment to ensure vaccine equality.
We have heard in this debate about the cuts that have reduced the United Kingdom’s ability to have an impact in reducing global poverty and achieving the SDGs. It is an absolutely terrible situation, as noble Lords have mentioned. I will focus on Africa. Currently, the FCDO’s bilateral aid budget to countries in Africa is at a 15-year low. Many of the world’s poorest countries are on the African continent. I hope the Minister can confirm that the international development strategy will reaffirm the United Kingdom’s commitment to Africa and increase aid to the continent in real terms.
We have heard reference in this debate to the CDC, which will become the BII—the Foreign Secretary also referred to it—with a new strategy and a new five-year plan. No one can pretend that the SDGs can be delivered by Governments alone; I mentioned civil society, but of course the private sector is also integral to that. I hope that the new strategy by the CDC or BII will be subject to a full parliamentary debate and that we have the opportunity to scrutinise the huge investments that that body will be making.
Our commitment to the world’s poorest and most vulnerable also means spending on the right aid projects, which means supporting multipliers such as nutrition, clean water and education, which have myriad development benefits, most importantly for women and girls. I made a point this week about the Nutrition for Growth summit, which took place earlier this month. I was hugely disappointed that our leadership role on nutrition was not matched by a pledge at that summit. I understand and appreciate the FCDO’s commitment to adopting the OECD policy marker, but there is much more work to be done. I hope that the Minister will be able to reaffirm the UK’s role as a global leader in nutrition by committing to good-value initiatives that end preventable deaths and empower women and girls.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, for tabling this debate and for his continued interest in the international development strategy. He made an enormously powerful introduction, and I am grateful for his kind words about some of the successes at the COP 26 conference just a couple of weeks ago.
The international development strategy will be the first statement of the UK’s approach to development since the creation of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. It will bring together our diplomatic and development expertise with trade and other levers, including our leading UK institutions and civil society, enabling us to set a high level of ambition.
The strategy will take forward our commitments in the integrated review, which set out that the UK is one of the world’s leading development actors, committed to the global fight against poverty and absolutely committed to achieving the sustainable development goals by 2030. In line with the integrated review, the strategy will have a time horizon to 2030 and beyond. We will focus our development efforts not only on the needs that exist today or that could arise from crises but on those areas where we can have the greatest life-changing impact in the long term. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I say that it will be published next spring, and I am pleased to provide an overview of the Government’s current thinking in this debate.
Reflecting our integrated review, published in March, the strategy will respond to the trends shaping today’s international geopolitical context. I am keen to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that this includes China’s increasing assertiveness and the critical importance of the Indo-Pacific region. It also includes the ideological competition between freedom-loving democracies and autocratic regimes. It encompasses transnational challenges, such as Covid-19, climate change and environmental degradation, which deeply affect vulnerable and developing countries and require global combined action.
Many of these trends are felt more acutely in developing countries. The drivers of poverty and instability—such as institutional fragility, conflict and climate change—are increasingly complex and interconnected. Indeed, these issues often have the most devastating impact on the most vulnerable, while threatening global stability and prosperity for everyone.
Against this backdrop, the integrated review makes it clear that the UK will remain a major development player. With this strategy we will work to reduce poverty, tackle climate change and address humanitarian crises, while bringing more countries into the orbit of democratic, free-enterprise economies. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and a number of other speakers pointed out, this is not an add-on to the rest of the business of government or a box-ticking exercise; this is absolutely critical. The work of the FCDO on development is fundamentally right but also fundamentally in our own interests. One only need consider climate change, which is clearly the defining international challenge of our lifetimes.
As set out in the integrated review, tackling climate change and biodiversity loss is the Government’s number one international priority over the next decade. As COP 26 presidents, only last month we brought the world together to finalise and build on the Paris Agreement. Although clearly there remains a big gap between where we are today and where we need to be, there can be no doubt that we narrowed that gap considerably further than anyone had anticipated or predicted, and we have indeed kept alive the possibility of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees. We saw significant and meaningful progress with net-zero commitments in the final negotiated text, which was agreed by all 197 parties. Indeed, we now have net-zero commitments for over 90% of the world’s economy—up from 30% just two years ago, when the UK took on the COP 26 presidency.
There is a clear recognition that we cannot tackle climate change—or, indeed, a whole range of other issues, including the sustainable development goals—without massively increasing our efforts to protect and restore nature. Of course, that is true of climate change, but also of poverty. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, mentioned Ethiopia. There are all kinds of complex causes that have driven Ethiopia back into the dire state that it now finds itself in. But one of those causes, undoubtedly, is pressure on the environment. For example, increasing desertification and acute water insecurity are both fundamentally environmental problems that need addressing.
We know that the commitments secured at COP will count for nothing unless we continue to ramp up ambition and until those promises are kept. I absolutely assure the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that that is our priority this year. Our presidency did not end with the conference; it ends as we hand over to Egypt. While we hold the presidency, we will absolutely use every tool at our disposal to ensure that we can give meaning to the commitments made at COP.
Through the international development strategy, the UK will continue to ensure that our development offer helps to accelerate an orderly and inclusive global transition to a nature-positive, net-zero future, and we will continue to work with countries to enable the most vulnerable to adapt to climate change and reverse biodiversity loss. I am absolutely thrilled that the noble Lord called on the Government to align their whole ODA portfolio with our Paris commitments in his opening remarks. I strongly agree; indeed, that is a commitment the Government have already made. But I am very keen for us to go further and align our entire ODA portfolio not just with our Paris commitments but with nature. As part of our presidency over the next few months, I will be doing what I can to encourage other donor countries to do the same. Globally, ODA is about £140 billion a year. Tragically, a lot of our interventions on aid have been made at the expense of the environment, and therefore, I argue, at the expense of the long-term security, peace and prosperity of the people whose poverty we are supposed to be addressing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made the point eloquently, as ever, and passionately that it is not just about new money or ODA. It is also about ceasing wherever we can to be enablers—I think that was her term—of destruction. There is no doubt that even if we were to double our aid commitment and all donor countries were to do the same, it would still be a drop in the ocean in terms of what is needed, not least to tackle climate change and environmental degradation.
In addition to our aid programmes, we need to do what we can to force an alignment between the finance sector and the objectives we are discussing today. We made progress on that at COP, not just in relation to Paris goals but in relation to nature. Financial institutions presiding over nearly $9 trillion of investments and assets committed to align with nature, and we will do what we can to hold them to that and increase that number in the coming months.
As we work to deliver sustainable growth and promote British expertise and influence, we will lean on our revamped development finance institution, British International Investment. This will deliver reliable, honest and transparent finance. It will support countries to export, trade and address the challenges that hinder investment, jobs and green growth, all the while creating new opportunities here at home. It will bring in billions in climate financing for projects such as solar power, sustainable transport and disaster-resilient infrastructure over the next five years.
Of course, no country can be truly free or prosperous without unlocking the potential of women and girls. That is a point that has been made extremely persuasively and eloquently by many speakers today. Tackling gender equality is a core part of the Government’s mission, and it absolutely remains so. The integrated review confirms this commitment, specifically working with women’s rights organisations to tackle the discrimination, violence and inequality that hold women back.
As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, my noble friend Lady Sugg and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans have all pointed out, education is likely the single smartest investment we can make if we want to fight poverty, address climate change and save lives. We will absolutely continue to help countries to invest in strong education systems. At the same time, I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that we are not deprioritising in any way the inclusion agenda, particularly for older people, which she mentioned.
We will continue our world-leading work to empower women and eradicate violence against them. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, I say that we will support sexual and reproductive health rights and work to end the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation.
In addition to our focus on women and girls, we are committed to promoting open and inclusive societies which respect human rights by tackling discrimination, with a particular focus on disability and LGBT rights, and breaking down the barriers to achieving equality and opportunity for all.
I agree with the comments made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans about the value of encouraging foreign students to come and learn here in the UK, for all the reasons he said, not least that those students are likely to return to wherever they come from in the world with a natural friendship with this country and bridges on which we will be able to continue to form partnerships.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, raised the issue of population. I certainly do not seek to downplay that issue; I do not think that anyone in government does. Clearly, numbers matter. The only thing I would say is that, in terms of the impact on Mother Nature, as the noble Viscount called it, the bigger issue is per capita consumption. If he considers that the environmental impact of the average Rwandan is around 40 times smaller than that of the average person living in this country, consumption clearly must be a key part of it. I also argue that our investment in and prioritisation of women and girls, particularly regarding reproductive autonomy, will be absolutely central if we want to tackle the issue of population. It is the only proven solution to the issue that the noble Viscount rightly raised.
Like a number of noble Lords, the noble Viscount mentioned Afghanistan in this context. Ministers and officials have met Afghan women regularly to inform our engagement on the future of that country. We believe that Afghanistan needs inclusive politics that properly represent the country; I acknowledge that that is clearly a long way from where Afghanistan currently finds itself.
While we support countries’ long-term growth, we must also, as many noble Lords have said, play our part as a global citizen, responding to crises and their causes; this point was made extremely forcefully by my noble friend Lady Sugg, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. Ending Covid-19 and boosting future health security is, naturally, a top priority. We will continue our work to ensure that vaccines are available to those who need them. This includes our £548 million of funding for the COVAX advance market commitment, delivering more than 516 million vaccines to low and middle-income countries.
We will also continue work to enhance health systems around the world. It is vital to get jabs in arms, save lives and prevent future crises. For example, our support for Nepal’s health system has already helped to halve the rate of maternal mortality in 10 years and bring in an early warning system for disease outbreaks. This will be coupled with ongoing life-saving support for the world’s most vulnerable people, such as our support for humanitarian appeals in Somalia and South Sudan.
Indeed, amid rising global humanitarian need, the UK remains one of the world’s top bilateral donors to some of the world’s largest humanitarian crises. The UK will use our position as a principled and effective humanitarian donor and a strong partner in the international humanitarian system to prioritise effective humanitarian assistance for those in greatest need and protect civilians, refugees and marginalised people. We must also work to prevent conflict and violence erupting in the first place, so we will continue to focus on building law enforcement and justice institutions that promote peace and stability.
I will briefly respond to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, which were echoed by others, about mines. The Global Mine Action Programme—GMAP3—is due to begin next year. It will involve landmine clearance and education to help affected communities keep safe, as well as capacity development for national authorities to help them address the issue in their own countries. Although I cannot provide details at this point, they will be provided soon.
We will continue to bolster our defences against terrorists, cybercriminals and money launderers, supporting capacity building in forensics and investigations.
In all this, we remain steadfast in our absolute focus on tackling poverty through promoting economic growth and employment opportunities. Of course, this also benefits the UK by creating new markets where UK businesses can trade and invest. I note the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Desai, on the ineffectiveness of some aid. Of course, some aid has been poorly invested over time; an enormous amount has been invested. Equally, though, the proof of the effectiveness of investing in, for example, girls’ and women’s education, or some of the environmental initiatives that I have seen closely at first hand, is demonstrated beyond any doubt in the impact they have. For example, areas in the world that are hit by unfortunately ever more frequent storms have been visibly and measurably protected as a consequence of repairs to mangroves and corals. You can literally see that, for the communities that still have either old or regenerated mangroves compared with those that do not and rely on concrete defences, the difference in protection is night and day. That is one example of where investment has proven itself to be effective, but there are many others.
In responding to new challenges, we will consider not just what we work on but where. We will focus our investment and expertise where we can make the most difference, achieving maximum impact and value for money. We recognise that some of the issues we care about most, such as climate change, particularly affect some of our most vulnerable development partners. Our approach will therefore be different in different countries, tailored to local needs and taking account of the fact that, as countries become more prosperous, they are better able to manage their development.
As has been noted, we will extend our development reach, tilting towards the Indo-Pacific—that powerhouse of the world’s future economy—and staying strong in Africa, where there are so many challenges and opportunities. This will be reflected in the strategy, of course. We remain completely committed to working with our partners in Africa to meet their goals. As well as humanitarian support, UK aid is helping to deliver the vaccines that are needed, educate girls, reduce crime, improve economic growth and development, and help countries in relation to their environmental challenges.
We will also continue to work with key countries and regions on specific issues. This includes tackling the root causes of instability in the Middle East and north Africa; protecting our planet’s natural resources in areas of incalculable importance, such as the Amazon and the Congo Basin; addressing drivers of conflict in the western Balkans; and supporting good governance and resilience to crises in our overseas territories.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister said that the forward plan for north Africa will be in conflict prevention. The Government have cut all bilateral programme support for all of north Africa for the next three years. How do those two things match?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the strategic importance of Africa, and of north Africa, will be reflected in the international development strategy.
In the remaining few minutes—I do not have that long—I want to address the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I will not be able to answer them in detail, partly because I do not have time but partly because his questions about prosecutions fall with colleagues in HMT. It is their issue, so I will ask them for a written response to the noble Lord’s questions. I apologise for that.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, pointed to cuts to multilateral development banks; I think he mentioned the World Bank in particular. He is right that that is part of the strategy, but it is not an overall or meaningful cut in real terms. As a policy decision, we plan to direct more of our resources to specific countries and increase our bilateral investments. It is our view, with which the noble Lord is perfectly at liberty to disagree, that we get more value for money and greater flexibility, and can do more work, through those bilateral investments than we can through multilateral development banks, but we remain one of the biggest contributors to the multilateral system. There is plenty of room there for us to redirect some of that funding in a way that we think is strategic. We also expect to remain a major donor to the UN and other international organisations.
Despite the seismic impact of the pandemic on the UK and global economy, the UK will still spend more than £10 billion of ODA in 2021. I want to address the comments from a number of noble Lords, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Oates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson. Few people wanted to cut aid, and we want to return to where we were as soon as we possibly can, but we remain one of the largest overseas development assistance spenders in the world. Based on 2020 OECD data, the UK will be the third-largest ODA donor in the G7 as a percentage of GNI in 2021. We spend a greater percentage of our GNI on ODA than the US, Japan, Canada or Italy. We also have a clear pathway to return to 0.7%. I cannot give a date, but forecasts suggest that we are very likely to meet the criteria that have been set by 2024-25.
The strategy aims to be a development strategy rather than an aid spending strategy. It capitalises on the fact that all the levers for development impact—diplomacy, development, trade and security—are in our hands. The investment set out in the spending review, together with our development expertise and one of the largest overseas diplomatic networks in the world, will support this aim.
I want briefly to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who made an important point about the need to work closely with civil society. Engagement with partners has been absolutely key to the development of the strategy. We have engaged on every level, including through round-table events with Ministers, including me.
As well as what we deliver and where we deliver it, the strategy will set a new direction for how we work to achieve development goals. We will lean into the transformational power of technology, research, science and digital approaches as never before—for example, by supporting early warning systems that can anticipate humanitarian risks, from floods to air strikes, and save lives.
I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, described himself as coming from the “CDC stable”. That stable has been renamed yet again, I suspect since he wrote his speech, and is now British International Investment. It will be at the heart of our approach.
I am running out of time and there are certainly issues that I have not covered, for which I apologise. Despite the huge strides that have been made in advancing global development over recent decades, this Government are under no illusion about the scale and urgency of the challenge that remains before us. I thank noble Lords for their many insightful interventions today, as we continue to shape our strategy. We are determined that it will meet these challenges head-on, ensuring that free societies and democracies develop and thrive.
Finally, on the last sitting day of a difficult year, I echo the thanks expressed by Front-Benchers to members of staff, and add mine to my magnificent team. They have had a particularly tough year with the Environment Bill, helping to ensure that nature has been put at the heart—irreversibly—of the climate debate. I thank the team led so well by my private secretary Maddi, and I apologise for a difficult year to come.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the detailed way in which he has addressed the issues raised in the debate. Even where we disagree with him, I respect and appreciate his engagement. I look forward to that continuing in early 2022 as we move towards the launch of the strategy.
Like him, I am not going to delay everybody by going back over the arguments that have just been made, but I do welcome and am grateful for the contributions that were made around your Lordships’ Chamber in support of the priorities that I outlined in my introduction—of climate and net zero, of girls and women, and of conflict prevention and peacebuilding—which will be at the heart of this new international development strategy. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hodgson and Lady Sugg, for their eloquent advocacy of the importance of positioning girls and women at the heart of international development and change around the world.
In addition to thanking everybody who has spoken and taken the time to wait to make their contributions on this last day before the Christmas Recess, I will make two brief points before concluding. First, I strongly support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, about the inconsistency in some of the bilateral decision-making. It is inexplicable that countries such as Malawi and Zambia, which have had such democratic transformations over the last two years, were treated so badly when others were not. In Malawi, there is confusion and dismay over that decision. There is a deadly serious drugs crisis in Malawi’s health service at the moment which will cost hundreds, perhaps thousands, of lives in the new year. It was not caused by the UK aid decision, but it was not helped by it either. I hope that these decisions will be revisited and that a consistency of principle is applied to future bilateral programming.
Secondly, 37 years ago this month my good friend Jim Diamond, who has sadly passed away, had his first hit single as a solo singer with “I Should Have Known Better”. That should perhaps be a motto for the Government, after some of the decisions that were made this year. Jim went on the radio as the Band Aid single was launched and asked people not to buy his single any more, but to buy the Band Aid one instead. With 37 years of experience, we might now have some question marks over some of the lyrics of the Band Aid single, but at that point it marked a change in the debates in this country about our international relationships. That was happening at the same time as the old international battles of East and West were starting to come to an end, at the end of the 1980s. We were looking more at North and South, sustainable development, extreme poverty around the world and our contribution to tackling it.
This Christmas, as we talk about good will to all people and peace over these next days, I hope we remember that they are not just concepts and aspirations for Christmas but should apply all year round. Our compassion and determination to tackle these issues needs to go into 2022 and beyond with much more commitment, sensible decision-making, belief and ambition than we displayed in 2021. With that, I wish everybody a merry Christmas, a happy new year and a much better 12 months to come.
School Openings: January 2022
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, before I respond to the government response to the Question, I am sure I am not alone in my thoughts being dominated today by the absolutely horrific news from Tasmania. Five children in a primary school have died and many others were seriously injured on what should have been a day of joy, the last day of their school term. I speak for all noble Lords in saying that my thoughts are with the families involved in their unimaginable pain and anguish.
In responding to the Urgent Question in another place yesterday, the Minister for Skills said:
“The Government are committed to ensuring that schools open in January as normal.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/21; col. 1061.]
We hope that is the case, but vaccination and ventilation are key to reducing the spread of Covid in schools and keeping children in the classroom in the new year. However, nationally less than half of 12 to 15 year-olds have had a vaccine and the weekly number of vaccines has fallen by 80% since October. Staff, children and parents are on the brink of a third year of school disruption.
To minimise that, I ask the Minister if the Government will adopt Labour’s calls for a clear, targeted communications campaign to parents on the benefits of vaccination for children, together with access to pop-up and walk-in clinics, and the mobilisation of volunteers and retired clinicians to deliver it successfully.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
With the leave of the House, I share the initial sentiments of the noble Lord opposite and send my condolences to all touched by the tragedy in Tasmania.
As my honourable friend in another place said, we will do everything in our power to keep schools open throughout January and beyond. All in this House acknowledge the great price that children have paid over the last two years. I hope the noble Lord acknowledges that there has been a very active communications plan about the importance of getting vaccinated and having a booster jab. We press on with that, but we are exploring every avenue. I am pleased to tell the House that over 350,000 CO2 monitors have been delivered to schools—above our target of 300,000 before the end of term—and 99% of eligible settings now have that equipment.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab)
My Lords, it is not very often that I am able to get up and congratulate the Government on an Answer to an Urgent Question, but I do so today because it is absolutely right. As the Answer says:
“Protecting education continues to be our absolute priority.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/21; col. 1061.]
What kind of communication strategy is being developed to provide parents with the reassurance they need and to tell them just how important it is that their children continue to go to school, given what we know about absence from school at an earlier stage in the pandemic? Could the Minister also tell the House what kind of encouragement is being given to schools and local authorities to keep extracurricular programmes going? These are so important for disadvantaged children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. I thank her, and I will frame her acknowledgement of our progress in this area. The Secretary of State is absolutely clear about the importance of education, that we should do all in our power, and that the best place for children to be is in school.
On our communication campaign, we are targeting the whole nation for reasons the noble Baroness understands very well relating to vaccination and the importance, particularly given the transmissibility of the omicron variant, that all of us get boosted and jabbed. We are moving as quickly as possible with that.
On the wider issue of support, we are working very closely with schools and local authorities. We have offered them financial and practical support, particularly during the Christmas holidays, for some of the additional food and holiday clubs we offer through our schools.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, about the tragedy in Tasmania. Could the Minister give us some idea of the lessons the Government have learned from the last series of lockdowns, when schools were not there? What strategy will we implement? We know that if you happen to have a house with lots of digital conductivity and devices, you are fine. What capacity is there if children do have to spend time away from the classroom? We want to get kids into schools but we cannot always guarantee it. What are plans B, C or even alpha?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am not sure that the House would want me to go through all the plans, but the top line we have learned—I think we knew this before, but we know it more vividly now—is that the safest place for children is to be in school. On digital connection, we have distributed more than 1.35 million devices to ensure that children can be connected to education remotely, but we also funded the Oak National Academy, which is providing excellent online resources that can be used both in a classroom and at home.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, given what we know about the crucial role that ventilation plays in the fight against the spread of Covid in classrooms, might the Government reconsider their commitment to fund the provision of air filtration devices only for SEND and AP schools, rather than all schools? Does she not agree that it should surely be a priority to ensure that all schools can access this crucial mechanism for protection, not just those that happen to have some budget spare?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness’s tone is a little harsh in saying “budget spare”. We are talking about making sure our classrooms are safe for children, which is why we prioritise the distribution of devices to children with special educational needs and children in alternative provision. Indeed, beyond CO2 monitors, we have disrupted 1,000 ventilation devices to those schools and launched a marketplace where schools can buy purification devices at the best prices.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talked about students and we have also talked about parents. We have not yet talked about teachers. What are the Government doing to support school leaders at a time when the management of the fluctuating crisis we are all in is extremely difficult? Can she assure us that the messaging that goes to school leaders at this time is, as far as possible, encouraging and supportive but not accusatory?
Baroness Barran (Con)
We have been extremely clear in our gratitude to school leaders for the extraordinary job they have done over the last couple of years. We have the workforce fund, which provides funding for supply teachers and has been extended until the spring half-term. We are endeavouring to communicate in the most constructive and positive way possible.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Can the Government confirm that the additional funding being allocated to support education is also being distributed to the devolved Administrations to support children in school in the devolved nations of the UK?
Baroness Barran (Con)
My understanding is that systems are already in place for achieving that.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, this morning we discussed children in care. For them, the in loco parentis role of schools is especially important. We also mentioned the awful murder of young Arthur, and we know that teachers might well have picked up on the horrors he endured that social services missed. Will the Minister ensure that some communication is not just about vaccines but about the role schools play as community hubs of social solidarity for children, as well as in educating them? Will the Government also note the serious collateral damage when education policy organises everything around Covid, neglecting all those other negative impacts so vividly demonstrated in the Ofsted reports and the devastating stories of year 7 pupils?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness is right. In our communication with schools and multi-academy trusts last week, we again pointed to the important role they play in identifying vulnerable children.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the time limit on this Question has expired.
Ajax Noise and Vibration Review
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, £3.2 billion has been spent, with only a couple of dozen of the Ajax tanks delivered out of an order for 589, all of which are supposed to be delivered by 2024 with a total cost of £5.5 billion. The Public Accounts Committee in the other place has called it a catastrophe. How has it come to this? It has to be the biggest defence procurement failure of the last decade, does it not?
Now we have a further damning review just published by the Government called the Ajax Noise and Vibration Review. It catalogues failure after failure of process, accountability and procedures. Some 310 soldiers were exposed to noise and vibration, with a small number discharged because of hearing loss. According to the review, senior Army officers and MoD officials knew of these problems for two years before any action was taken. How and why was that possible? Who knew? Did Ministers know?
The review’s conclusions are stark and extremely worrying, not only first and foremost for our soldiers but for what it means for a central part of our future military capability. I quote directly from the Government’s own report:
“Nothing in this Review detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification.”
What does the Minister have to say to that specific quote? The report concludes that
“from a cultural perspective, the Army did not believe it was potentially causing harm to people, especially from vibration, as it was tacitly expected that soldiers can and should endure such issues. Society and the law expect MOD to do better”.
Is the MoD doing better? What has changed? Who is being held to account? We cannot tell from the review what is actually happening.
One of my final quotes directly from the review is:
“Within the acquisition system, safety is not viewed as an equal partner to cost, schedule and military capability, and the culture in MOD does not currently ensure safety is considered within strategic decision-making.”
The word is “currently”. Does the Minister recognise that term—not 10 years ago but currently? What is urgently being done to change that culture? What steps are being taken? Are any other defence procurement projects subject to such a culture? Even during the Minister’s Statement yesterday in the other place, he talked of reports such as that from the Defence Safety Authority in May 2020 identifying some of these issues, entitled Serious Safety Concerns on Ajax, and then tells us that that was retracted and not pursued. Who retracted the report? Who decided not to pursue it? Where are they now? Have they been promoted? Have they been sacked? Was any Minister aware of it and, if not, why not? The Government’s response is to have announced that following this review they are to launch another review. To what purpose and timescale is that further review to operate?
This is deeply disturbing and unsatisfactory. Ajax is in limbo. A major military capability for this country is in real trouble. Are the Government sticking with Ajax or are they going to scrap it? What confidence can we have that they have a grip of the Ajax programme? Are we sure that there is no impact on the Army’s ability to deploy the planned strike brigade?
As the review concludes:
“To have confidence that the events covered in this report will not be repeated, culture change needs to be progressed.”
For the sake of our Armed Forces and the security of our country, it certainly needs to be. I am sure that we will all appreciate the remarks of the Minister in response to this serious and damning report.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I can associate these Benches with many of the questions from the noble Lord. He rightly highlights the fact that many government assertions over recent years have not been matched with what we now learn from the review.
I agree with the Minister in the House of Commons when he indicated that he read the report with a deep sense of regret. If anything, he needs a degree of commendation for highlighting these issues. The problem had been that many of them had not been highlighted thus far, and we have had to rely on this review. As the noble Lord indicated, the review states that nothing in it
“detracts from the fact that GDUK has designed and built what MOD maintains is thus far a vehicle which is not fit for purpose and does not meet the contracted specification”.
The Minister replied that the key element of that was “thus far”, but he did not tell the House of Commons when he believed that these vehicles would be fit for purpose, and he did not say when they would meet the contracted specification. As the noble Lord indicated, the National Audit Office, in reviewing the procurement of MoD equipment, highlighted that the expenditure as of March 2021 had been £3.755 billion. How on earth can that amount, of a total of £5.5 billion, be committed when the review had indicated that these vehicles were not fit for purpose and would not meet the specification? If the Government’s position is that the vehicles will do so, when will that happen?
The NAO in paragraph 11 of its report highlighted part of the challenge as being the Government changing the specification. However, it said that that accounted for an 11 months’ delay to the programme. It high- lighted more than 13 programmes with 254 months of delays in MoD procurement—an astonishing amount. Paragraph 5.11 indicated in relation to Her Majesty’s Treasury that:
“The assessment for the Ajax armoured vehicle (October 2020), stated the programme remained a VFM”—
value-for-money—
“solution despite slippage of entry into service from July 2020 to June 2021, with a worst-case scenario of slippage to December 2022.”
How can the Treasury claim that there is a continued value-for-money solution while this review indicated that the vehicles were not fit for purpose and did not meet the contracted specification? Will all the vehicles now be in operation for our servicemen and women by the time of the worst-case scenario of December 2022 or are the Government changing that position?
I should declare that I represented a military barracks in my former constituency and was in northern Iraq last week. I know well the great pressure that our Armed Forces personnel have had to endure over many years. The welfare of those individuals should of course be a paramount priority. The Minister in the Commons did not indicate any detail about how support will be provided to those affected, so if the noble Baroness could provide more details, I should be grateful.
My final question relates to a Statement that the Minister made to this House in March this year. When asked about procurement in the MoD, she said in relation to a question from my noble friend Lord Addington about overruns and expenditure increases:
“The scenario that the noble Lord envisages is unlikely to arise because from now on procurement will proceed on a very different basis from what we have known in the past.”—[Official Report, 24/3/21; col. 845.]
However, we had to rely on this report and the Minister in the Commons stating in his concluding remarks yesterday that the report
“lays bare a deep malaise, which is cultural and results in systemic failures across our organisations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/21; col. 1082.]
How on earth can those two areas be reconciled? Can that department be relied upon, even by commissioning a senior legal figure, to learn these lessons? Would it not be better if that legal figure responded to a different and external organisation to ensure that deep malaise and cultural and systemic failures are not repeated in the future?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I, first, thank the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis, for their observations and comments.
I pay tribute to my honourable friend Jeremy Quin, the Minister in the other place, for his determination to lift the drain covers to find out what had been happening. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Purvis, for acknowledging his efforts. I also thank David King, the MoD director of health and safety and environmental protection, for his report, which, although deeply troubling, is also robust, analytical, comprehensive and helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, quite understandably raised the catalogue of failings and asked how this could be. We are absolutely clear about what the recent report has produced. It confirmed that there were serious failings in how the MoD handled the health and safety concerns regarding Ajax vehicles. The review concluded that it was not the failure of a single individual but a complex combination of the Armed Forces’ relationship to harm and weaknesses in the MoD’s acquisition system. It also pointed to missed opportunities to act on safety and risk management across the programme.
Let me make it clear that all that is unacceptable. My honourable friend in the other place made that clear and I repeat that to your Lordships. That is why I say that this report, although deeply troubling, points to a way forward in a constructive and helpful manner. Your Lordships will be aware—the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, alluded to this—that the recommendations in the report not only cover Ajax but reach out helpfully into the broader areas of procurement, particularly in relation to health and safety, and what changes might be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked how no one knew what was going on. It has emerged that warnings were not given sufficient attention; the report is explicit about that. Very troublingly, the Army did not believe that it was potentially causing harm to people as it was tacitly expected that soldiers could and should endure such conditions. That is utterly unacceptable, as the report makes clear. The recommendations are designed to ensure that a completely different and much more scrutinising approach to health and safety is adopted in future.
The noble Lord asked about the relevance of the follow-on review. I suppose that the review will look partially at the current health and safety report that has been published, but it is really determined to look at the whole Ajax programme to try to work out exactly what was going on beyond health and safety, and why communication was so poor and warnings were ignored. I make it clear that if gross misconduct is disclosed by that follow-on review then the appropriate administrative and disciplinary action will be taken.
The noble Lord asked specifically about the Defence Safety Authority report. That report was withdrawn for good reason: it did not follow the process, quality control and due diligence that you would expect of an inquiry such as a formal initiation establishing and analysing the facts, gathering and verifying evidence and, of course, deploying peer review. Following the retraction of that report because it was not considered sufficiently robust to be proceeded with, the Defence Land Safety Regulator, which works within the DSA, followed up on the concerns directly with Army HQ and DE&S. Again, while that sounds reassuring up to a point, I fully understand, as the report has disclosed, that the whole background and territory of communication —of the warnings being given, of how those were acknowledged and what response was given to them— becomes very opaque, and that is utterly unacceptable. The follow- on review will certainly look very closely at those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also asked whether we were sticking with Ajax. As he will understand, Ajax is a very important piece of equipment. It is a step change in how we deal with carrying personnel and with deploying cutting-edge technology to do that safely and to have as precise a knowledge of battleground as possible. We have made it clear that we are working with General Dynamics to try to get to the root of the problem with a view to finding solutions, but I make it clear again to this House that we will not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose. As my honourable friend said in the other place yesterday, it remains impossible to share with your Lordships 100% confidence that this programme will succeed, or, if it does, of the timing for achieving full operating capability.
In relation to overall capability, a point to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred, as did the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, we live in a world where we constantly consider, assess, adjust and, as necessary, plan what our response will be to threats. We will make sure that we are able to deal with whatever operational obligations fall upon us. Very particularly, I make it clear that this is not impacting on our operational capability nor on our obligations under NATO.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis raised the matter of trials. As he is aware, trials have taken place and we are currently assessing them. The physical trials at Millbrook have concluded. They have generated hundreds of gigabytes of data, and we expect to see conclusions from the analysis shortly. We will then verify the data, conduct assurance trials where required and draw conclusions on the next steps. Over and above that, separate from the trials, General Dynamics has conducted its own tests of proposed modifications to address vibration issues. Once analysis is complete, the MoD will verify the results through subsequent trials.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised the follow-on review. It is important that we build on such knowledge as has now been gathered together, and I think the health and safety report is a robust foundation on which to do that. The Secretary of State’s intention to bring in a leading legal figure is absolutely right, and they will look objectively, analytically and dispassionately at whatever the evidence may be and draw conclusions from that. I cannot pre-empt that, but we await progress on it.
When I looked at the report, it was deeply concerning —and I can tell your Lordships that it was deeply concerning to my ministerial colleagues—that personnel worked in a vehicle that had the potential to cause harm. I find that utterly unacceptable. The 310 people identified as working on Ajax trials and training have all been contacted for assessment. We shall continue to monitor those who have been assessed. We encourage those who have either declined assessment or been unable to attend an assessment to come forward, and any identified with continuing or emerging conditions will be supported appropriately.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, listening to the questions and the Minister’s answers persuades me that this is a complete disaster, as we have debated in your Lordships’ House quite a few times now, and it does not seem to be getting any better. I am glad that some further work has been done; we have now spent billions on this, apparently.
I wonder how it is possible that the Army top brass has allowed the situation to get this far without coming along and explaining why it has got so expensive and why it does not work properly. In the previous debate, in addition to the effect on the soldiers inside the tank, there was the question of whether the thing can go backwards up a step or something, and I think I made a comment that the British Army probably does not think we ever retreat so it does not matter—I hope it has some better reasons than that for saying what it has. Nor can it fire on the move or do its designed speed. If any private company were ordering something at a hundredth of the cost of this thing and made these kinds of mistakes, they would have been sacked.
This has also been debated before in your Lordships’ House, but Ajax came out very badly in the Infrastructure and Projects Authority annual report. I remember asking at the time: do Ministers ever read that report, and do they take action? It is clear that in this case they have not, otherwise they would have done something by now to get the answers. I appreciate that the report is a step in that direction, but they need to take stronger action to control the costs.
My last question is: why do we need this at all? Is it really part of the Army’s necessary equipment? Do we need to spend all this money on tanks? I do not know where we deploy them apart from Salisbury Plain. Is it not time that someone took a step back and said, “Do we, as a medium-sized power in the world, need tanks that can’t go backwards and cause injury to the people inside them?” We do not seem to be questioning it.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I will respond to the noble Lord’s questions in reverse order. Yes, Ajax is an important capability for the future British Army. It will provide a mobile, resilient and crewed ISTAR capability that is optimised for “find, understand and exploit” effects. It will offer the newest and most technologically advanced capabilities, equipped with a best-in-class sensor suite and other cutting-edge technological aids. It is a very important piece of equipment and I think that is universally acknowledged.
The contract for this is a firm-price contract. We know what the price is. It is now down to the company, in collaboration with the MoD, to resolve the issues that have been causing the noise and vibration.
The noble Lord raised the question of the IPA report. The IPA released its public data in July 2021, showing that the Ajax programme had moved from amber to red status back in April 2021. The then senior responsible owner asked the IPA to review the programme over concerns that it was not progressing as it should be. However, as the health and safety report indicates, that is just one element of a very confused system of accountability, communication, acknowledgement of warnings and reaction to warnings. The noble Lord is right to express concern about that, and I will not diminish the significance of his question. If you look at the recommendations of the health and safety report, there is a lot of comfort to be derived from it, not only in relation to the Ajax programme but the relevance of some of these recommendations to the wider procurement programme. The noble Lord is correct that there are still questions to be answered. That will fall within the jurisdiction of the forthcoming follow-on review.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s response to this report, and the involvement in the other place of Jeremy Quin, who was a first-rate official in the Treasury at the time of the financial crisis. I also think that this country still needs to be able to deploy tanks in Europe, fulfilling its NATO responsibilities. My question is a simple one, derived from 30 years of working at the Treasury. The MoD has undertaken countless reports over many generations to deal with problems of procurement. I would welcome an explanation from the Minister of why this time it will be different.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks about my honourable friend in the other place. Everyone is clear that Jeremy Quin has been like a terrier trying to get to the root of what has been going on here; hence we have much more information available to us today. This programme in particular has indicated and illustrated that there is no denying that there are weaknesses in the system. The defence director of health, safety, and environmental protection is owed a huge debt. He has analytically looked at the problems and come forward with rock-solid recommendations based on evidence. I can assure the noble Lord that it is the intention of the MoD to accept.
As the noble Lord is possibly aware, there are three recommendations that pose some practical problems. In principle, we understand what they are trying to do, and we are sympathetic to them, but we need to look at them more closely to see how they will work in practice. However, I am satisfied that these recommendations are very much a way forward. He will be aware that reforms have been adopted in the MoD in relation to contracts, procurement, and acquisitions. They have been working well. This programme started back in 2010, so it has been a long-standing development. The follow-on review will begin to answer some of the question that I know are uppermost in his mind, but I assure him that this is not a one-off. In terms of solutions, this will be looked at as a signpost to how we should act in the MoD and be regarded as a template for future procurements.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, it appears that there are no further questions on the Statement.
Integrated Rail Plan: Northern Powerhouse Area
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the Integrated Rail Plan will deliver the (1) capacity, and (2) regional connectivity, sought for the Northern Powerhouse area.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we can have a quick debate about the integrated rail plan this afternoon. My question relates to the capacity and regional capability contained in the plan, particularly for the east-west areas of the north and the Midlands.
I am grateful to the Minister for arranging a Zoom call this morning with Andrew Stephenson MP, the Minister for HS2. We had a useful discussion. I now realise that the IRP appears to be a cut-down version of HS2, with some welcome electrification on the Midland main line and the trans-Pennine route, but which appears not to deal with the capacity issues and the priorities for east-west connectivity, particularly for Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and Hull.
Therefore, it did not really surprise me when I received a copy of the letter sent from the chair of Transport for the North to the Secretary of State, dated 26 November. It starts:
“I am writing on behalf of the Transport for the North Board to express our collective disappointment and dismay at the inadequacy of the Integrated Rail Plan; the plan as proposed is unacceptable to the North.”
That is a fairly strong statement from a regional authority. One of the issues it goes into is that the plan fails to deal with infrastructure constraints, particularly around Leeds and Manchester, saying that
“the plan is the wrong solution for the whole of the North and does not deliver the long-term transformation required to level up the North’s economy”.
I shall not go on, as it is a very long letter, but it also mentions that Bradford is left out, despite being the seventh largest local authority area in England by population.
I share Transport for the North’s vision to improve the network and make it as good as the network we have in the south-east around London. One can compare against the routes through the capital, Thameslink and Crossrail, once it opens, which serve dozens of routes on each side for seamless journeys. I would give the time of all those journeys, but I do not think we know them. That is what is particularly missing in terms of capacity across the Pennines and east-west services, including from Birmingham to Derby and Nottingham. In particular, there is a lack of not just through services but local services, connecting many of the smaller towns on the way. I do not know whether that matters to the Government, but it should.
I have one particular concern about Manchester, where the plan is to expand the existing planned HS2 station, so that all trains coming on the line reverse before going across the Pennines to Leeds. On page 65, the report justifies having terminus stations by saying that there are many in Europe, for example in Frankfurt, Stuttgart, Zürich, Milan and Rome. It fails to say that all those stations were built probably over 100 years ago, when tunnels were less easy to build. It is also wrong, because the German Government and the German railway company are actually building a through tunnel underneath Stuttgart station. What the Government are proposing is old-fashioned—so be it.
As I said, I welcome the electrification of the Midland main line and the trans-Pennine route. That is a good idea but I point out that a small piece of the HS2 line now planned between Derby and Birmingham is, I think, costed at £11 billion when it would have cost just £2.5 billion to electrify the existing line. The biggest missing issue is that there is nothing in the report about improving the many secondary lines and services in the regions. It is good that Leeds is promised a metro service but I wonder how many decades that will take to come. It is a very good idea, if and when it happens.
On the costs, £96 billion is quoted in the document; it appears that the Government are including HS2 and Network Rail costs in this. It is my calculation that HS2 phases 1 and 2a are going to cost £83 billion to complete. While that has come from whistleblowers and my own estimation, it leaves just £9 billion for the rest of the project, which I hope is wrong. I have to question how much money matters to the Treasury. Many noble Lords will have read an article in the Guardian—I think it was on Monday this week—which said that the Department for Transport was requiring all train operators to prepare plans to cut costs by at least 10%. That is quite critical at this time, when nobody really knows what the forecast of future passengers might be. Has it asked HS2 to do the same? That might be a good thing. With all this, there seems to be very little money left for upgrades, electrification and capacity enhancement because it is all going on HS2.
The other interesting thing is: who will be building and developing all these things? In a series of Written Answers that I received this week, it seems that: Network Rail will be told to upgrade existing lines with help from HS2 to get trains into Leeds; HS2 is going to be building phase 2A and bits in the West Midlands; and there may be a new line for Northern Powerhouse Rail—we are not quite sure where, but I think it stops somewhere at the summit of the Pennines. Where does Great British Railways come into this? Apparently, it has no responsibility for HS2, as I had it from another Written Question some time ago.
Who has the best track record? Network Rail has a very good one on electrification now. It has just completed the Werrington dive-under on the Doncaster line, which is a really good piece of work, if not so cost-effective—
Lord Adonis (Lab)
If my noble friend will forgive me, does he think that its record on Great Western electrification is creditable to Network Rail? The costs are running at about four times the projection and it is taking three times as long as it was supposed to.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, this is only a one-hour debate and we are quite short on time.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Briefly, Great Western electrification finished about five years ago and Network Rail has improved things as a result. That was true at that time but things have got a lot better.
What is missing from this document is a real acceptance by the Department for Transport that the decision-making on strategies and routes, priorities and deliveries should rest with the northern powerhouse/Transport for the North members—the local authorities which know their areas. That is devolution. I am afraid that the document has demonstrated the department’s inability to plan and deliver to time and budget. It should give TfN a chance.
If the Government were honest in wanting to improve the rail network in the north and Midlands, they would cancel the bits of HS2 that they are funding and put all the remaining funds included in the IPR into not only giving much-improved capacity and speed on the two east-west axes—Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and Hull, and Sheffield, Birmingham, Derby and Nottingham—but improving the many secondary lines in each area. So many people rely on those for their daily commuting to school, colleges, work, levelling-up and everything else.
I fear that this Department for Transport will result only in nothing happening for the next few years and I hope that it not the case. I hope that the Minister, when she replies, will say that I have got it completely wrong that it does not matter that Bradford is only connected to the south and not east-west. I hope she will sit down with her colleagues in the department and northern powerhouse people and come up with a solution that is acceptable to all.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, my first trans-Pennine rail journey took place when I was seven. I was living in Preston and my parents decided to send me to school in Wakefield so for the next 10 years I spent rail journeys shuttling backwards and forwards over the Pennines between Lancashire and Yorkshire. Subsequently I became the Member of Parliament for Gateshead West and got to know the east coast line. After that I was a Transport Minister in James Callaghan’s Government and got to know the whole network. More recently, this last year, I was shuttling around the Manchester conurbation on trains going to the party conference and visiting my relatives, family and friends in that area. So, I come at this from that particular committed northern point of view.
The Minister will be glad to know that I therefore strongly and warmly welcome the plan. It seems to be extremely sensible. Of course, the response was subject to the usual political grandstanding, which I fully understand—people have to make their names and the local mayors have to say what they can. But if one wants an objective view, the Institute of Civil Engineers had it just about right when it said it was
“a step in the right direction”.
I was concerned, as many have been, that the huge cost of HS2 would gradually erode the necessary funds from all across the east-west connections and the local connections which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke so eloquently about. It seems that possibility has now lessened with this recalibration of the whole programme. I was surprised by what he said about the crucial east-west line between Liverpool, Warrington, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and York, because that is clearly inked in as an improvement. Bradford, which was neglected by HS2 itself, has an improvement in that the line between Leeds and Bradford is electrified and the time comes down to 12 minutes; we could hardly improve on that. All this has led to a much better scope for what we want in the east-west improvements.
The integration has been improved. It always seemed like the HS2 original plan was like a fork stuck up the middle of England without much connection with the rest of the network. All of that has been improved to the advancement of towns such as Derby and Nottingham. Finally, the whole thing has been brought forward in time. The original HS2 document planned no real improvements until 2040. Now we are promised at least 10 years earlier than that—I might live to see some of this myself for heaven’s sake—so that is a vast improvement.
The broad statement of the Institute of Civil Engineers about this being a move in the right direction is correct. But it also says that in the next 12 months there should be a detailed analysis and working out of what should happen. I hope that the Minister will commit the Government to doing that. It is essential that we now get a move on.
Lord Beith (LD)
I agree with the objectives of the integrated rail plan but, as far as the east and north-east of England are concerned, the plan fails to meet them. HS2 was never going to do much for the north-east and now, cut back, it will do virtually nothing for it. The plan leaves the east coast main line, in the words of the Railway Magazine, as the “withered arm” of the system.
In the plan, there are infrastructure improvements to the east coast line, but lack of capacity remains severely limiting to passenger and freight services for years to come. Why is there no commitment to reopening the Leamside line in County Durham? That would solve a significant capacity problem and allow for further development of local services. The report says that
“the case for re-opening the Leamside route would be best considered as part of any future city region settlement”.
What settlement? What city region? What plans do the Government have to bring this forward, and why would it not have been better to include this project in the integrated plan? In this respect, it is a disintegrated plan.
A further consequence of not doing enough to increase line capacity is that improvements to London services, and to cross-country and trans-Pennine ones, are dependent on robbing Peter to pay Paul—in other words, reducing services from some stations to speed up or accommodate more services from Edinburgh to London. The report says that journey times from London to York, the north-east and Edinburgh will be reduced by around 25 minutes “subject to stopping patterns”. We know what that means, because we saw it in LNER’s draft timetable, now delayed to 2023. It means reducing services and lengthening journey times from some stations, such as Berwick and Darlington—the very opposite of levelling up.
It appears that preparation for service reductions is already being made by LNER, with a major reduction in travel centre staffing hours and consequent redundancies. It is a very odd time to be doing this, not only in advance of decisions on the integrated rail plan but with the planned handover of responsibility for station staff from LNER to Great British Railways. They should surely leave decisions such as that until that transfer has taken place.
All the maps in the integrated rail plan show the east coast main line petering out north of Newcastle, ignoring the existence of Alnmouth and Berwick. That is a sad symbol for a serious weakness in the plan. In his introduction to the plan, Grant Shapps talks of a
“modern network for the whole country, benefiting small towns alongside big cities sooner than previous proposals”.
It does not look like that from the small town of Berwick, which is the real access point for the whole of the eastern borders, or from the cities of eastern England, especially Newcastle and Sunderland.
HS2, as planned, was primarily of benefit to Birmingham and the north-west, and that is even more the case since the eastern arm part of the plan was chopped back. While the north-west may benefit, on the eastern side of England we will still not even have adequate linkage to the area whose prosperity might well be improved by faster rail services. We will not be part of that, and this is not going to achieve levelling up.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
There are two aspects of the integrated rail plan that I strongly welcome: the decision to move ahead with a metro system for Leeds and the decision to electrify the midland main line and the trans- Pennine line. However, these both reflect chaotic and inconsistent transport planning over the last 25 years.
Noble Lords from Leeds—and I see that my noble friend Lady Blake, the former leader of Leeds City Council, is here—will know that a tram system for Leeds was first proposed more than 20 years ago. Unfortunately, the Government of which I was a member cancelled that plan. There was supposed to be a trolleybus scheme, but that bit the dust too. We have now come full circle. Indeed, I think that the Government of which the noble Lord, Lord Horam, was a member first proposed the serious upgrading of metro services in and around Leeds, and I admire his confidence that things will now happen with an alacrity with which they failed to happen in previous decades.
The same is true of both electrification schemes. Electrification of the midland main line and the trans-Pennine line was announced 10 years ago. Midland main line electrification was supposed to follow on directly from Great Western electrification which, despite the remarks of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, has been a textbook case of disaster in terms of cost overruns, descoping and failure to meet proper project management specifications. Both those electrification schemes were then cancelled because of cost overruns and austerity, and they are being revived. We are now being told that they are a great offering to the Midlands and the north and should make us confident that there will be transformational capacity in the Midlands and the north, when in fact they are schemes that should have been delivered many years ago, if we had any proper planning.
However, the two big decisions in terms of changes of policy in the integrated rail plan—the cancellation of the eastern leg of HS2 and the cancellation of the new east-west line that was intended to link the northern cities—are both utterly deplorable. They are deplorable in three ways. First, in transport policy terms they are deplorable. As the noble Lord, Lord Beith, just said, the eastern side of the country will now essentially be left out of the high-speed rail plan. This will produce a new east-west divide in this country on top of the north-south divide, and overcoming it was a large part of the intention of HS2 in the first place. When HS2 is now completed, it will take nearly twice as long to get to Leeds as to get to Manchester and there will be only a fraction of the rail capacity going to the eastern side of the country—Sheffield and Leeds—because there is no high-speed line. High-speed lines treble rail capacity and allow an enormous release of capacity for new local services of the kind that my noble friend Lord Berkeley was talking about.
The second reason why it is deplorable is that it is a complete uprooting of proper and systematic infrastructure planning. The plan for HS2 was announced more than 10 years ago. It followed exhaustive work by HS2 Ltd. Indeed, it went back to the plan that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, produced for the Blair Government in 2003, which recommended that the Government look systematically at the introduction of high-speed lines between our major conurbations. I was privileged to be the first chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission in 2015. The first report of the National Infrastructure Commission said that HS2 should be completed to Manchester and Leeds and that there should be a new east-west line.
The third aspect in which it is deplorable is that it uproots cross-party working. We will get no serious infrastructure built in this country unless there is cross-party agreement, because it takes many Parliaments to build big infrastructure. There was cross-party agreement to HS2 and a new east-west line. There is not cross-party agreement for this integrated rail plan. It is a dog’s breakfast. The Opposition have said they have no confidence in it and will seek to change it if they come to power. We are therefore going to take a massive step back in terms of the upgrading of the infrastructure of this country, and the principal loser will unfortunately be the whole eastern side of the country, which could be at a massive economic disadvantage as a result of the IRP, compared with the Midlands and the north-west.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I am a proud Liverpudlian and chair of a business headquartered in Yorkshire. Well into the last century, most people, like my grandfather, walked to work. No longer. Modern business requires a multiplicity of skills, from technologists to service engineers to data scientists to financial analysts and myriad more. Most people travel significant distances to work and while they undertake their work, mostly not on trains but in cars, vans and HGVs.
Economically, it is best to think of the heartland of the north, from Liverpool through Manchester to Leeds, as a single metropolitan area with a huge population. The north has long had a wholly inadequate road and rail system to connect its major centres. The M62 is seriously jammed for many hours of the day. By way of example, Halifax and Huddersfield are only eight miles apart, but the direct route between these two famous towns is through hilly country on narrow, bending and heavily trafficked roads, and at rush hour the eight-mile journey can take a whopping 45 minutes. By train, it takes an incredible one hour and 46 minutes to travel the 74 miles from Liverpool to Leeds at a sluggish 42 miles per hour.
To unleash its potential, the north needs not just a rail plan but an integrated rail and road plan. That plan would create a strategic road network and, inter alia, relieve the pressure on the M62 and enable rail to do what rail does best: moving people into, out of and between major metropolitan areas. Leeds and Liverpool need to be connected to London by high-speed rail. London is an unrivalled global centre of financial and professional skill and, to prosper, the north needs effective connectivity with it. Remarkably, under the Government’s proposals in future it will be quicker to reach London from Manchester than to reach Leeds from Liverpool. That is truly shocking. The north will not thrive until the Government focus equally on all three of its major metropolitan areas.
For the past 70 years—not 25, as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said—we have had the worst record of any major country in the world in investing in our national transport infrastructure. The Treasury bears prime responsibility for that. High-speed rail is the most vivid example. The International Union of Railways records that China has 38,000 kilometres of high-speed rail, Spain has 3,500, France has 2,700 and the UK—any guesses?—has 113 kilometres. That is 24 times less than France.
That is truly shameful, and it illuminates a horrible truth about our politics: all the pressures on our highly disputatious political system press on the short and not on the long term. This is less than half a plan and I do not expect to see that change.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is neither integrated nor really a plan. I wish to correct the noble Lord, Lord Horam; the Institution of Civil Engineers actually said that this was
“at best … a step in the right direction.”
Northern Powerhouse Rail has now shrunk to a new line between Warrington and Marsden—a village west of Huddersfield—without any clarity as to whether that will involve doubling the Standedge tunnel to remove the bottleneck in the middle. Are the Government confident that they can reopen the two very old single-line tunnels on either side of the current double Standedge tunnel for fast and electrified trains? If they cannot, a new tunnel will be needed somewhere, which makes the case for it being somewhere different, rather than simply doubling the Standedge tunnel. That is the case for a second fast trans-Pennine link, which the Government have just denied.
This is a question of capacity. I have heard several times about the sheer difficulty of finding additional freight paths across the Pennines. The idea that freight between Liverpool and Hull must go on the M62 because there is not enough space on our railway network for container trains is absurd—but that is where we are. Tunnels and capacity are essential.
After all, the concept of a “northern powerhouse” rested on bringing together Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield, with links to Hull and Newcastle, and their surrounding cities and towns, into a metropolitan network comparable to that from which Greater London already benefits. I fear the slogan has now outlived its credibility and therefore ought to be abandoned. The concept included reopening or upgrading a number of local feeder lines, which are also important to economic regeneration, but the core of the concept was fast lines to bring together the major cities across the north.
Bradford is one of those major cities. I declare an interest; I live in the Bradford metropolitan region and benefit from one of the very few electrified local lines in the north, so at least I can get from Saltaire to London and back via Leeds. However, getting from Saltaire to Sheffield or Manchester is a very long, slow and difficult process, because the lines do not go through the tunnels or south from Bradford to Huddersfield and Sheffield. We need to link in Bradford, Halifax and the northern Pennine towns to this metropolitan network. Without a second link, or at the very least a substantial rebuilding of the Calder Valley line, which flooded badly two years ago, we condemn Bradford as a city, and Halifax and the Pennine towns, to long-term decline.
The Minister for Rail, as MP for Pendle, ought at least to know this; Pendle is one of the most economically deprived areas in Britain, which is partly because its transport links are so poor. I am shocked that the Department for Transport has declined to provide even a small sum to look at the feasibility of opening the Skipton-Colne link—a third link across the Pennines —because it does not think that it is justifiable.
As has already been said, it takes an enormously long time to travel from Leeds to Liverpool, and it is very complicated to travel from Bradford to Sheffield. Bradford to Manchester is a long and slow journey on a crowded two-carriage or three-carriage diesel train. However, the costs of two miles of extra tunnelling in south London to link the expensive new property developments around Battersea power station are justified, apparently because the foreign owners of those new properties have contributed to the Conservative Party. I hope that is not correct, but that is what Private Eye suggests to me.
What this looks like is “If it’s in the north, it costs too much”. The potential impact of economic transformation is left out of the calculation. If it is in London, it is essential to maintaining the region’s prosperity. I hope that is not the case the Government will continue to make.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for introducing this important debate and thank the Minister for the useful and informative session this morning exploring the plan. I have it here with me, and my eyes are drawn irresistibly to page 15, where it states:
“Bringing local transport systems outside London to the standards of the capital is a critical part of levelling up, driving growth and prosperity.”
This was raised in a separate debate last week, since when we have moved from the absurdity of a three-month financial deal for TfL to the farce of a one-week deal.
The Minister will have us believe that the situation is all the fault of the mayor. However, the truth is that it is solely the result of the Conservative Government’s political animus towards London. I know it; Londoners, from business leaders to poverty campaigners, know it; the whole world knows it. I suspect even the Minister knows it.
The failure to adequately finance TfL is directly relevant to the Integrated Rail Plan and connectivity in the northern powerhouse, for two reasons. First, the Government have set London as the standard to which other cities should be levelled up. Poorer services in London will mean poorer provision in cities in the north and the Midlands. Secondly, and crucially, this is not a zero-sum game. Growth and prosperity in London are as important to people in the north and the Midlands as they are to Londoners.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak at this point. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on introducing this short debate.
As a frequent user of the east coast main line services and to his lesser extent the trans-Pennine services, I am familiar with the difficulties, in particular with east-west connectivity, and I support many of the points that have been made this afternoon. I will just make a simple plea to the Minister and to her department. Many of the picturesque mill towns that are served by the east-west route are deserving of a completely new line. What was attractive about the Integrated Rail Plan was that it recognised the level of investment which was required. I regret that the subsequent document has now been downgraded, with plans looking only to deliver a combination of new track and upgrades to existing infrastructure, rather than an entirely new line. I realise that this is a blueprint—a first step along the way—but I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to revisit this as soon as she possibly can. That one simple step will open up and unlock the whole of the northern powerhouse economy, and I believe it is entirely in keeping with the government agenda to do so.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, the IRP should have been a blueprint to enable the north to deliver its transformational economic vision. The disappointment and sense of betrayal felt across the region is immense and I hope that the Government are listening and will act accordingly. I thank the Minister for the briefing we had this morning. Of course we welcome the commitments in the plan, but we are very concerned about the gaps.
As we have heard, authorities across the Midlands, the north and the north-east have spent at least 10 years and more planning for the arrival of HS2’s eastern leg, integrated into Northern Powerhouse Rail. We know that it is about not just speed but capacity, taking pressure off Victorian infrastructure and freeing up the existing line for more local express services and freight trains. Most of all, as I have said, it is about economic transformation. The investment would have supported 150,000 new jobs at least, and stimulated a gross value uplift to the economy of £200 billion. These are the factors not taken into consideration in terms of investment versus further economic viability.
Leeds is a very successful city. It is the financial centre of the north of England and plans already made have been attracting new businesses to come to Leeds: Channel 4, the Bank of England and the UK Infrastructure Bank are examples. Integrated plans have been drawn up to accommodate HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail at Leeds station; the idea that they are separate schemes is just not the case. The argument has been well made that the eastern leg provides a better economic return than any other stretch of HS2. Why, despite all the rumours of cancellation, did the Department for Transport not even have the decency to inform local authorities, until the plan was published, that the elements between Leeds and Sheffield would be included?
Funding commitments are always welcome but we face more delays, more studies, and more vague timeframes, and know that some sections will be delivered later than originally planned. Is this really the ambition of the Government’s levelling-up agenda?
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for initiating this debate. His indefatigable approach to all things transport always leaves me feeling slightly exhausted, because he brings so many things to our attention.
The integrated rail plan was announced only on 18 November, but already there are rumours of a U-turn. I want to wade straight in with a question to the Minister on the accuracy of recent reports in the Telegraph newspaper that the traction decarbonisation network strategy, the £30 billion plan to decarbonise the railways in the next 30 years, has been shelved. If that is even slightly true, how do the Government plan to deliver a net zero-emission rail network by 2050? As the noble Lord, Lord Birt, pointed out, we are already way behind other nations, not just in electrification but in the development of high-speed rail. How do the Government’s spending priorities in this respect stack up, when there appears to be a continued commitment to the £27 billion roads programme?
To say that the integrated rail plan went down like a lead balloon across most of the north and Midlands is an understatement. The headlines were of course about HS2 but the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, pointed out that HS2 was as much about capacity as it was about speed. By abandoning the grand plan and going instead for a patchwork of upgrades, the Government will be creating very little additional capacity. My noble friend Lord Beith has explained that issue. I am concerned about the lack of a cost-benefit analysis undertaken on these plans. Any rail upgrades carry a heavy burden of costs of disruption of existing infrastructure—not just to the railways but to the roads. The Great Western electrification, which took 10 years, involved the closure of the railway system at weekends and involved central Cardiff roads being closed for a year at a time to raise bridges, for example. The disruption was tremendous.
The blow to investment plans for northern cities, which have been based on the arrival of HS2, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, pointed out, is considerable. Birmingham has demonstrated the attraction of HS2 for investors. There was a major levelling-up opportunity. It has not just been missed; worse, it has been struck down when it was already under way.
There is hardly a reference in this document to freight. There is hardly an improvement at all to the situation at Bradford, the nation’s seventh-largest city, which has effectively been abandoned and left with appalling transport links. Once again, the Government are centralising power, thinking they know best, by taking power from Transport for the North and making decisions on behalf of the people of the north.
This plan is a disgrace, and it is no way forward for a nation that wants to hold its head up in the modern world.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Berkeley for securing this debate. He asked a number of questions of the Government, to which I too will be interested to hear the answers.
We will hear from the Government about the reduced amount of money they now intend to invest in our railway network as a result of their broken promises—only they will not describe it that way. Instead, they will portray it as a brilliant new programme of investment which will deliver more than the original programme they had repeatedly promised. Try telling that to the people of Bradford, for example, as the integrated rail plan does not include the new high-speed trans-Pennine route between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford, which is a key component of the Northern Powerhouse Rail project. Try telling it to the people of Leeds, who, after 10 years of investment and planning based on the Government’s clear—but now reneged on—proposal to bring HS2 to their city have, insultingly, been left with only a government statement in the plan about looking further into the most effective way of running HS2 trains to Leeds.
If the reduced rail investment programme was actually going to deliver more than the programme repeatedly promised by the Prime Minister—which it will not—it begs the question of why it has taken this Government more than 11 years to find that out. If the answer is that the costs of HS2 have risen during that time, that is simply an admission by the Government that they lack the ability to exercise any meaningful control over costs, as happened with the Great Western main line electrification, which, like HS2 now, was cut back and left unfinished.
As the Government cannot control costs today, they will be unable to control future costs even of their now greatly reduced rail investment programme. The integrated rail plan was supposed to present a blueprint for how HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and trans-Pennine upgrades could all be integrated and delivered in parallel. We now have a watered-down HS2, a failure to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail at all, and money to deliver upgrades that were needed not instead of but alongside the high-speed lines.
The upgrades will not provide the capacity the network needs, including for local services and rail freight, to become more reliable and efficient; will not create the infrastructure required to attract business investment; and will result in significant disruption to existing services while the upgrade work is undertaken, which would not be the case with the construction of new high-speed lines. Not all the investment left in the integrated rail plan is even new, timeframes are vague, and it appears that some new line sections may well be delivered later than under the original HS2 and NPR proposals.
By trading off fast strategic national rail links and higher-quality local ones against one another and prioritising short-term fixes and cost savings, the truncated plan is likely to fail to meet future demand and deliver the social, environmental and economic outcomes promised under the previous HS2 and NPR proposals. Those projects were about boosting the northern and Midland economies, as HS2 is already doing for the Midlands; closing the transport investment gap with London; rebalancing the economy and levelling up, creating thousands and thousands of new jobs; connecting millions more people and businesses in our major towns and cities in our industrial heartlands; and taking car and lorry trips off our roads to help address the climate emergency.
The truncated rail plan, which will also lead to the sidelining of Transport for the North, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, is driven by those in government who want simply to achieve the lowest capital cost they think they can get away with. Instead, as my noble friend Lady Blake of Leeds said, we should be looking at the whole-life benefits of major projects and programmes—economic, social and environmental —as the major cities in the north, north-east and Midlands were doing with their investment and planning while they still believed the Prime Minister’s now worthless promises on HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. If there were any doubts before, there can be none now: the Prime Minister’s slogans about levelling up and building back better are just that—slogans—and nothing more.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for this wonderful Christmas present on the last day of term: a debate about Northern Powerhouse Rail and the integrated rail plan. I am enormously grateful for the thoughtful contributions that have been made and to many noble Lords for coming to the briefing this morning. I am happy to arrange further briefings in due course, as obviously, plans will develop.
We know that this is an issue of huge importance to places across the north and the Midlands, as well as to the rail and construction industry. I understand that there are strong feelings about rail investment across the country. We all want to ensure a fair deal that enables economic growth, employment opportunities and better connectivity. We as a Government must also make sure that it offers value for money for the taxpayer.
I thank my noble friend Lord Horam for his warm words for the plan; they were few and far between from other contributors. I believe that this Government are taking the right action when it comes to the integrated rail plan. At £96 billion it is an enormous programme; indeed, it is the largest single investment in rail ever made by any UK Government. I believe that it will reshape our railways in the north and the Midlands.
The plan will provide those benefits quicker, which is really important when we are looking at timeframes of 10, 20, even 30 years. These are long timeframes, and we need to be able to bring those benefits to communities as soon as we possibly can. There is a boost for eight of the 10 busiest rail corridors. We will speed up journeys, increase capacity and run more frequent services, all much earlier than previously planned. I, too, hope to be alive when some of these benefits are felt.
Let me share a few examples of the transformation plans in the IRP. Journey times from Sheffield to London will be slashed by around half an hour, and we will more than double the number of seats on Sheffield to London services. Darlington will benefit from faster and more reliable connections to places on the east coast main line, with the potential to add additional seats as required as demand grows. The time it takes to travel from Leeds to Manchester will reduce over time from 53 minutes to just over half an hour. I do not think that is bad at all; in fact, it takes me half an hour to get from Norbiton to Waterloo.
The first of these big improvements, a reduction to just over 40 minutes, will be seen later this decade. Again, this comes back to the speed at which we can make these changes. Of course, there will also be significant increases in seat capacity. We will electrify the entire trans-Pennine route, install full digital signalling and add longer sections of three and four-tracking to allow fast trains to overtake stopping services. The IRP is absolutely focused on bringing communities in the north and the Midlands closer together, boosting intercity connections and improving east-west links.
Noble Lords will be aware that there are three high-speed lines coming: Crewe to Manchester; Birmingham to the east Midlands; and the £23 billion we are investing in Northern Powerhouse Rail, which includes the brand-new high-speed line from Warrington to Manchester. The proposals set out by Transport for the North—TfN—for NPR would have come at a cost to places on the existing main lines such as Huddersfield, which would have seen little improvement or a worsening in services. They would have made Manchester to Leeds journeys only four minutes faster than the option we have chosen, at a cost of an extra £18 billion.
We will upgrade the east coast main line. It is important to note that there will be a package of investment in track improvements and digital signalling to bring down journey times from Edinburgh, Newcastle, Darlington and Leeds to London. Again, these benefits will be available to communities much sooner than previously planned.
This debate was focused on capacity and regional connectivity, issues that were woven into comments from all noble Lords today. In many instances we will see very significant capacity improvements, particularly from Manchester to London, where there will be both capacity and journey time improvements. There is a potential to treble capacity between Manchester and Birmingham. The changes to the east coast main line have the potential to increase capacity.
Many noble Lords will want details and accurate descriptions of exactly what capacity will be provided for whom and when. We do not know that now. This is a plan, and there is an enormous amount of work to do to move from the plan to the next level down—to the detail about how this will actually work on the ground. While in some places we can be very clear about what capacity improvements will be available, in others there will be an enormous amount of designing to do and engineering options to look at, particularly when it comes to upgrading lines. So, service frequency, capacity and duration of journeys may be subject to change, but, of course, we always want to maximise capacity, increase service levels and reduce journey times.
I note that there was a cynical comment about “subject to stopping”. Trains have to stop: that is their job. How else do you get passengers on and off them? But, of course, we have to think about the best way to look at the frequency of services, particularly to intermediate towns between the large economic nodes. That is really important when it comes to planning journey times and the frequency of stopping.
On freight capacity, although an awful lot of work has been done on this, I think all of us in government would admit that we did not put enough of that into the integrated rail plan. I know we will work very hard to provide more information on this in due course.
The interesting thing is that west and east are not the same. There seems to be this feeling that if the west gets something, the east has to have exactly the same, but they are very different railway markets. Not only is the western leg of the route, from Crewe to Manchester, broadly agreed but we will be able to proceed with it much faster, and the benefits in terms of connecting significant cities are clear. But on the eastern leg, the market is more balanced. Unlike the western leg, there are far more credible choices to explore for upgrading existing sections of railway network, combined with new lines and longer trains. Those will bring the benefits that we want to see.
The underlying case for investment in the rail network in the north and Midlands remains very strong. Regional connectivity is at the heart of everything we do on rail improvements in the north. Again, integration is absolutely key. I have made the case before that plans were previously set out in isolation. They connected very large economic nodes, and kind of forgot about everywhere else in between. Many of the smaller places—although we are still talking about significant places such as Leicester, Kettering, Grantham and Newark—will benefit from the improvements coming down the track through the IRP.
At the heart of what we are doing—and this is why I think continued conversations will be beneficial—is the core pipeline. We have set out what it looks like, and any further schemes will be subject to affordability constraints and considerations. We also want to be able to deliver commitments on time and on budget. So, those are all the key things we will be thinking about.
So we have this core pipeline at the heart, and then there is this adaptive approach which sits around it. Noble Lords have mentioned, for example, Skipton-Colne. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned secondary lines. There is an awful lot of work to be done around how else, having gone with the core, we can maximise the connectivity into those harder-to-reach places which perhaps previously have not had good services.
I hear the concerns raised by some people from Leeds. We have looked extremely carefully and are very keen to keep working on what we can do there. We are spending £100 million on development work to look at the best way to get HS2 trains to Leeds from the east Midlands. Obviously, we will look at the current station and how it could absorb the additional capacity. I am as keen as anyone to see a mass transit network for west Yorkshire, and I am absolutely committed to working with the West Yorkshire Combined Authority on this. There was a comment about it perhaps taking decades, but that is probably not in the Government’s hands. The West Yorkshire Combined Authority is the sponsor of the project and we will look to it to bring forward plans that are well thought through and which represent good value for money for the taxpayer.
I was going to mention the electrification of the Midland main line, but perhaps I will not, because I would like to address the issue around Transport for the North and its role going forward. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, mentioned the letter from TfN and how it did not welcome the plan. Of course it did not welcome it; it was not TfN’s plan. We have made changes to its plan, but of course we do listen to what TfN has to say and any input that it has, as we do with all the sub-national transport bodies. I have a very close relationship with all of them. We want to work with TfN going forward in a collaborative way to ensure that we can maximise the benefits of our investment. Not everyone will always get exactly what they want. That is one of the huge challenges with planning transport networks. However, we can listen, and TfN will have a really important part, as it will be co-sponsor of the project and therefore will have a key role in providing that sponsorship to the project as it goes forward.
On the Leamside line, the north-east is eligible for a multiyear city region sustainable transport settlement. Unfortunately, we need the governance structures to be in place for it to have the CRSTS. We are working very closely to encourage the local area to form a combined authority, and then we will be able to think about providing funding, which may or not subsequently be used for the Leamside line.
There is a huge amount of opportunity for rail in the north and the Midlands. Many of the questions raised cannot be answered now, not because I do not have the answers to hand but because they do not yet exist. We have an awful lot of work ahead of us, which is why we are very keen to continue the conversations around the plan that we have and the proposals that may or may not augment that plan. However, from where I am at this moment, this plan, with £96 billion to be invested in rail in the Midlands and the north, to be delivered over the next 30 years, is a good one.
Prisons Strategy
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the prison strategy White Paper can most charitably be described as a missed opportunity to tackle the escalating prison crisis. While presenting the biggest prison-building programme in more than 100 years as a way to improve public protection, the strategy contains next to no credible solutions to the multiple problems plaguing our existing estate, which have made rehabilitation nigh-on impossible and have led to record levels of reoffending.
Unusually for a White Paper, the document contains very few direct legislative proposals and instead asks numerous consultation questions, many along the lines of:
“Do you agree with our … vision?”
Old ideas from previous papers are repeated and recycled, through the 76 pages of vague aspirations and feel-good gimmicks, such as resettlement passports and workforce drug testing. Yet key drivers of violence and instability, such as widespread squalor and the collapse in staff retention, morale and experience, are glossed over and ignored.
Worse, there is no recognition that government policies over the last decade have caused the current crisis, including cuts to staffing and other resources, leading to the degradation of pay, terms and conditions, a haemorrhaging of experience and the surge in violence, especially against prison staff. The paper’s headline pledge to recruit 5,000 new officers seems optimistic in light of the current recruitment and retention crisis and the lack of ministerial interest in the reasons behind the record resignations—from poverty pay to an unrealistic and cruel pension age of 68.
The long-promised prisoner education service gets a few mentions, but with no real detail apart from praise for the potential of in-cell technology. We agree that in-cell technology could be a game changer in rehabilitation and the whole incarceration experience.
One glimmer of hope, however, is the recognition that mass unstructured social time can make some prisoners feel unsafe and inhibit the ability of staff to manage the risks of violence and bullying. This is a key lesson from the pandemic that trade unions have consistently highlighted—as did the then Lord Chancellor Robert Buckland in July, when he insisted that there could be no going back to pre-Covid regimes. However, running smaller-scale regimes with higher staff-to-prisoner ratios will be at the discretion of governors, rather than required by national policy. As far as I can see, the strategy shows no understanding that such initiatives need significant staff investment and will be simply unsustainable with current staffing capacity.
Very little in this White Paper requires primary legislation: only the proposals to bring forward release dates, potentially—we debated this yesterday on the PCSC Bill—and to strengthen the powers of scrutiny organisations. What will all these extra prisoners do all day? The White Paper states that
“opening up the estate to employers”
will deliver a step change in the number of prisoners who work in prison. It seems likely that new legislation may be needed to create a presumption in favour of adapting the prison estate and regime to facilitate work in prison for appropriate prisoners. As important as a sense of satisfaction from doing a proper day’s work must be to prisoners, it seems unlikely that, with a minimum wage of £4 a week, they will earn enough to buy the things they need day to day in prison and also save for their release.
In praising prison officers as “hidden heroes”, the White Paper’s strategy commits to making
“the prison officer role one which is understood and valued in society in the same way that police and other core frontline roles are”.
But it concedes that attrition rates are simply too high, which is
“causing an unsustainable level of turnover in the system”,
leaving
“new staff feeling unsupported, contributing to a vicious cycle of staff dissatisfaction and lack of retention.”
Even the Prison Service’s new retention framework, referenced in the White Paper, admits that poor pay is a key driver to attrition and accepts that there are limits to what governors can do locally to improve pay and rewards. In other words, the solutions to the problem are well known; we are just seeing a lack of political will from the Government.
What about the existing teachers and how they will operate within the new prison education service? We are told that there will be two overriding strategic priorities: improving the numeracy and literacy of all prisoners, and incentivising them to improve their qualifications to increase their prospects of finding work. These are both admirable aims, but involve very different types of teaching, alongside additional resources and a break from the current private commissioning model, which is not recognised in the strategy document that I was reading earlier.
There is at least an admission that the current education system is not fit for purpose. The White Paper insists:
“Despite recent changes, the current quality of education provision is not good enough, with 60% of prisons in England receiving Ofsted grades of ‘Requires Improvement’ or ‘Inadequate’ over the last five years.”
However, the proposed solution is to
“work with our providers to improve the delivery and quality of training in prisons to drive year on year improvements to Ofsted grades, so they are much closer to those achieved by Further Education in the community.”
This is a laudable aspiration, but if it is not backed by new investment it will be an empty promise.
One area that will see a boost, thankfully, is in-cell technology. There is no question but that this could dramatically change learning and rehabilitation more widely, as well as help maintain and improve family engagement, and, of course, promote stability and good behaviour when used as a reward or incentive. Can the Minister say whether virtual visits via in-cell kiosks should be treated and charged as a phone call or as an in-person visit? Of course, in-person visits are free at the moment. Moreover, will Parliament, and indeed the public, get to express a view on this? It is a very specific question that I suspect parliamentarians would have a view on.
In reality, it is the probation service that is responsible for keeping new releases on the straight and narrow. The new strategy makes no mention of Transforming Rehabilitation, which was the failed probation privatisation experiment that caused so much misery.
To address the scandal of homelessness among prison leavers, the White Paper proposes extending
“a new provision of temporary accommodation and support for up to 12 weeks after release”
to all prison leavers, but it is not resettlement passports that new leavers need; it is front-door keys. Where is the commitment to helping them on to housing benefit with deposits paid in advance to trusted landlords?
The understanding that prisons
“cannot support rehabilitation unless they are safe, stable and secure”
is to be welcomed, as is the pledge to
“provide safer working conditions for staff”,
but the proposed
“new ministerial prison performance board that will hold the system and Governors to account for ensuring prisoners and staff are safe”
will have key performance indicators and “appropriate league tables”. The KPIs are
“security and stability; substance misuse and mental health; and resettlement and family ties.”
It is worrying that the crucial metric of staff safety seems to be missing from the KPI list. One simple way for Ministers to send a clear message to staff that they are on their side would be to ensure that all attempts at potting are prosecuted and for the Government to back the amendment from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, to the PCSC Bill.
Bizarrely, the strategy calls for
“modern desktop computers, devices and software to benefit the people who work in our prisons”,
which
“will allow for increased productivity and a reduction in time wasted by users waiting for systems to boot up”.
Why does it need a White Paper for prison staff to get new PCs? Just how long does it take for their current systems to turn on? This seems ridiculous.
Finally, the strategy looks at rolling out a two-year programme of future regime design to let governors design their own regimes. The highest performing governors will receive “earned autonomy” and
“greater flexibility to deviate from nationally set policies.”
This includes
“greater freedoms to deviate from prison service instructions and policy frameworks”,
as long as KPIs are met. This begs the question: why will governors be rewarded for hitting targets by being given the opportunity to break the rules? That is maybe a rhetorical question, and I approve of giving governors greater flexibility and managed autonomy, but this cannot be allowed to shift responsibility and accountability from Ministers who have put this new regime in place.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Forgive me, my Lords, but I understood that it was five minutes for each Front Bench and then 10 minutes for the Minister to respond to our questions. Hopefully, with the leave of the House, we will give the Minister appropriate time to respond despite the Labour Front Bench.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, we believe that the White Paper is disappointing. The Statement gets off on the wrong foot as far as we on these Benches are concerned. It says:
“Prisons play a vital role in protecting the public by keeping the most prolific and dangerous offenders in custody”—
although, as we see from the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, even peaceful protesters are going to be subject to custodial sentences—
“and rehabilitating those who deserve a second chance.”
Can the Minister explain which prisoners do not deserve a second chance? On what criteria are the Government going to decide who does and does not deserve one?
The Statement says that the Ministry of Justice has secured enough money in the spending review to build an additional 20,000 prison places by the 2020s. The Nationality and Borders Bill intends to criminalise asylum seekers entering the country through irregular routes, with a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment —again, not
“the most prolific and dangerous offenders”,
but on current numbers every one of those 20,000 new prison places is likely to be filled by asylum seekers.
When I was a police commander in charge of Brixton, the governor of Brixton Prison told me that illegal drugs were more freely available inside his prison than they were outside on the streets. I am pleased to see that action is being taken to deal with that, but why has it taken over 10 years for this Government to act?
It is also welcome that the Government are going to treat illegal drugs as a health issue, but the probation service has very little financial leverage to secure support to ensure that drug treatment programmes started in prison continue through the gate when a prisoner is released. It is one thing to live without drugs when you are in prison with regular drug testing, but quite another to release prisoners back into the same environment that they came from on release and expect them to continue. What additional resources are being provided for drug rehabilitation and support outside prison specifically for ex-prisoners? Can the Minister specify how much per prisoner compared with 10 years ago, adjusting for inflation and taking into account the increase in prisoner numbers? I am reminded of shops that double the price of things for 12 weeks and then advertise them at 50% off, except that the Government make drastic cuts, put half back and then claim credit for what is in fact a reduction.
There is an increasing prison population compared with proportionately declining staff numbers. Where is the budget to recruit and retain prison officers and the other staff who will be needed to carry out the numeracy and literacy assessments and to deliver the training? I understand that the increase in prison officers outlined in the Statement is to cope with the expansion plans, but who will deliver these enhanced education and skills plans and who will backfill when staff are being “upskilled”?
What pay rises are factored in for prison officers to ensure retention, set against a record increase in inflation not seen for a decade and an increasingly difficult working environment? Wandsworth Prison today has 68 prison officers looking after 1,300 prisoners. Officers are leaving because of poor pay, and applications from new recruits are down 44% because the Prison Service cannot compete with other sectors. How can rehabilitation be delivered in Wandsworth Prison today in such circumstances?
Any measures to find ex-prisoners employment are to be welcomed, but is the limiting factor not that employers will not take them on? A
“new digital tool to match candidates to jobs”
will not help if there are no jobs to match the ever-increasing number of prisoners to. What incentive or encouragement is being provided to employers to employ former prisoners—or at least those prisoners that the Government deem lucky enough to be given a second chance?
Can the Minister explain the “new community accommodation service”? What additional funding or other incentive will local authorities and housing associations be given to provide accommodation and to what extent does this compensate for the devastating cuts to local authority budgets in recent years?
This White Paper appears to shift the balance further towards retribution and away from rehabilitation, with the only realistic, properly thought-through and funded proposals being to build and staff yet more prison places —plans one would expect from a right-wing, authoritarian Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions. I will respond to as many of the points as I can in the time I have and will reply in writing on anything I cannot deal with orally.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, started off by criticising the fact that we are asking questions, but that is a poor place to start. I do not apologise for asking questions and seeking consultation. We published a prison safety and reform White Paper in 2016 and this White Paper builds on that. We are keen to learn. There are new things and new money in this White Paper, which I will come to, and we make no apologies for asking people for their views.
On staffing, which I agree is of absolute importance, since the end of October 2016, we have recruited a net increase of over 4,000 staff. In 2020, we accepted all bar one of the review body’s recommendations on pay and, as we announced in October this year, we accepted all of the PSPRB’s recommendations relating to the 2021 pay award. To retain staff in the sites hardest to recruit for, prison officers in the 31 hardest to recruit for sites receive an additional payment of between £3,000 and £5,000.
I think everybody around the Chamber understands the importance of education in prison. I acknowledge, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, did, the work done by the former Lord Chancellor, Robert Buckland, in this area. Throughout the pandemic, we have kept education running. The Prisoners’ Education Trust called for major investment in digital technologies in prison. We are developing the digital infrastructure and have reintroduced classroom teaching in prisons in line with government advice on Covid. We absolutely acknowledge that improvements have to be made in prisoner education. The pandemic has obviously not helped in that regard, but we are focused on this and have put new money into it as well.
On employment, which is absolutely key, there are over 1 million vacancies in the UK at the moment. Employers must look to wider talent pools to fill them and the New Futures Network, which is the Prison Service’s network of employment brokers, now works with over 400 organisations to place prisoners in employment. The Government lead by example: we will hire over 1,000 prison leavers into the Civil Service by the end of 2023 and, as the noble Lord will be aware, in the PCSC Bill, we are focusing on the rehabilitation regime, which is also important for people to obtain employment.
On the specific question about virtual visits, I can confirm that we are committed to continuing to offer secure social video calling beyond the Covid restrictions. We are looking at future options in line with the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Farmer’s review on maintaining family ties, but the current position is that there are no charges for secure social video calls.
We will come back to the issue of potting in the new year—I look behind me to see whether my noble friend Lord Attlee is here—so that is a joy which awaits us early in 2022. If I may, I will deal with that at that time.
Autonomy and flexibility for governors are important and we will discuss with them the appropriate KPIs in this context. However, ultimately, the buck always stops with Ministers.
I turn briefly—I am conscious of the time—to the points from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. He asked, “Who deserves a second chance?” The short answer is everybody, perhaps with the exception of those who have a whole life order, because that means, essentially, that you are there for life. We can have an interesting debate about whether that means you deserve a second chance, but the nature of that sentence is obviously somewhat different. I agree about the importance of education. Some prisoners may deserve to have the book thrown at them, but all prisoners deserve to have books thrown to them. We think that prison education is very important. As to asylum seekers, can we pick that up when we debate the Nationality and Borders Bill next year?
Regarding drugs, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, welcomes our strategy. He asked why it has taken so long. As it is the festive season, could I invite him to concentrate not so much on the ghost of Christmas past but to join us in looking to the ghost of Christmas future? We are putting new money in here. We have a £785 million package for treatment and delivery, and we are now investing £120 million of new money over the next three years for drug treatment in prisons. As far as drug treatment out of prisons is concerned, which the noble Lord rightly focused on as well, we are rolling out £80 million of drug treatment funding with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that prison leavers get the support they need. I think I have dealt with his points on prison officer retention and pay.
On the community service accommodation point, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced this scheme on 28 July 2021. It is a pathway for prison leavers to give them a route from prison to their own private rented sector accommodation. Local authorities will be providing monitoring information to that department alongside wider monitoring information on homelessness and rough sleeping. Overall, we have allocated £13 million to 87 schemes across 145 local authorities. If there is anything more that I can say on that, perhaps I can drop the noble Lord a line. I have an eye on the Clock and am conscious that others will want to get in, so I hope the House will forgive me if I pause there.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the roots of the issues we are talking about go back a long way and it is fair to accept that they go back to well before the present Government. The prison population has trebled in the last 50 years and it has done so under Governments and the leadership of all parties. Indeed, the Labour Government of which I was a member was not progressive on these issues at all; the prison population rose significantly, prison regimes did not improve notably, and the average length of sentences increased.
If we are standing back from this White Paper, which is now in a line of government policy statements going back to the 1980s, it is fair to ask whether we should be looking at more fundamental reforms and learning from the practice of other countries. What is undeniably true is that, as a proportion of our population, we imprison significantly more—we are a significant outlier—than almost any country in Europe. When I last checked the statistics, I think only Portugal had a higher proportion; I am not sure why it is an outlier. We are well above the average for mainstream European countries, none of which appears to have a bigger problem of disorder and lack of respect for the law than we do. The Minister is obviously constrained in what he can say, but does he not think that the time is coming for us to start looking more seriously and systematically at the experience of countries that have succeeded in dealing with issues of law and order with a much smaller prison population than we have and learn from their example?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Lord is right that I am not going to make government policy standing on my feet. In so far as he says that we should look at other countries, I would always agree with that; one can always look at other countries and learn. In the PCSC Bill which is going through the House at the moment, there is a focus on a number of issues, including the use of non-custodial sentences. The critical thing about those sentences is that they have to be robust and the public have to have confidence in them. Later today, I will be making a Statement on victims’ issues. I would hope that the greater inclusion of victims in the criminal justice process may lead to greater use of non-custodial sentences, because victims will buy into the process more. However, I suspect that this is a topic with which we will continue to engage.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I wrote down carefully what the Minister said in response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about charges for videocalls for family engagement: that the current position is there are no charges. Does the Minister believe that that will continue for the foreseeable future? On the broader question of the in-cell technology, does he agree that this must have full democratic oversight and control, and be run for public good, not private profit?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, on the video charges point I hope that I was clear as to what we are committed to doing in future. I also set out clearly the current position. I do not think I can go beyond that at present. On technology, of course it must be appropriate. I do not get hung up, I am afraid, on whether public services are delivered by the public sector or the private sector. My focus is on making sure that public services are properly delivered and of a very high quality.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The Minister indicated that the PCSC Bill included non-custodial sentences. Can he highlight what they are, and would he say that there will be a net increase or decrease in the number of people likely to go to prison as a result of the Government’s measures in that Bill?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I was trying to say that on a number of occasions in debates on the PCSC Bill—I think perhaps the noble Lord was not participating in them—I have explained that under the sentencing guidelines, before somebody can be sent to custody the sentencer has to be satisfied that there is no proper alternative to custody. Even when that threshold is met, the sentencer then has to be satisfied that an immediate custodial sentence must be passed. We have had interesting debates on out-of-court disposals and alternatives to custody. I am happy to continue those conversations. As to the projections, I do not have those to hand but am happy to write to the noble Lord with them.
Bosnia-Herzegovina
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That this House takes note of the importance of the constitutional integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and of upholding the Dayton Agreement.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as published in the register, in particular my presidency of the institution Remembering Srebrenica. I thank noble Lords who are participating in this important debate. We have a strong line-up of speakers, particularly my noble friend Lady Helic, who has personal experience of this like nobody else here does, my noble friend Lady Warsi, who has direct experience from the Foreign Office, and my noble friend Lady Mobarik, who was a Member of the European Parliament. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will come in during the gap; we very much look forward to that too, as well as hearing from many other speakers.
We have been here before. In the 1990s, we saw the horror of Sarajevo under siege. We saw victims held in concentration camps and atrocities committed across Bosnia. We saw genocide committed; that is at the root of the issues that we are confronting today. Genocide took place on European soil, 50 years after the Holocaust and the cries then of “Never again”, yet it happened again. The events of the 1990s and the inaction, or certainly the slow action, of the West is a stain on the conscience of the West—of us all.
In July 1995, more than 8,000 Bosnian Muslim men and boys were systematically murdered by Bosnian Serb forces. Let us not forget that. They were dumped in mass graves and later moved to secondary and, in some cases, tertiary mass graves, and their remains are still being identified today. War leaders were charged, convicted and imprisoned for unspeakable crimes, and Sarajevo, as I have said, was shelled under the orders of Ratko Mladic—to the point of madness, as he asked for at the time.
There followed the Dayton peace agreement of November 1995, which effectively split the country into two parts: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Republika Srpska, within Bosnia-Herzegovina, the area that was ethnically cleansed by the Bosnian Serb forces and army. The accords established peace, underpinned by a tripartite rotating presidency—a far from perfect arrangement, but it has, by and large, provided a durable peace in the time since.
I had the great privilege of visiting Sarajevo and Srebrenica as a Minister. For me, it was the most important political experience of my life. I met many survivors. I remember meeting in Sarajevo a doctor who had qualified just before the Bosnian war, who had decided that he did not want the hurly-burly of practice in Sarajevo and moved to Srebrenica, expecting to work as a general practitioner. His life took a very different course, and he had to deal with unspeakable horrors as a surgeon. That brought home to me what had really happened in that dreadful civil war. I remember also meeting a twin, Hasan Hasanović, in Srebrenica. He had been on the death march, which was for many people an attempt to escape the horrors of Srebrenica. He was on the march with his twin brother, and he never saw his twin brother again; he completed the march, but his twin brother disappeared.
I met, too, some of the incredible mothers of Srebrenica—survivors who had lost husbands, brothers and sons and who were determined that this would never happen again and that their country would come through this. They had the most incredible grace, serenity and goodness—and that, too, has stayed with me.
We now face a very serious threat from the Bosnian Serb president of that tripartite presidency, Milorad Dodik, who is trying to create, in effect, a parallel state within Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Bosnian Serb part of the country is undermining state institutions—the army, the judicial system, the intelligence agency and other parts of the state apparatus of Bosnia-Herzegovina. People are also up in arms about the law that was passed under the influence of the previous High Representative of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Valentin Inzko. It is worth pausing at this point to say that the name of the late, lamented Lord Ashdown—Paddy—still carries so much weight over there, because of what he did in establishing a strong presence as high representative. The outgoing high representative forged an important genocide denial measure, to say that any attempt to deny the genocide would be a crime, and the Serbian part of Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Dodik in particular, is up in arms about that.
Behind all this, of course, we have the influence of Serbia and the malign influence of Russia, which casts a very long shadow, supporting what is happening. Ultimately what will happen if the West does not act is that there will be secession, which is why it is important that we do act, so we are not faced with the same situation that we were faced with some 26 or 27 years ago.
The West, NATO, the G7 and the EU must all act. We must use our influence. We cannot have the same shameful inaction that we had 26 years ago. The moral case is truly compelling, but so is the geopolitical one when one looks at the serious threat presented by Russia in Ukraine, the Balkans and, indeed, the Baltic states. Our country knows like no other that appeasement does not work.
I commend the Government and my noble friend the Minister on what has been done so far. The appointment of Sir Stuart Peach as special envoy to the region is certainly welcome, as are the recent visits of my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lady Goldie to Bosnia-Herzegovina; I look forward to hearing about them. That is obviously not enough. Like others, I met the Foreign Minister, Bisera Turković, who I know has met our Foreign Secretary. It would be good to hear the Foreign Secretary’s stance on this, because we have to up our game. More is needed.
I respectfully say that we need a commitment of more British troops to either the NATO force in the country or EUFOR; that is certainly possible, but it is not limited to EU forces. That is, I think, a sine qua non for progress; we need that commitment and show of strength to make it clear that we stand with our allies in Bosnia-Herzegovina. We also need to make clear our support for the current high representative, Christian Schmidt.
We need to look at and impose sanctions. We have the legal framework for this; a pre-emptive sanctions regime is anticipated in the Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. This would provide for the freezing of assets and travel bans and would forbid financial institutions providing funds to Dodik and his allies. We really need to up our game and do that too. The Bank of England needs to work with other central banks from the G7 and the EU to ensure that Dodik and his allies are excluded from the SWIFT transaction system to prevent money circulating via international transfers. These things are vital and urgent.
In the longer term, there are things we need to do to provide for civic society and institutions of that nature being strengthened. But there is an imperative need in relation to dealing with the immediate threat, which is considerable, of secession and unsettling the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina. We cannot afford a repeat, or anything akin to it, of what happened to this wonderful country, with which our own country has such strong, positive ties. We have those ties through remembering Srebrenica and institutions in Parliament, including all-party parliamentary groups.
Recently, there was a debate in the Commons that put many of these things on the agenda and in which many honourable Members, including Alicia Kearns and Bob Stewart, who has a direct interest and influence in Bosnia from being out there, spoke. They argued for many of the things I have argued for, as did other Members, including Yasmin Qureshi and Fleur Anderson from the Labour Party. This is something on which all political parties are united. That should strengthen the Government in doing what is needed.
If I may say so, we have an opportunity to make it much clearer than we have done how strongly we support the admission of Bosnia-Herzegovina to NATO. We are not in such a strong position to influence its admission to the EU, sadly, but that would help too; I suggest that we at least try to do that behind the scenes. If global Britain is to mean anything at all—I hope that it will—I certainly look to the Government doing more. Warm words may be important, but we need strong action at a time when we can see off this threat; it will not last for ever. There is a window of opportunity here where we can act firmly and clearly. The Government, the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office can show the mettle they are made of, and we can see off this dreadful threat to prevent anything like a repeat of the horrors that happened to an ally on our doorstep 26 years ago. I beg to move.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for bringing this debate and for his wise words. I commend the Foreign Secretary, the FCDO and MoD Ministers on the clear stance they have taken on the crisis facing Bosnia-Herzegovina, including the appointment of Sir Stuart Peach as the UK envoy to the western Balkans.
Thirty years after the wars began in the western Balkans, I wish we were able to speak of a region that is as prosperous and as firmly integrated into the EU and NATO as the Baltic states are today, but regrettably that is not the case. For all the talk of progress and of a future in the EU, the western Balkans have stagnated. They have been infiltrated by Russia, gripped by corruption and dazzled by Chinese loans that trample over transparency and the environment. Aggressive nationalism reminiscent of the 1990s has for some time been on the up.
Today, just like 30 years ago, the most vulnerable country is Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the words of Christian Schmidt, the high representative, Bosnia
“faces the greatest existential threat of the postwar period … The prospects for further division and conflict are very real.”
Many noble Lords will clearly remember the 1990s, when a calculated policy of ethnic cleansing culminated in the first genocide on European soil since the Holocaust. Any Bosnian citizen above the age of 25 has direct memories of the war: memories of shelling, rape camps, siege, displacement, fear, abandonment, ethnic cleansing and genocide. Almost everyone under 25 carries the trauma of their parents.
It is hard to describe the sensation of horror that arises from any prospect that this could be repeated, that the poison of extreme nationalism and that willingness to disregard human life in pursuit of goals entrenched in political fanaticism could once more be unleashed in the Balkans. That nationalism, mixed with corruption, is still alive. It manifests itself in genocide denial, the decision of secessionists to withdraw the entity of Republika Srpska from Bosnian state institutions and the re-establishment of the very Bosnian Serb army that besieged and broke Srebrenica and committed genocide throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina.
This is not the innocent pursuit of autonomy for RS. Autonomy is already there. The Dayton peace agreement was a compromise that gave Republika Srpska its autonomy. This is the dream of achieving a greater Serbia, the same wartime goal of Karadžić and Mladić, the notorious war criminals now languishing in prison. With this aim, separatists seek the erosion and eventual collapse of the Bosnian state, bringing the country to a point of no return. This is about picking up where they left off in 1995, only this time with Russia as an active player. Moscow sees the western Balkans as NATO’s underbelly: an easy means of destabilising and humiliating Europe. What better way to limit the expansion of NATO, for instance, than by keeping the whole region in a state of perpetual instability?
Beijing’s interests are aligned with Moscow’s. They march together at the UN Security Council, while China buys Balkan proxies and secures energy and mineral resources. Meanwhile, the EU is split down the middle, with its own illiberals leading the way in repeating the mistakes of 1990s. Now, as then, its policy is built on appeasing the provincial strongmen who are bringing Bosnia to the brink. The US, wary of alienating the EU, has yet to take an independent position.
The picture I paint is dark but it is not hopeless. We and our allies have the capacity to turn this around and to push back against the secessionists, their enablers and their allies. First, we need to recognise that the crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina is not a political crisis. It is a security crisis and, as such, demands a security response. The fastest way in which to guarantee security is by deploying a deterrent force to Bosnia. I repeat, it would not be a peacekeeping force or a fighting force but a show of strength to deter adventurism. At present there are only 660 EUFOR troops, dispersed in vulnerable units across the country. Under the UN Chapter VII mandate, Dayton’s Annex 1A, and the Berlin-plus arrangement, NATO has the authority to deploy. My noble friend Lord Hague has recently called for troops to be sent to
“strategically critical areas such as Brcko and Tuzla airport.”
As he put it,
“it is only strength, determination and readiness to act that will deter a great deal of trouble.”
The presence of a NATO brigade, if deployed soon enough, would make violent secession impossible and would transform the security situation. Nationalist strongmen would be forced to switch from threats to compromise.
Secondly, we must ensure, as my noble friend said, that those who seek the destruction of Bosnia face consequences. We have an existing sanctions framework to uphold territorial integrity, peace and security in Bosnia and ensure compliance with the Dayton peace accord. High Representative Schmidt told the Security Council that
“the RS authorities are already in grave violation of the Agreement and are poised to violate it further, potentially causing irreparable damage.”
The United States has already sanctioned Milorad Dodik, for
“actively obstructing the Dayton Accords”,
warning that he
“poses a significant threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina”.
It is high time that we and our European allies join the US, pushing back firmly and imposing sanctions on anyone undermining Dayton.
Thirdly, once the question of redrawing Bosnia’s borders has been taken off the table and the break-up of the state is impossible, then there is space for an inclusive, bottom-up political process—space for a new social contract for the 21st century and a political settlement that works for all, not just some, Bosnian citizens.
The original agreement was a bandage for a bleeding wound but was not meant to be a permanent settlement. It stopped the conflict but it has locked Bosnia into a set of Kafkaesque institutional structures. Dayton Bosnia has three Presidents, 13 Prime Ministers, 14 Parliaments, 147 Ministers and 700 parliamentarians, divvied up according to ethnic quotas, all for a population of less than 3.2 million—about as many people as live in Wales. This is not a recipe for good governance but a route to inefficiency, corruption, abuse and chaos.
There is more. The current Bosnian constitution works for Bosnia’s so-called constituent people: Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs. But in Dayton Bosnia, if on is Jewish, Roma, or simply do not wish to declare oneself a member of one of those three exclusive constituent groups, one cannot stand for the presidency or the House of the Peoples. That basic right is denied. In a series of court cases brought by Bosnian citizens who sought to challenge this discrimination, the European Court of Human Rights has ordered that the constitution must be changed. However, that reform agenda has been hijacked. The quest for minority rights has again been subverted by nationalists seeking to lock ethnic division into the system to cement their own power. Bosnia’s future should be founded on a principle of genuine equality, meritocracy and ability, not on discrimination and segregation, as it is today.
Finally, one of our biggest mistakes in the 1990s was looking to solve the Bosnian crisis via Serbia and Croatia. This did not work then, and it will not work now. As neighbouring countries, their support is welcome but they must not be allowed to be kingmakers. A myth has been created that they, like the United States or the United Kingdom, are guarantors of the Dayton peace accords. Serbia and Croatia were signatories but are not members of the Peace Implementation Council. They are not guarantors.
The late Lord Ashdown told a story of a dinner in Banqueting House in 1995 with Franjo Tuđman, the then Croatian President. Lord Ashdown sketched a map on the back of a menu, offered it to President Tuđman, and asked what his plan was for Bosnia. Tuđman drew a line down the middle. One half was to be Croatian, the other Serbian. There was to be no Bosnia —and no space for Bosniaks.
We cannot afford to repeat the same mistake over and over. All the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whether Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish or atheist, deserve an alternative to life under fear and threat of conflict. The secessionist elites do not speak for most Bosnians. They speak for themselves and their interests. If anyone doubts the desire of Bosnia’s people to live in a stable, prosperous country—to live in peace and dignity—they need only look at the queues outside European embassies in Sarajevo lining up for visas. They need only look at the Bosnians in language schools, studying hard so that they can work abroad. Bosnian doctors and nurses staff German hospitals, while Bosnian engineers build roads across Europe.
Given a choice, most would probably want to stay in Bosnia, but while the current elite retains its grip on Bosnian politics and insecurity dominates their lives, they will make their futures elsewhere. If we can give Bosnia-Herzegovina the security and confidence to agree a new social contract for the 21st century that works for all citizens, support a positive vision for the whole region and make Russia and its satellites understand that there is a line we will not allow them to cross, then we, together with like-minded democracies, can turn this around. Then we can make sure that the ugly past never comes back and that genocide and ethnic cleansing are never again used to destroy a country in the heart of Europe.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth for securing this debate at a critical time for Bosnia-Herzegovina. In six months’ time, we may see another descent into war.
If noble Lords will permit, I will first recount a memory which haunts me to this day, and which I believe is important to this debate. I travelled to Bosnia in November 1996, after the Dayton peace agreement, having spent much time during the conflict years raising money for humanitarian aid and, after the horror of Srebrenica, calling for UN intervention as part of a group founded by some of us in Glasgow known as the “Save the Bosnian People Campaign”.
Still with no direct flights to Bosnia, I travelled to Zagreb in Croatia to meet members of the team of Edinburgh Direct Aid, a charity we had used to deliver aid to Bosnia. I declare an interest as patron of EDA. From Zagreb, we travelled by road to the town of Ključ in north-western Bosnia-Herzegovina. Devastation paved the way. Every one of the 34 mosques in the Una-Sana Canton had been dynamited to rubble. No house was left intact—they were covered with bullet holes and without windows or door frames—not even the one where we stayed in the village of Biljani. Some plastic sheeting from UNHCR was all that acted as a barrier from the bitter cold.
The next day, we received a call from the mayor’s office, as he knew that foreigners were present in the town. He asked if we could meet him; it was important, as he needed us to see something. He had something to tell the world—for us to be witnesses to the truth. The chairman of Edinburgh Direct Aid, Dr Denis Rutovitz, and I, along with Feho Botonjić, who had spent six months in the Manjača concentration camp, reached the appointed place, the outskirts of a forest in a mountainous region some 14 kilometres from Ključ. Then accompanied by the mayor, Amir Avdić, we walked into the heart of the forest with its towering trees.
We came upon a strange scene. There was a wooden table where four or five exhausted young men, not more than 17 or 18 years old, were sitting eating their meal. Beside them lay bundles wrapped in black plastic sheeting laid out in a row. A few hundred yards across from them were people around a gaping hole and down below, as we approached, we saw that there were more young men digging many metres below to extract what was there and haul up, by ropes, one by one, the evidence of the brutality that had visited that forest several years before. The bodies of 188 people, some of whom had been beaten and killed outside the local primary school in Biljani, and others taken alive and loaded onto buses in July 1992, and whose whereabouts had been unknown, were there in that dark abyss.
The townsmen who had gone hunting in the forest after the war had noticed that the natural crater, 20 metres deep, that had been there was now filled in and covered over with earth. It rang alarm bells, so they started digging, only to discover those 188 people who had seemingly vanished. The strange, unfamiliar, bitter-sweet scent that shrouded the forest now made sense—it was of human remains long since decayed. It pervaded the forest, and my consciousness, long after we left. The bodies were transferred to the school hall for identification by those who had missing family members. Among them, the oldest was an 85-year-old man; the youngest were a four month-old baby and a young girl in her teens. “The sweetest, prettiest, kindest girl”, lamented Ramis and Raifa, our hosts: “How is it possible?”
It is too often possible, as history tells us, for perfectly normal people to descend into such barbarism. If the language of division is used as a weapon to bring out the worst in people and to deliberately incite hatred, it is all too possible. We face that scenario once again in the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina. If our humanity means anything to us, we must act to prevent another inhumane situation—another genocide in the heart of Europe.
In 1992, the world watched and waited and ignored the deteriorating political situation, the reports of mass killings, until eventually the scale of the genocide in Srebrenica awoke us to a truth we could no longer ignore. Alongside the physical devastation lay a devastated economy. The factories I visited in Sarajevo lay mostly empty, with owners struggling to revive their businesses. All the export markets, for leather shoes, timber and textiles to Germany, Italy and elsewhere, had been lost during the years of conflict. I ask whether we could have done more to ensure the economic success of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Some 25 years on, many of the villages lie empty. Opportunities are few. Half a million of the brightest and best have left in the last decade, and in recent years the institutions of government, which should have been strengthened in order to build on a fragile peace, have instead, in the last 10 years, been eroded by the political leadership of the Bosnian Serb region, Republika Srpska, with the President, Milorad Dodik, questioning the legitimacy of the Bosnian institutions—the Bosnian army, security services, tax system and judiciary. Last Saturday, on 11 December, the Bosnian Serb entity of the assembly voted for a set of provisions which would see the regional government opt out of these national institutions, in clear contravention of the Dayton peace agreement—this despite the threat of sanctions by the US and Europe. It is clear that this confidence is partly because Dodik has the backing of Russia, as he has more or less made clear.
The Opposition leader in Republika Srpska, Mirko Šarović, has said that secession would be
“a direct threat to peace, which would lead Republika Srpska into the spiral of war.”
We cannot allow that to happen. If we care nothing for what happens to Bosnia, let us ask ourselves: can we afford another refugee crisis? At this moment, we have a small window of opportunity. The proposals that have been voted through require new laws and changes to the constitution within a six-month period. We can no longer ignore what is happening and time is of the essence. We support it and were deeply involved in the Dayton peace agreement. We must uphold it, and the constitutional integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Dayton peace agreement was by no means perfect, but nevertheless has provided peace.
When you look at the geography you realise that there is no clean separation of the territory, as Dodik proposes. In parts of the country, villages are entangled along ethnic lines. Let us for a moment remember that in Bosnia in the early 1990s, the people were completely integrated. They spoke the same language, went to school together and worked side by side in the same factories and offices. They socialised with each other. The only thing that was different between them was their names. When I spoke to the citizens of Ključ and of Sarajevo they said, “We were targeted simply because of our Muslim names”.
When Dodik and others refuse to define Srebrenica as a genocide it means they have no regrets for what happened. The theory that the mass murders across Bosnia and genocide in Srebrenica the 1990s is a lie is espoused by a small percentage of people, not just in the Bosnian Republika Srpska, Serbia and Croatia but right across Europe. I heard such views in recent years from individuals I served alongside as a Member of the European Parliament. It is why organisations such as Remembering Srebrenica—I declare an interest as a patron—must be supported. Educating future generations about that miserable episode of European history is vital to a more caring, tolerant and peaceful society.
I am heartened to know that our Government are taking the current situation in Bosnia very seriously, having recently appointed to the role of special envoy to the Balkans Air Chief Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, whom I had the pleasure of meeting in 2006. There can be no one more qualified. This step is to be commended, but would my noble friend the Minister agree that this issue means that we leave every option on the table? Do we follow up on our interventions or do we walk away? Britain, as one of the signatories of the Dayton agreement and a participant in the NATO peacekeeping forces, has a clear duty to intervene and to persuade all its allies to intervene. We owe it to those 59 British soldiers who lost their lives and the many more who were injured in the 1990s war in Bosnia, to people such as Christine Witcutt, who was killed by a Serb bullet while delivering humanitarian aid to Bosnia on behalf of Edinburgh Direct Aid, and to our future generations, for whom we would wish a peaceful and prosperous Europe.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I highly commend my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth for bringing this debate. It is very timely, even if it is almost the last bit of business before the Christmas Recess. I hope it will have a wider audience, because this is a crucial moment, not just for Bosnia and Herzegovina but for Europe and the wider world—and so often we ignore these things until it is too late.
It is also an absolute privilege to follow my noble friends Lady Mobarik and Lady Helic, who have so much experience—not necessarily of the best sort, I have to say. They brought passion but also great wisdom in possible solutions. I cannot say that I will be able to improve on that, but I can certainly support them in what they say. I am the weak link in this debate; my noble friend Lady Warsi and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will follow me.
As to my experience in the region, on my 18th birthday I was sitting in the Herzegovinian artists’ village of Počitelj along the Neretva River, about 20 miles down- river from Mostar. That was 48 years ago. I would never have thought that, 20 years after I was sitting in that idyllic landscape dotted with mosques—it was the first time I had seen mosques in Europe; I found it fascinating, exciting and exhilarating that we had such diversity in Europe—the village would be pretty much destroyed. Of course, the famous bridge in Mostar was also blown up.
I followed that by studying, at university in London and for three months in Belgrade, Serbo-Croatian language and literature. That language has now been superseded, as it has split into Serbian, Bosnian, Croatian and so forth. As my noble friend Lady Mobarik said, at that time one was aware of the rivalry, even hatred or hostility, between Serbs and Croats. I remember getting into trouble on a train going back from Belgrade through Croatia because I used the wrong word for bread. I tried to explain that I was an English student, but that was not good enough for them. But Bosnia-Herzegovina was actually a model of integration, where people lived together regardless of religious differences and everything. As my noble friend said, it was only the names that really identified to which group people belonged.
So what happened in the 1990s was appalling to me. I would not have expected that savagery and ethnic cleansing to take place there, but we know that it became—it still is—a byword for all that was bad in that conflict. I do not have to mention Srebrenica again. As has been said, it is a blot on the world’s history for that to have been repeated in Europe after the Holocaust, when everybody said, “Never again”. That is something we should be ashamed of.
I remember reading a Yugoslav author, Ivo Andrić. He wrote a short story called The Titanic Bar, in which he described how, during the war, a Jewish barkeeper who had been part of the community was eventually targeted and killed by a young nationalist, who was just showing off.
The Dayton accord resolved the bloodshed, as we have heard, but it was unfortunately just that. I feel we have to go forward. As my noble friend Lady Helic said, the state of the country is not tenable with all those different institutions, presidents and so forth. Something has to be done immediately, but we also have to look at economic help, because that would make people realise that it is worth trying to get together.
Republika Srpska seems to want more and more independence. It is nationalism that causes so much problem in the region. I believe Belgrade does not want it, but there will be people in Serbia who think this “Greater Serbia” idea is still the way forward. It is rampant in the region; nationalism is the curse of the Balkans. Today we are discussing this particular situation, to which I will return, but I point out to the Minister—although he is aware—that there are all the other questions in the Balkans, such as Serbia and Kosovo, Montenegro and Serbia. North Macedonia is now being somewhat bullied by Bulgarian nationalists to rewrite its history books and deny that the Macedonian language exists. These things are going on all the time, pretty much unobserved by the West. They are all potential flashpoints which, as we know, are fanned by outside politics.
I return briefly to the works of Ivo Andrić who, by the way, was a Nobel prize winner for literature. He wrote a book called Travnik Chronicles, which is available in translation. It went back to the early 19th century, when foreign powers—France at the end of the Napoleonic period and Austria—were sending in their consuls to try to influence what was then a declining Ottoman state. The same thing goes around, except that the superpowers have changed. We know that Russia and China have said that, if sanctions are imposed on Republika Srpska, they will help out. We must not take our eye off the ball in the Balkans, particularly in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
On that first visit I made to the region all those years ago, I stood—I do not know if they are still there—in two footprints put in concrete where Gavrilo Princip was supposed to have stood when he shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand. I do not think we need that to realise that there was a flashpoint and what it led to. Ignore the Balkans at our peril, I would say.
I am deeply grateful for what the Government are doing; they have risen to it. There is more that we can do, and I shall look forward to hearing about it. This has been said before, and it will be said again, but we owe it to those countless victims of conflict in the region—not least those lying in named and still unnamed and unmarked graves in Srebrenica and elsewhere—never again to go into this spiral of conflict, ethnic cleansing and genocide. We cannot just issue hollow promises; we have to put forward concrete measures.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, we speak in one of the last debates on the last day of parliamentary business before recess, but the subject was one of the first which shaped my adult politics and which continues to shape me today.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bourne for securing this important and timely debate, and like my noble friend Lord Randall, I just hope that it reaches a much broader audience. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bourne’s work as president of Remembering Srebrenica and his ongoing commitment to shining a light on this issue.
Bosnia-Herzegovina hit the general public consciousness in two stark ways when I was growing up. The first was the Winter Olympics of 1984 in Sarajevo—which many of your Lordships will remember—where Jayne Torvill and Christopher Dean performed that wonderful “Bolero” routine to win gold. The second was a few years later when the same city was under siege as the world watched a nation rip itself apart, where neighbour killed neighbour and the genocide of the Bosniak people unfolded. Today, art, music and culture once more thrive in Sarajevo—as, however, does the threat from hateful ideologies rooted in the past which are once more being adopted by right-wing politicians to further their own political and financial interests.
Noble Lords before me have spoken with great expertise and experience. I pay tribute to the work of my noble friend Lady Helic; we had the privilege of serving at the Foreign Office at the same time. Her work and that of my noble friend Lord Hague meant that the issue remained a priority under the coalition Government. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Mobarik, this issue has shaped so many of us for so long—long before many of us even entered politics.
I commend my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lady Goldie for their recent visit and refocusing of the FCDO’s attention on this issue. Through their ministerial work and wider Conservative Party engagement in Bosnia-Herzegovina, they both have many years of understanding of this issue. Therefore, it gives me some comfort that they are in office at this crucial time. I also pay tribute to the work of the late Lord Ashdown, which remains the bedrock upon which the killing stopped. We all miss him and his leadership. Paddy was brave and clear. His diplomacy produced results and was rooted in a clear sense of justice.
And it is justice that I want to focus on first today, because there can be no justice or a just settlement if those who perpetrated genocide, those who still perpetuate the hateful ideologies that underpinned it and those who prevent healing by promoting genocide denial are rewarded. We cannot and must not reward genocide. By dancing to the tune of Milorad Dodik, we are doing just that. If we continue to stand by and allow an ever-belligerent leadership from the Republic of Srpska to continue to weaken and dismantle state entities and institutions, if we do not stand strong in the face of nationalism, if we do not ensure that consequences follow those who undermine the territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina and if we do not sanction those who deny genocide, we are rewarding genocide.
We must also be clear in our policy and approach about who we are dealing with. For over a decade Dodik has enjoyed the support of the European Union, the United States and this country. He was elevated to the position of Republika Srpska Prime Minister with the help of the Office of the High Representative and NATO-led peacekeeping troops. We saw him as a moderate, which of course he was compared with Karadžić, the butcher of Bosnia, the chief architect of the Srebrenica genocide and now a convicted criminal.
However, over time Dodik has adopted an increasingly nationalist stance, aligning himself with Russia, China, illiberal nations within the EU and populist xenophobic leaders within the EU. He has adopted a belligerent stance and an anti-statist position, weakening Bosnia-Herzegovina state institutions while strengthening Republika Srpska institutions and proposing legislation for Republika Srpska to withdraw from state judicial and tax structures and, most worryingly, from the state armed forces. Dodik increasingly promotes an anti-reformist stance against NATO membership and pays lip service to EU membership while doing everything to block it. As the high representative said, these actions
“endanger not only the peace and stability of the country and the region, but—if unanswered by the international community—could lead to the undoing”
of the Dayton peace agreement itself.
Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House that officials working on this issue across departments understand Dodik and the way in which he operates? Do they understand that making outrageous demands, only to pull back—but, in doing so, extracting less outrageous concessions—is how Dodik operates, all the while undermining the territorial integrity of Bosnia-Herzegovina? He is no honest broker. He is no moderate. His agenda—of carving out a separate state for Serbs—is the same as that of Mladić and Karadžić; what they started down the barrel of a gun, Dodik is striving to implement through the bullying of an international coalition that is fragmented and, sadly, increasingly uninterested. If he is not stopped, if this lack of international pushback continues, then we are collectively rewarding genocide.
The second issue on which I seek assurance from my noble friend is whether the Government understand both the seriousness of this issue and the need for urgency. We have been found wanting in the past. We reacted too slowly: our civil servants urged caution in action, Ministers spoke of the need for balance, politicians made well-meaning statements, peacekeeping troops stood aside—and a genocide took place, with men and boys separated and shot and women and girls raped.
The late Baroness Thatcher accused us then of lacking resolve in the face of Serb aggression. She said we were accomplices and urged action. She foresaw a catastrophe unfolding and predicted a massacre, but at that time her views were dismissed as emotional and insulting.
Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House today that we have a plan, that we have our red lines, that civil servants are well engaged and fully informed, and that we have contingency planning for troops to respond, if necessary, to what is being described as the most dangerous moment in Bosnia-Herzegovina since Dayton? Can he assure us that the recent firefighting engagement by the US has focused minds on a more united and long-term plan and is more than a simple short-term reaction?
With this country as one of the strongest and most informed voices on this issue in Europe, can the Minister assure us that our exit from the European Union will not prevent us working closely with European partners in finding solutions? In particular, have the Government raised concerns about the visit by the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, to Bosnia-Herzegovina last month, when, in breach of diplomatic protocol, he met Dodik but not the other two members of the tripartite presidency?
I want to end on an issue that relates to Bosnia-Herzegovina but impacts us here in the UK. The slaughter of Bosniaks in the Srebrenica genocide, a cleansing of Muslims in Europe which took place in our time and near our shores, was a moment that shaped the lives of so many British people—it shaped my life and that of many British Muslims. It is why in government we established the Remembering Srebrenica programme, a programme that works across all four nations and which has resulted in hundreds of initiatives that keep alive the memories of those killed and make sure that, through never forgetting, we continue to learn the lessons and build tolerant and inclusive societies.
We fail Bosnia-Herzegovina. We fail the idea of a multi-ethnic, multiracial, multireligious nation state in Europe. We feed extremism, we feed division and we allow the powers of hate to win. As the rise of populism, xenophobia and authoritarianism sweeps through parts of Europe, we must stand strong as defenders of democracy, human rights and progressive liberal values. How we respond to the current crisis in Bosnia-Herzegovina will be an early test.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I am speaking in the gap and will therefore not detain your Lordships long. Having been much involved in the Bosnian tragedy as Britain’s Permanent Representative to the UN until July 1995, which was before the Dayton accords were concluded but after the horrors of Srebrenica, I thought it right to participate. I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for securing such a timely occasion to debate this important matter.
I will make only three points. First, the policies being pursued by Republika Srpska are not only a complete denial and contravention of the Dayton accords but a real threat to international peace and security in the wider west Balkans region. I hope the Government will do all they can to deter these policies, including by working as closely as possible with the European Union and its member states, who must be the key actors in this, along with the United States. Unfortunately, I do not believe we are a key actor on our own, but we need to work with others. I hope therefore that the Minister will make it clear that we will keep in lockstep with the European Union in its response to any events in Bosnia that may now occur and resist any attempts to play us off against each other—a feature of every Balkan crisis for the last 100 years or more.
Secondly, I warmly welcome the intention of the incoming Prime Minister of Bulgaria to lift Bulgaria’s veto on the opening of North Macedonia’s accession negotiations. EU accession by the remaining non-members in the west Balkans is the sine qua non of peace, security and prosperity in that whole region. Progress on that has been very slow and almost invisible for far too long and it really would be good if the incoming French EU presidency abandoned the hesitations it has had in this respect. Britain is of course in no position to play a role in that matter, but we did participate in the Thessaloniki commitment that the EU would admit all the countries of the region.
Thirdly, we really should not let the cuts in our aid budget lead us to withdrawing from the good work we have done in recent years in strengthening democracy, human rights, the rule of law and freedom of speech right across the region, including in Bosnia. That would be a foolish error, as neglect of the west Balkans has proved to be again and again, for 150 years.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise. I am speaking in the gap—but my apology concerns being two minutes late at the start of this debate. I thank everybody who was consulted for allowing me nevertheless to speak a few words. I shall not take too long.
I agree with all the remarks about urgency—but urgency to do what? I tend to be 100% in the line of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I remember, in the period before the tragedy, that I was in a meeting at Wilton Park—he may have been there himself—where all the parties were looking so dismayed that nothing could be done. But in the corridors they said, “Bring back Tito; all is forgiven”. One thing about Tito, of course, although it is not exactly news to say this, is that he was not a tool of Moscow. The idea that someone is the tool of somebody else has to be kept out. I am not even sure about how we play the card vis-à-vis NATO, the EU and so on, but it is very important that this is decided in a west Balkans context, even though the politics is not clean politics. Greater Albania could be given as an example vis-à-vis Kosovo, and Belgrade sees some of those things in those terms.
What can one do without giving way to blackmailing Belgrade? Obviously, we do not know whether there is a settled view in Belgrade about a European Union accession initiative, but it is the only card game in town, even though this may be exactly the wrong moment to take practical action. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that. We cannot say, “This is what we would do in theory, but this is what we can’t do in practice”.
Some of us have been able to put ourselves in the shoes of Princip, who shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand—but people did not think it was a big deal at the time. We do not know what people in Moscow think would be a useful tool—along with other things going on in Moscow at the moment. We have to see how these great powers can be engaged without them playing the game of proxy. I do not know the answers but those are some of the questions.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for bringing this debate to us. He introduced it so well and so clearly, and he gave us an opportunity to hear from the noble Baronesses, Lady Helic, Lady Mobarik and Lady Warsi, who have direct practical experience and made very moving contributions to this debate. I am grateful.
It struck me that history is a very heavy weight and, when empires or autocracies weaken, nationalism often strengthens. There is a lesson from history in that regard. I remember my visits to the region, as others have said they remembered theirs. No one who spoke in this debate has visited the region without having powerful memories; it is telling that the region allows us to have those. I remember that, when I served on the then International Relations Committee with the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, we carried out a short inquiry into the western Balkans and the UK—I shall return to that later—and I went with a number of colleagues to Sarajevo. During a break, I went to see an area for which it is famous, being the only European city with a mosque, a synagogue, an Orthodox church and a Catholic church in the same neighbourhood. I wanted to walk that circuit across all the different areas. In so doing, I did what many tourists had done, which was to stand on the “east meets west” line. On that short walk around that neighbourhood and over that line, it struck me that its having brought so many cultures and religions together has been part of its beauty—but has also led to part of its tragedy.
When I was doing the walk, I walked around a number of the Sarajevo roses, which I had not heard of and which have always stuck in my memory. For noble Lords who are not aware of the Sarajevo roses, I can explain that they are the wounds in the concrete of the shells, which have been left but filled with red resin. They struck me with a real conflict. I was not sure whether I was happy that these remembrances were there for people to recall the sacrifices and violence inflicted on a community, or whether I felt that this was still an open scar. As I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, I felt that there were still many open scars, not just in the fabric of the city but in the people of the region.
Before this debate, and before my visit, I reread part of Gladstone’s Midlothian campaign, because this is a debate not just in the context of 30 years, a century or even six centuries hence but of the Ottoman Empire. That campaign in 1879—coincidentally, given in what is now my former constituency—led to him establishing what he called the six principles of a Liberal foreign policy, which I think on these Benches we still fairly hold true. He was inspired then because of the atrocities in that very region. The principles are: good government at home; the preservation of nationhood; maintenance of the concert of Europe; avoiding needless wars; maintaining the equal rights of all nations; and always being inspired by the love of freedom. It struck me that those six elements are also necessary for any sustainable future for the region,
June this year marked the 30th anniversary of the opening shelling of the conflict in the Balkans, the first killing that led to bloodshed among those who had lived together in relative stability, as we have heard. When those binding ties were released, so was dreadful nationalist violence—in a region as easy and as quick to get to from here as it is to Shetland. Our intervention eight years later, after the Dayton accord but when there was still violence inflicted on the Kosovans, was separated by only 16 months from Operation Noble Anvil, the US-turned NATO bombing of Serbia, and then Operation Enduring Freedom and the invasion of Afghanistan. As we reflected this summer on the sustainability of Operation Enduring Freedom, we were also concerned about the sustainability of the settlements in this region.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for his role in remembering Srebrenica. He was right to highlight the experience of those taking part in this debate, and I am grateful for the many references to my late noble friend Lord Ashdown. He is highly regarded in memory in this House, as he is in many communities in the areas that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, mentioned. We on these Benches are grateful for that. I spoke to Paddy before my visit and, as you can imagine, he gave me characteristically clear, practical and structured advice and did not leave much option for any of my thoughts to come in: he told me exactly what I was to expect. That preparation was valuable. I remember being met by Bosnian Serbs, who singled me out directly because they knew that I was in Paddy’s party and blamed him as the cause of all their troubles. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, said, Lord Ashdown and others worked hard to create the best elements for a sustainable future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, indicated, there are significant questions about that framework’s stability, given the fragility of the area.
As I mentioned, I reread the International Relations Committee’s summary of conclusions and recommendations before this debate and, as with our debate on Afghanistan, it was depressingly prescient, because it highlighted some of the areas where progress could all so easily be turned away. I quote from its third conclusion:
“The region still suffers from the legacy of the wars of the 1990s. Some political leaders are pursuing the aims of those wars by different, political and diplomatic, means including calls for redrawing national borders and secessionism. Any such act would be regressive, dangerous and destabilising for the region. Progress cannot be taken for granted.”
That is exactly right and, if anything was to summarise this debate so far, that is it. The report also highlighted that Russia’s influence in the region was a factor of particular concern. The committee found its effect had been to
“slow progress towards good governance and the region emerging as fully democratic”.
The report made a number of recommendations. Key among them was the need to sustain our partnerships with our European colleagues, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, indicated. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what institutional frameworks exist for UK and EU co-operation, specifically on the western Balkans. When the UK hosted the Western Balkans Summit, in the UK press that was known as the week when Boris Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary, not the week when the UK was hosting the summit. However, during it a number of areas were highlighted where the UK could act and I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on the practical steps that can be taken.
Key among those was highlighted in an excellent briefing that was given to me by Dr Kate Ferguson of Protection Approaches, which is a member of the UK Atrocity Prevention Working Group and has done work in the Balkans to consider where the Government could act and make preparations with others for the position that we are now in, which is to prioritise atrocity prevention. It is depressing to say so after all the work that has been put in, but that is where we now must make preparations. Atrocity prevention is an element within the integrated review and I welcome that within the Government’s approach. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik asked, “What if we had acted differently?” The noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, asked the same question, adding, “What would have happened if we had listened to others at the time?”
Among the recommendations that the Atrocity Prevention Working Group highlighted is recommendation 3, the preparation of a smart sanctions strategy. I add that that should not be limited by the US or EU but should be co-ordinated with them. What would a smart sanctions strategy look like, specifically for Republika Srpska, on the areas where it is acting to destabilise, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, indicated? Recommendation 4 is to work with civil society within areas that are resistant to the nationalist leanings of the leadership. What struck me on my visit was that, even with the plethora of representatives, the numbers of Ministers and Prime Ministers and the tripartite presidency, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, mentioned, a large proportion of the public still do not feel represented and neither do a large proportion of the female public, hence the enormous number of young women in particular who want to leave the area. The brain drain on the area is now getting towards a critical mass.
Another recommendation is that the Government publish their central atrocity prevention policy. As Protection Approaches has indicated, this area is a good case study for the Government to outline their preparatory thinking. It highlighted that our embassy in Myanmar has an emergency communications protocol and is applying a framework of atrocity risk analyses. Are these preparations going on and are these areas being worked on within the Balkans?
I conclude by returning to one of the areas that I mentioned at the outset. These communities that come together, along with their tensions, have to be part of the solution too. I do not mean to be flippant about this. I am a borderer and every year—apart from when there is a pandemic—I take part in remembrances and events that mark the conflict in that border area five centuries ago. We do it through our cultural history. The tensions that exist in the region that we are discussing are so raw and fresh that they are live wounds, but reconciliation and social and political cohesion have to be secured and that has to be done in a political way. I therefore support the Government working with any of our partners to place more emphasis on this social and political cohesion that is so desperately needed.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, for initiating this debate and noble Lords for all the contributions that we have heard today. I hope that the other end will read this debate and follow some of the expert advice that we have heard. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for her contribution and the noble Baronesses, Lady Mobarik and Lady Warsi. The point is that in this House we have a lot of expertise. Our work, particularly the response to the Urgent Question that was repeated here, as well as the Westminster Hall debate down the other end, shows that Parliament is taking this issue seriously. We need to keep reminding ourselves how important it is that this country responds.
The Dayton agreement, which saw the ending of armed conflict in post-war Europe, is a key diplomatic achievement, which this country played a significant role in helping to establish. While everyone here recognises the clear imperfections of the agreement, it has stopped the bloodshed and allowed nearly 30 years of peace, although perhaps not as much development as we had hoped. There is an ongoing threat to re-establish a Republika Srpska army, which would represent a disastrous turning point in the region. It is the responsibility of us all to ensure that peace continues.
To deliver on this, we have to ensure that there is a medium-term and a longer-term strategy on Bosnia-Herzegovina. As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, said, we need to begin to think about how that agreement could be modified, possibly even going as far as a Dayton II agreement. But first we must do the groundwork. There are certain basic principles that we need to keep repeating. In her article in the House magazine, the noble Baroness made this fundamental point: we are committed to a multi-ethnic state and demand that that idea continues. There can be no redrawing of the boundaries of Bosnia-Herzegovina. We cannot return to the violence and destruction of the 1990s. It is critical that the United Kingdom works with all our European partners to defuse the current situation. There is no doubt that the challenges that the international community and the people of Bosnia face are huge. We have a special duty to protect the peace and progress made in the region, not just as a signatory to the agreement, but also, as we have heard in recent debates, because UK troops served there with distinction and 57 died securing that peace.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, that we also need to reinforce our commitment to practical peacekeeping in Bosnia. There is the European Union Force, which, although we are not members of the European Union anymore, we still support. We need to ask whether 600 to 700 personnel on the ground is sufficient. I hope that the Minister can respond to that and say whether we should be working with our alliance on the ground in a more practical way.
James Cleverly, in response to the Urgent Question down the other end in November, stressed the vital role of the high representative. I, too, pay tribute to the late Lord Ashdown and his critical work in that role. When the Urgent Question was repeated here, the Minister reminded us that UN High Representative Christian Schmidt will visit the United Kingdom for meetings in the beginning of December. Mr Schmidt is tasked with discharging civil affairs in the country and has been seriously undermined by the actions of Russia and its attempts to abolish his role. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, assured us that the UK stands firmly behind the high representative, who
“has the United Kingdom’s full support, including for the use of executive powers should the situation require it.”—[Official Report, 10/11/21; col. 1756.]
I am also grateful to the Minister for the opportunities to engage directly with the high representative on the situation during his visit. In the briefing to MPs, Mr Schmidt warned of a potential return to violence and fragmentation. He also discussed the importance of keeping Dayton alive and of refreshing it, so picking up the points that we have made. I welcome the Government’s announcement of the appointment of Sir Stuart Peach as special envoy. I am pleased that his brief appears to be wide—to support the civil institutions, to work with others in the area and to ensure that the British Government give a firm commitment to do everything possible to stabilise and, we hope, improve the situation—but how will he support the work of the UN high representative and ensure that the role is not undermined by players such as Russia?
The EU, the UN, and NATO have all echoed Mr Schmidt’s warnings of a real danger of a return to violence. We underline the point made in this debate about the importance of working with our EU partners here. At last month’s NATO Foreign Ministers’ meeting, the Foreign Secretary pushed for more focus on and resource for Bosnia and Herzegovina, and on the need to rebuff Russia’s actions. While diplomacy is the best option to secure the peace there, it is important to recognise the need for short-term stability and to work with France, Germany and the US in NATO to reinforce the EU’s peacekeeping operation. I hope the Minister will tell us again today about the detail and form of the greater focus on and resource for Bosnia and Herzegovina that the Foreign Secretary called for, and how specifically we will rebuff Russia’s actions.
I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, about sanctions and having a flexible and immediate response on them, so that people better understand that we mean business in ensuring that our strategy is stuck to. I know the normal mantra about designating sanctions, which he will no doubt repeat tonight, but I hope that the Minister will say that this country will respond positively on sanctions to all those who seek to undermine the agreement and threaten the peace and stability of the past 30 years. Of course, as we have heard, UK and international engagement is key to supporting the progress and peace enjoyed over the past 30 years. We must redouble our efforts across all the Balkan states to demonstrate our commitment to the region.
Here, I agree with noble Lords’ emphasis in the debate on the importance of civil society. We focus on politicians, but real change and sustainability come from an effective civil society. I have played a small part there, working with Balkan political parties on how they engage with civil society on the question of LGBT rights. I was surprised by how receptive politicians were in countries portrayed as fairly conservative. They were willing to engage on issues where the need for equality and respect was understood. I got a very positive response. This has been an excellent and important debate. It is important that we engage with our neighbours.
I understand the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Bourne and Lord Hannay, who suggested we are not necessarily in a good position to advocate EU enlargement. However, not only should we advocate it, we can give practical support, and not just through political commitment or by arguing for it. When we engage with civil society and political parties there, we can stress that EU membership can deliver a better society that results in working across those states, emphasising the importance of good governance and making sure that there is no vacuum in which Russian destabilisation efforts can win.
It has been an excellent debate and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join all other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth for tabling this debate. I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins. The quality of this as the final debate today is a reflection of the deep wisdom, expertise and insight of your Lordships’ House.
I can say with great humility and pride that I am the Minister of State responsible for foreign and development affairs in this House, which gives me a unique perspective and insight. We really do draw on the expertise of your Lordships’ House. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, spoke poignantly of his experience of civil society leadership, and we are fully aware of his expertise on some of the challenging situations faced by different communities, particularly the LGBT community. I very much valued his voice, advice and counsel on certain issues and how to resolve them. That reflects the tone of the debate.
Perhaps I may first turn to my noble friend Lord Bourne. He continues to play an important role on this agenda, these issues and their impact, and on standing up for the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He remains vice-chair of the APPG and is president of Remembering Srebrenica.
My dear noble friend Lady Helic is someone who, perhaps I may say on a lighter note, often keeps me on my toes—and rightly so. I pay tribute to her valuable work as a senior adviser to my noble friend Lord Hague, playing a significant role on this issue, which I will move on to in a moment, and setting up the important initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. That word, “preventing”, is key as we approach the issue of conflict resolution. I know that other noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talked of that significant issue.
I am also grateful to other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—whose specific questions I will come on to—as regards the United Nations and the insights that he provided on strengthening alliances. They are much valued here. My noble friend Lady Mobarik spoke of her early insights and my noble friend Lord Randall of his early visit as an 18 year-old. Among other things, I began to calculate how long ago that was. Although we are not here to talk about ages, he mentioned his experience. He illustrated valuably the vital importance of Bosnia-Herzegovina. My noble friend Lady Mobarik spoke poignantly about communities living together, learning from each other and coming together. That is indeed what our country—which I am, with all its challenges, still proud to represent—is all about. That was a theme of my recent visit to Bosnia-Herzegovina.
Equally, I pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Warsi. She has a unique insight, given her previous role—one that I now conduct. I always have a degree of trepidation when I take on a subject that I know my noble friend has taken on and charge forward with it. Along with my noble friend Lady Helic, I pay tribute to her dedication and devotion. It is not often said but I thank my noble friend Lady Warsi for ensuring that the Remembering Srebrenica initiative was set up. Anyone who has served in government, in your Lordships’ House or the other place, knows how difficult it is to set up an initiative and sustain it. I pay tribute to her. I was there and I saw the dedication and devotion that she put in. It is a live initiative that we as the British Government and the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office are proud to support and is led so ably by my noble friend Lord Bourne.
This debate has highlighted, as the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Purvis, said, the importance of your Lordships’ House in bringing insight and experience. Like my noble friend Lady Mobarik and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I remember seeing that conflict unravel. I was a younger man at that time as well; I had just started a career in the City of London but, together with two charities—one was Save the Children and the other, which I helped to set up, was Humanity First—I embarked on a visit to the western Balkans in response to the crisis. At that age, you do not know what to expect. Little did I know that those two charities would epitomise what was needed and required in that conflict.
My noble friend Lady Mobarik spoke with great emotion and dedication about the work that she carried out. Perhaps I may have a moment of reflection, which I know will resonate with my noble friend Lady Helic, as well as my noble friends Lady Mobarik and Lady Warsi. I remember returning from that conflict and sitting down with my late father, God bless his soul, to recount my experiences of conflict and division. What I had seen was friend turning on friend, neighbour turning on neighbour and even, in some cases, family members who were taken by the divide turning on each other. That was one of two occasions that I saw a tear in my father’s eye—for it was at that moment, 45 years on, that he opened up to talk about the conflict of Partition that he had witnessed. When my noble friends Lady Mobarik and Lady Warsi and others in your Lordships’ House speak of that, it is perhaps a reflection of our own family heritage to realise the importance of avoiding conflict and standing up for the rights of others.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talked about those issues of conflict. The troubles that people go through run deep through the generations. As I look towards my noble friend Lady Helic, that holds true for many people. It is therefore vital that we keep on the front foot on this important issue.
Noble Lords have rightly shone a light on the serious risks that Bosnia-Herzegovina faces to its stability and integrity. After the devastating conflicts of the 1990s, notwithstanding differences, it was beginning to build peace, stability and prosperity. The Dayton peace agreement, referred to by noble Lords, provided the basis for much of this but it has required co-operation and support from all sides and partners. The late and much-missed Lord Ashdown—I join others in remembering him—described the peace agreement as
“the floor, not the ceiling”—
a base on which to build progress on issues of concern to all its citizens. Sadly, politicians who are more focused on maintaining their own positions have exploited that agreement over the years. At my recent meeting with him, Christian Schmidt recalled referring to the current situation as a “de facto secession”.
We must not be complacent—I assure noble Lords that the Government are not—about the risk posed to peace and the long-term future of the country. The situation is as serious as we have seen since the Dayton accords. Milorad Dodik, the Bosnian-Serb member of the tripartite presidency, continues to threaten to withdraw Republika Srpska, one of the country’s two constitutional entities, from the important state-level institutions.
I know that the decisions taken recently, on 10 December, which my noble friend Lady Mobarik pointed to, cause even greater concern. As my noble friend Lady Warsi said so eloquently, this will undo 26 years of hard-won progress made since that conflict ended. It would significantly harm the state—the symbol of that hard-fought peace that so many people have worked so hard to build and maintain. The state’s integrity must of course be respected, and Mr Dodik’s dangerous plan cannot be allowed to proceed. In this regard, I assure all noble Lords that the people of Bosnia-Herzegovina demand a better future—yes, and we will play our part and ensure that we commit ourselves to just that.
The Prime Minister’s special envoy was referred to and welcomed by several noble Lords. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary decided to appoint a very experienced individual in Sir Stuart Peach as the UK’s Special Envoy to the Western Balkans. Indeed, we announced that during the visit my noble friend Lady Goldie and I made to Sarajevo. Sir Stuart is well known to many as a former Chief of the Defence Staff and chairman of the NATO Military Committee. He brings all the necessary skills, experience and gravitas to influence change in the region, working with our networks and Ministers.
I can share with noble Lords that Sir Stuart is actually in Sarajevo as we hold this debate. He is there as an immediate outcome of the Lancaster House meeting, which I will come on to. It is his first visit in his new role. He met a wide range of political, defence and civil society actors. During his visit, he has called on all three members of the presidency and stressed the seriousness of what is happening and unravelling in the country. He was clear that the UK cannot and will not allow conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina to happen again. Sustained engagement will remain through Sir Stuart and our other senior figures. That will be an important part of ensuring not only that the political dialogue continues but that we head off any signs of conflict.
I fully accept that there are other influences, as noble Lords raised. I will come on to those in a moment. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in welcoming Sir Stuart’s appointment, which many noble Lords alluded to. However, as my noble friend Lady Warsi highlighted, that is just one of the actions. I hope that, with some of the areas I will list, I will give the assurances noble Lords have sought about the action Her Majesty’s Government are taking.
As noble Lords will know, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary convened a meeting on Monday. We spoke directly about the stability and security of the western Balkans. My right honourable friend brought together the Foreign Ministers of all six countries of the western Balkans to boost our close co-operation on trade and security, and to ensure that, through this, we prevent the horrors of conflict returning and together build enduring stability. I assure the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, that we are working directly with the EU. The EU’s high representative on foreign affairs, Mr Borrell, was also present at that meeting.
On other actions, I have already alluded to, and noble Lords mentioned, the recent visit. The commitment not just of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office but of my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence was shown through a joint visit I had last month to Sarajevo with my noble friend Lady Goldie. We separately met our respective counterparts, but we also met President Komšić directly to discuss how, together, we can safeguard the country’s sovereignty and integrity. I also had a meeting with the chairman of the Council of Ministers, who is himself a Bosnian Serb. He once again assured me, together with the ambassador, of his commitment to ensuring the unity of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
However, there is deep concern. It was perhaps pre-planned, but it was noticeable that, during our visit, Mr Dodik was on his way to Moscow via Belgrade. It was quite clear that he was seeking further support and reassurances from Russia.
My noble friend Lady Goldie marked Armed Forces Day, together with members of the military. We visited EUFOR. We also met troops who are being deployed in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Purvis and Lord Hannay, mentioned the role of civil society. I was privileged to meet members of the Forgotten Children of War Association and Medica Zenica. It was a particularly poignant visit. I remember visiting the very centre that, together with two other Members of your Lordships’ House among others, we helped, through our own relative skills, to decorate and renovate back in 2013. It was quite poignant to return there. I also met once again the courageous survivors of the conflict in the 1990s. They continue to be incredible campaigners.
As my noble friend Lord Bourne mentioned, I too have visited various parts of the country during various times as a Minister. I have also gone directly to places such as Srebrenica. You cannot help but be moved and horrified by what unravelled there. We pay tribute to the Mothers of Srebrenica, as my noble friend did, who continue to this day to ensure that the genocide against the Bosnian people is not forgotten.
Perhaps there is hope. My noble friend Lady Helic is better placed than I to judge, but that it happens to be Srebrenica in that part of the country, which falls within the Bosnian Serb entity of the current country—
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I thank him for what he has said so far, but will he say something specific about two issues that came up repeatedly: the commitment of more troops—I appreciate he might not want to indicate exactly where or how many—and sanctions? Those are two very positive things we can give an indication of. I appreciate he might not want to be specific, but something general on that would be welcome.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Of course—my noble friend is right to point that out. We continue our work in that respect; if noble Lords will bear with me, I will come on to those specific points in a moment or two.
I underline our continued commitment on the community side. During our recent visits, we met civil society leaders and the youth of the country. It is important that we continue to engage on all these fronts and show our unrelenting support for the people.
I turn to the specific points referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which my noble friend has just highlighted. On EUFOR, we are supporting the bodies created by the Dayton peace agreement. We have worked hard in the UN Security Council with our allies to renew the mandate. Questions were asked about the high representative; I met Christian Schmidt while I was in Sarajevo. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others talked of their recent meetings; the Foreign Secretary met him during his visit to London. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that we continue to ensure that we are fully behind the mandate of the high representative. We will not allow those who wish to cause harm to Bosnia and Herzegovina to undermine his authority. While he did not address the Security Council directly, all his briefings were fully provided.
My noble friends Lord Bourne and Lady Helic asked specific questions on NATO. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said very clearly that NATO must play an enhanced role in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the western Balkans. At the NATO Foreign Ministers meeting in Riga, the Foreign Secretary called on all allies to contribute personnel to the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo. She also urged them to support work to counter disinformation and strengthen defence reform. Many noble Lords—my noble friend Lord Bourne in particular—have called for an increased number of UK troops to be sent to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I can say at this juncture that we will use all UK expertise and resources to support NATO in the country. The fact that I visited it with my noble friend Lady Goldie, Minister of State for Defence, underlines our commitment in that respect.
I will say a word about Russia, which my noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised. We are seeing a concerning pattern of Russian behaviour, attempting to stop Bosnia and Herzegovina moving closer to NATO and Europe. I assure all noble Lords that the UK Government take an extremely serious view of this and will continue to call out aggression. It is very true that we are seeing assertiveness and added Russian aggression across the European continent.
The noble Lords, Lord Purvis and Lord Collins, and my noble friend Lord Bourne talked about the important issue of sanctions. I have listened very carefully to noble Lords; if it helps, I also hold the portfolio of Minister for Sanctions at the FCDO. Sanctions are an important part of our toolkit for the western Balkans, to address corruption and destabilising activities. We are in close touch with partners and are discussing all aspects of our response to the current challenges. As I have said repeatedly, we work very closely with our key partners; sanctions work when we work together with the likes of the United States and the European Union.
To conclude, I join others in paying tribute to my noble friend once again for tabling this debate. In doing so, I also pay tribute to the contributions we have heard from across your Lordships’ House in this final debate before Christmas. It underlined the strong commitment across the House and across parties and the unity of purpose and action we have seen. I assure noble Lords that that is shared in the intent and actions of Her Majesty’s Government. I fully accept, as my noble friend Lady Helic said, that there is no short-term solution. We are very much in it for the long term—and we need to be. We owe it to the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who want and deserve peace, security and hope for the future.
I hope that in closing this debate I have underlined that the UK does not just believe that it has a vital role but is already playing a key role in ensuring a co-ordinated and focused international response, as my noble friend Lady Warsi said. I thank noble Lords once again for their valuable contributions, and I assure the House that Her Majesty’s Government will continue to remain committed to the success of Bosnia and Herzegovina for all its people. I will continue to update noble Lords on progress in this respect.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in a debate of incredible weight and significance, as other noble Lords have said. I regret the circumstances that cause us to be discussing this subject, but it is heartening that we have such unity of approach across all parties and on the Cross Benches. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
I also thank the Minister for what he said, and particularly what he said about options being on the table in relation to troops and sanctions, which are important. Like other noble Lords, I agree about the importance of ensuring civic society is brought forward, but there is an immediate threat and, as the Minister will well know, we will be holding the Government’s feet to the fire to make sure that the approach is appropriate. It is good to see that the Government are taking this seriously and taking it forward and that we are providing the sort of lead which we are looking for. I am most grateful.
Motion agreed.
FCDO Staffing
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, we now come to a repeat of an Answer to an Urgent Question asked in the House of Commons today on FCDO staffing.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I take it that the Minister is not going to read out the Statement.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, my apologies—I was just checking what the latest convention is.
“My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been clear that there will be no 10% staff cut. Internal work has taken place which we are looking at in the light of preparations, but that has not been signed off by Ministers. We are investing massively in overseas aid. At £10 billion a year, the UK remains one of the largest ODA spenders in the world and well above the OECD average. The FCDO must continue to promote a positive, confident, outward-looking global Britain deploying its diplomacy and development expertise to advance freedom, democracy and sustainable enterprise around the world.
To do this, the department needs to ensure its resources, both its funding and its people, are aligned to its priorities. Over the next three years, some areas of the department will see staffing resources increase, reflecting the need to align our people to our priorities. The FCDO will continue to retain one of the largest overseas diplomatic networks of any nation, while also ensuring value for money for the taxpayer. There will not be a 10% staff cut, and Ministers will make decisions on workforce changes in the spring.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.
In the other place, James Cleverly was quite categorical, as was the Minister in repeating the Statement, that there will be no 10% cut, but, as Tom Tugendhat said, this is not a just question about a 10% cut, but about the investment in staff numbers needed to meet the aims of the integrated review and, we hope, next spring’s development strategy. Recent whistleblower revelations about the failures in the Afghan withdrawal point to an FCDO that is overstretched and under-resourced. Which high commissions and embassies around the world will receive more resources and which will see fewer? Which of the desks in the FDCO will be strengthened to meet the strategic threats this country now faces? What we need from this Government is greater transparency and actions that match their words.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I note what the noble Lord said but, in planning to 2025, it is right that the department reviews its workforce and capabilities to ensure it has sufficient resources in the right places to deliver both ministerial and integrated review priorities. That is our focus. Some areas of the department will see staffing and resources increase, as I have said, reflecting the need to align our people to our priorities. We will also look to move resources to the department from other areas to meet these priorities.
The noble Lord asked specifically about the network. As he is aware, we have actually increased our footprint in increasing our missions overseas. That reflects equally our ambition, in the strength of what we wish to achieve on the world stage, and the importance of our excellent diplomats and development professionals who, now together as one unit, represent Her Majesty’s interests through high commissions and embassies around the world.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I think that everyone knows that morale in the FCDO is low, that the merger of the two departments was handled poorly and that the report of the whistleblower mentioned is only one example—a public example—of the reality. The Minister wants us to believe that, in two years, that department will be able to plan, implement and deliver an extra £5.2 billion of development spend if we return to the legal 0.7% of GNI. In her Chatham House speech, the Foreign Secretary said:
“The Office itself is a national asset”,
but we know that there are reductions in the capability of that national asset.
Will the Minister now provide public, baseline information on staffing—local and UK staff—the network itself, and roles and responsibilities, so that we can judge the results of this review properly and avoid a situation in which the Government obfuscate on roles, responsibilities and scale? Baseline information would be helpful now and necessary to hold the Government to account.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as the FCDO Minister responsible for operations, I can say that we are currently going through our planning both for the next spending review and, as the noble Lord is aware, for the workforce, specifically to ensure that the very priorities he listed are fully resourced. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, talks of greater transparency, as did the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We will certainly provide more details as these plans are finalised.
The noble Lord also mentioned morale. I can perhaps talk with some insight and experience, and I have read the report to which the noble Lord refers, but the fact is that we have some of the best diplomats in the world and incredible development professionals. In preparing for this Question, I asked quite specifically about the level of staff turnover, through the merger, the reductions and the difficult challenges we have had in respect of ODA and, recently, Afghanistan. I can share with noble Lords that, at this time, there is nothing different from the standard level of turnover we have seen over many years, both in the FCO and DfID. That means we are retaining our professionals not just in the Diplomatic Service but in the development sphere.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, my question follows neatly from the response that the Minister just gave, because I note that a freedom of information request, sent by Devex, revealed that 212 former DfID employees have left the department. The response given to Devex at the time was that this was a normal level of turnover, but that is heading towards 10% of centrally employed staff who were formerly with DfID. DfID was very well known for its expertise in global public health, sexual and reproductive rights, and water and sanitation issues. That seems a large loss of people. Will the new, merged department be able to attract the same kind of people with the same levels of expertise, given that it does not have the same focus?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, on the final point of focus, of course when you have two separate departments, they run two separate mission statements in terms of key priorities. However, through the merger that created the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office the element of development has remained a key priority of the department’s focus. The noble Baroness rightly points out the importance not just of retaining staff but of attracting new staff. I have been looking specifically at the figures for senior management and others. We want to attract the best and brightest into the FCDO, but equally we want to retain the expertise.
I have looked very closely at the issue of development and our development professionals. Even in the challenges that we have had through the ODA reduction, we have sought to retain that professionalism in terms of both programmes and people. As we return to 0.7%, which we intend to do, we need not just the expertise to ramp up the programme but the people to be able to deliver it.
Delivering Justice for Victims
(3 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the Statement. We hope that the proposed consultation exercise is dealt with rapidly, that people are listened to and that we see legislation as soon as possible. Can the Minister tell us when that is likely to happen? I confirm that we will work constructively with the Government to ensure that the new victims’ law is fit for purpose and is a law of which we can be proud.
The Statement reminds us just how urgently we need a new law. The number of victims who have dropped out of the system has doubled in the last five years. It is concerning that confidence in the justice system is so poor. Three in every five victims do not even report a crime, one-third of victims would not report a crime again and one-third of victims who do go to the police drop out of the process before any case can come to court.
There are steps that the Government could take now that would help the situation. In October 2021 the National Audit Office released a report on the Government’s handling of the court backlog. It found that the Crown Court backlog had already increased by 23% in the year leading up to the pandemic and had increased by a further 48% since. The NAO said that both the Ministry of Justice and its courts agency were not working together properly to solve problems that had their roots in pre-pandemic decisions.
One in 67 rape complainants sees a case come to court, and it can take four years for that process to be completed. The latest data from the CPS shows that the number of rape convictions fell by 6.7% in the last quarter. At the current rate it would take the Government 18 years to return to pre-2016 levels of prosecution. There are 3,357 victims of violent and sexual crime who have already been waiting for over a year for their day in court, and a further 654 victims of these horrific crimes have been waiting for over two years. Can the Minister assure us that the Government are taking all measures necessary to put this right?
We have now had five Secretaries of State for Justice promising a victims’ Bill, and all five have failed to deliver. I have heard victims say that their experience of the justice system is worse than the crime itself. Just 19% of victims believe that a judge takes into account the impact of the crimes on them, and only 18% believe that they are given enough support. Victims do not want consultation; they want action, and the Labour Party has a ready-made Bill to clear the backlog through an increase in Nightingale courts and to fast-track rape and sexual violence cases. Our victims’ Bill would also improve rights, strengthen protections and accountability, improve communications and ensure that victims were no longer treated as an afterthought.
The Statement from the Government is welcome, but they must now match their warm words with deeds and ensure that they put victims at the very heart of our criminal justice system.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as a victim of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, I have to say that dealing with this Statement at this time on this day is not delivering justice to victims.
Seriously, though, I should declare an interest as a victim of two crimes in recent years. One was a homophobic hate crime that my Norwegian husband was a witness to. He said to me afterwards that he would never again be involved in the British criminal justice system as a result of his experience in court, where he felt that he was on trial. The other was a burglary where the perpetrator was caught on closed-circuit television but the police refused to investigate further. In a subsequent meeting with a police super- intendent, he admitted that many cases that were solvable were not being pursued because of a lack of police resources. Is it any wonder, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said, that three in five victims do not report crimes, and that one-third would not report them again having experienced the criminal justice system? It seems that my husband and I are not alone.
The Government say that they have strengthened the victims’ code. What improvements have there been as a result? More money has been invested, according to the Statement, but what impact has this had on victim satisfaction? We should be looking for outcomes, not outputs.
The Statement says that it wants victims to
“properly engage at every step.”
Research shows that restorative justice significantly increases victim engagement and satisfaction. What plans do the Government have to fund more restorative justice programmes?
The Statement says that the victim will be consulted before charging decisions are made
“in certain types of case”.
Can the Minister explain what types of case are being referred to?
The Statement says that the Government
“will increase transparency in respect of the performance of our criminal justice agencies.”
What will the Government do when they discover that the reason for poor performance throughout the whole criminal justice system—from the police to the CPS, legal aid and the courts—is that it is underfunded? It is all very well to
“enshrine the victims’ code in law”,—[Official Report, Commons, 9/12/21; cols. 595-6.]
but if the criminal justice system does not have the resources to fulfil its obligations under the victims’ code, how will making it a statutory responsibility help?
The Statement says that the Government will publish a report on progress against the rape review action plan. Research clearly shows that victim satisfaction is the most important outcome measure in rape cases; being believed and cared for are the most important elements of rape survivor satisfaction. Does the report detail changes in victim satisfaction? If not, why not?
The Government are long on words and short on delivery. Trust and confidence in the criminal justice system have declined in the decade or more that the Conservatives have been in power. I can understand that the Government welcome the fact that the police cannot investigate some crimes, despite overwhelming evidence, when it is the Government who stand accused, but for the rest of us, if we cannot trust the police, the CPS and the courts to protect us when we are victims of crime, we are in serious trouble. You cannot get a quart out of a pint pot, which is what the Government appear to be trying to do with these measures.
Finally, I am reminded of colleagues who, when the Government do something we agree with, then go on to question the Government’s motives. I do not know whether the Minister celebrates Christmas, but I hope he enjoys the break, whatever the motivation for having one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
To pick up on that last point first, I take this opportunity to wish everybody—both those who celebrate Christmas and those who do not—a very happy time and a very successful 2022. I think we are all entitled to celebrate the fact that we have achieved at least three days on the police Bill on Report, and we have more to look forward to next year.
I come back to the matter of victims. Despite the fact that it is the last piece of business for this year, it is a very important topic. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, broadly welcomed the legislation. I think it is fair to say that this is a matter where there is broad agreement across the House on the aims—although, of course, there will be political differences, perhaps as to the way we go about it. We will have an eight-week consultation on the matter, and we will prioritise work on that and introduce the Bill, as the Deputy Prime Minister said in the other place, as soon as possible. We want to ensure that there is wide engagement both across this House and in the other place as we develop the Bill next year.
So far as victim attrition is concerned—I must say, I do not like using that phrase, although it is the phrase that is used; we all use it but there is a real person, so to speak, behind all these statistics—the quicker we get cases to court, the less attrition there will be. That must be balanced with making sure that cases are investigated properly and that the defendant has a fair trial. In the area of rape, for example, we have introduced measures to speed up the extraction of data from mobile phones and make sure that the phone gets back to the victim. In particular, we have found that support from ISVAs—independent sexual violence advisers, whom we also have in domestic violence cases—really makes a difference. We are providing more than £150 million in this financial year for victim and witness support services, which we will increase to £185 million by 2024-25. The figures show that there is a significant benefit in reducing victim attrition for those victims who have contact with ISVAs.
The backlog in criminal trials is obviously a matter that we have debated on a number of occasions. It is fair to say that the pandemic has had a real impact in this jurisdiction. Although we were one of the first jurisdictions to restore jury trials, there were times when we could not hold them, and then we could not hold jury trials with multiple defendants because of space issues. In the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which the House will consider next year, Clause 11, I think, provides that more work will be put into magistrates’ courts so that Crown Courts are freed up for more jury trials. However, we want to be transparent about this. As the Deputy Prime Minister has explained, we are publishing our rape scorecards, which will provide a tracking basis so that we can see how the system is doing, particularly in rape cases. I know that that is a particular focus of the Deputy Prime Minister.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that the victim must be at the heart of the criminal justice system. Too often, there has been seen to be a dissonance, or an inconsistency, with putting the victim at the heart of the system while ensuring that the defendant has a fair trial. In fact, there is no contradiction. You can do both; indeed, we must do both. That is something we are very focused on.
Turning to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—as he said, he has personal experience in this area, if I can put it that way—giving evidence is always traumatic. We recognise that it is particularly traumatic in cases that deal with sexual or other violence or coercive control. As the noble Lord will know, we have introduced Section 28 and are rolling it out so that it is more widely available. At the end of the day, judges, not Ministers, run trials so it is a matter for judges to decide whether and how Section 28 is deployed in a particular case, but our aim is to make it available across the criminal justice system for those cases where it is suitable.
I agree with the noble Lord that we must focus on outcomes. I have already mentioned rape scorecards. He also mentioned restorative justice. I am pleased that he did because, as I am sure he knows, there is very good evidence to show that there can be benefits for victims and a reduction in reoffending where restorative justice is used properly. It really is a win-win. The victim wins, society wins and, of course, the offender wins because they do not reoffend. The code makes it clear that victims can ask to take part in restorative justice at a time that is right for them. Both the victim and the offender have to agree, of course. The welfare of the victim is paramount so there will be cases where it is unsuitable, but there are lots of cases where it is very suitable. We are providing grant funding to police and crime commissioners to provide victim support services; that includes restorative justice. In the last financial year, 2020-21, they spent around £3.7 million of the funding on restorative justice services; around 5,500 victims engaged with those services in that year. We will bolster support by increasing funding for support services, as I said earlier.
The noble Lord asked in what types of cases it would be appropriate to consult a victim. That is one of the things we are going to consult on because, as he will recognise, it will not be all cases, but there will be many where it will be appropriate. Finally, on resources put into the criminal justice system, I do not want to have a statistics battle across the Dispatch Box, especially since this is the last business of the year. However, I will say that we are putting in £477 million as part of the spending review into the criminal justice system over the next three years, to help reduce the backlog and to provide swifter access to justice, which victims deserve. I think it is generally recognised that the most recent spending review has significantly increased the budget of the Ministry of Justice, and that this will be to the benefit of the criminal justice system.
I also say, finally, that we have published the CLAR report on criminal legal aid, authored by Sir Christopher Bellamy. We are very much looking forward to engaging with the profession, and indeed all stakeholders, about criminal legal aid, which is itself such an important part of the criminal justice system.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like the two Front-Bench questioners, I want to look at the issue of delays in courts and its impact on victims. There are two angles to that. First, some figures I have seen indicate that about a quarter of victims are withdrawing from investigations and prosecutions, a figure that rises to 42% for rape allegations. Does the Minister recognise those figures? Are the Government doing anything specifically to ensure that support is provided for people in that situation? If they have stepped away from the legal process, what support is available to them? As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, indicated, it is clear that the impact is likely to continue for very many years after the court process has been dropped.
Secondly, picking up the Minister’s point about the money from the spending review, I mention the article published this afternoon on the east of England BBC website that quoted Stephen Halloran of Lawtons Solicitors referring specifically to that extra funding. Mr Halloran estimates that, on current figures, the Crown Court backlog will reduce by only about 7,000 cases over the next three years. He indicated that his firm is already seeing cases listed in the Crown Courts well into 2023, and that he expects to see cases listed for 2024 very soon. Does the Minister agree that it is clear that the money and the resources are just not enough to give victims justice? I am sure he does not.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. This is an area, again, where we share the same aims. I do not recognise the precise statistics she mentioned, although I am not sure I was able to note them down quickly enough. I can say that the percentage of investigations closed because the victim does not support further police action is now at roughly 60%. That is a continuation of a longer-term trend.
The effect of the pandemic, which I am afraid has increased the delay in cases coming to trial, is probably part of the reason why more victims may have been withdrawing from the process. One brighter point in the statistics is that it seems there are more victims coming forward. There has been an increase in the number of recorded adult rape offences since 2019 and, indeed, since the first quarter of this year. The noble Baroness will understand what I am saying: I am not saying it is good that there has been an increase in rapes—of course I am not. The point is that it is good that victims feel able to come forward when there has been a crime. What we are very concerned about is victims suffering a crime who then do not feel able to come forward. So, somewhat counterintuitively, that is actually a brighter spot in the statistics—but there is plainly work to be done, and I hope I have been very candid about that.
On the backlog, in addition to what I said earlier, we have to be a little careful with statistics. For example, there are cases when a trial date will be given some time in the future, maybe even in 2023, because trial B may be a follow-on trial from trial A, and it cannot be listed until trial A has concluded. I am not suggesting that all cases fall into that category—I am saying only that we have to be a little careful with looking at the mere listing of a trial as necessarily an indication that the system could not accommodate that trial earlier. Sometimes that might be the case, but sometimes it will not. There are also issues of counsel availability, and some courts have a practice of giving two dates for a trial: an earlier date, which may not take place, and then a hard later date.
I accept that we certainly want to bring on rape trials, and indeed all trials, more quickly than happens at the moment. However, it is not just the time from first court appearance to trial that is important—we must also look at the time from reporting the offence to charge and then from charge to first appearance in court. The time when a victim feels most vulnerable and lost in the system is when the victim does not even know when there is going to be a charge. Focusing on that initial period from when the victim goes into the police station to when a charge is brought is also a very important element of the system.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I beg to move that the House do now adjourn—and I wish you all a very happy Christmas.