House of Commons
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Steve Barclay)
Before I start, Mr Speaker, I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say I am appalled by the horrific events in Ukraine. This is an unprovoked attack by President Putin, and the UK and its allies will respond decisively. This morning the Prime Minister spoke to President Zelensky and chaired Cobra. He will make a statement to this House later today to outline the UK response, including overwhelming sanctions. The Cabinet Office is accelerating work on domestic resilience and we will provide more information on that in due course.
More than 2,000 civil service jobs have already moved to places across the UK under the Places for Growth programme, including York and the south-west.
Kevin Hollinrake
May I associate myself with my right hon. Friend’s words? In this Parliament, we will stand in solidarity against the deranged tyranny we have seen and make the road that President Putin has chosen as painful as possible.
York is a beautiful city. It is the beating economic heart of the York city region, the new devolved region of York and the whole of the beautiful county of North Yorkshire. We would give a very warm welcome to anybody who relocates their jobs and their families to the area. Will my right hon. Friend update us on the very exciting plans we have heard about, which will see a number of jobs coming to the city?
Steve Barclay
Mr Speaker, even as Lancastrians I am sure that both you and I recognise that York is indeed a beautiful city. It very much features in our plans to relocate roles. Around 300 civil service roles have already moved or are moving to the city, in addition to the 2,790 civil servants already based in York.
Selaine Saxby
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the south-west also needs levelling up? Devon and Cornwall are more than just great places to go on holiday; they are also great places to live and work.
Steve Barclay
I very much agree. That is why the south-west is already home to 45,000 civil servants. The recent levelling-up White Paper highlighted the range of Departments that will be relocating, including to the south-west.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
We know it is important to have a good breadth of civil service jobs out in the country, but it is also important to have a diverse civil service. Will the Minister explain what he will do to ensure that the top jobs in the civil service better reflect the nation they seek to serve?
Steve Barclay
I could not agree more. The hon. Gentleman is right to champion diversity, which is at the heart of the Places for Growth programme. If we want a meritocracy, we need diversity as a part of that, recognising, as the Prime Minister has frequently said, that talent is equally distributed but opportunity often is not. People should be able to fulfil their careers closer to home. Moving senior-level jobs—for example, with the Treasury in Darlington—is a key part of enabling people from all backgrounds to access the very best jobs in our civil service.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I associate myself with the remarks made earlier. This is a dark day for democracy. As someone who has been in this House for a very long time and who was born during the Blitz, I know that dictators are never deterred by sanctions; they are deterred by firm action.
Huddersfield is a booming university town. It is the perfect place for people to come and live, with beautiful countryside. We are also a real centre for technology and innovation. We would love anything to do with green skills, green enterprise and green start-ups based in our university town.
Steve Barclay
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman. Through his experience in the House, he brings great context to the issues we face.
On Huddersfield, I very much agree. One of the issues is how we combine the Places for Growth programme with other parts of Government, not least the record investment in research and development—increased from £15 billion to £22 billion—so that we take the best of our academic research in our universities, and get the start-ups and then the scale-ups in places such as Huddersfield.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I echo the comments that have been made and our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine after Putin’s unprovoked and unjustifiable attack.
To ensure that talented civil servants can build their careers outside London, we need to see senior civil service roles based in our towns and cities, not just concentrated in Whitehall. We need to put opportunities back in the places that built Britain. The Government’s levelling-up White Paper estimates that about 7% of senior civil service roles will be moved out of London by 2025 and that a further 10% would need to be moved out by 2030 to meet the Government’s Places for Growth target, but beyond vague words and wishful thinking, there is no clear plan to achieve that, is there? So what is the Minister’s plan? Is it to move Londoners out, sack hard-working civil servants, as the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency suggests, or to have a meaningful recruitment strategy across our regions?
Steve Barclay
I went to Preston City Council and to look at the new National Cyber Force—we have investment going into the cyber corridor of the north-west, combining the innovation in Manchester with, for example, the fantastic courses that Lancaster University and the University of Central Lancashire offer—and as I found when talking to that Labour-led council, there is actually a lot of cross-party support for Places for Growth. I do not think there is a huge difference between the parties. On the plan, we can look at the 2,000 roles that have already moved and the levelling-up White Paper of 2 February, which sets out the plan for how this will be taken forward.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Steve Barclay)
The Cabinet Office has followed central Government guidance to employers to reduce the risk of transmission in the workplace, so that all our buildings return to the maximum available capacity as soon as possible now that new restrictions have lifted.
Jack Brereton
I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. As well as getting Whitehall back to the office, and given the recent announcements about rolling back the state, does he agree that we should now focus on reducing both the record numbers of people working in central Government and the civil servant headcount?
Steve Barclay
I very much agree. My hon. Friend will have noticed that the spending review 2020 included a provision to do exactly that. However, the point is more nuanced, because this is also about empowering civil servants and taking away often the many layers so that the very good work of sometimes more junior civil servants can get to Ministers and senior decision makers. There is a fiscal benefit of this and an opportunity in how we better empower staff and, in turn, combine that with our learning and development offer. Indeed, that is why the Cabinet Office is doubling the learning and development package that we offer to our staff.
Robin Millar
We all know that civil servants have a vital role in delivering and managing public services and it is essential that they can get on with that, so I welcome what has been described. However, will my right hon. Friend reassure my Aberconwy constituents by clarifying that any UK Government instruction to civil servants will also apply in Wales, where Welsh Government guidance remains to work at home?
Steve Barclay
We are clear, in relation to areas of reserved authority, that we are a UK Government—indeed, the Prime Minister is the Minister for the Union—and we have been clear on that in our messaging with Departments. The point is that many staff want to get back into the office, particularly those who do not have the benefit of a larger house, a garden and perhaps an office at home. There are often important opportunities that come from being in the office that are not always available when they work from home.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is very good to hear the Minister’s positive response. Has the Department considered encouraging staff by allowing flexible working for a short time to allow reduced staff to acclimatise to working closely with others again? Not only is there a benefit for the workers, but there is a benefit from the economic spin-off of having people in offices so that the shops can also continue to thrive.
Steve Barclay
As an MP for a rural constituency, I absolutely recognise that point, as well as the issue of wellbeing relating to commuting times and other aspects, so this is part of a nuanced approach. However, the point is that the desks in Whitehall, for example, do not equate to the total number of full-time equivalent staff. There are already far fewer desks than FTEs, so if we are paying for office space, the question is why it would not be used. This is about using the office space that we have as well as recognising that there are opportunities for hybrid working.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; it is a rare treat.
Her Majesty’s Government are delivering an ambitious programme to seize the opportunities of Brexit and deliver growth and innovation across the United Kingdom. The Brexit Opportunities Unit co-ordinates those reforms in close partnership with other Departments, including by working towards our target to cut at least £1 billion of EU red tape to help businesses to innovate and grow.
Virginia Crosbie
Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Welsh Government and Isle of Anglesey County Council are all setting up new facilities in Holyhead to enforce post-Brexit port regulations, bringing much-needed new local employment to my constituency of Ynys Môn. How will the Brexit Opportunities Unit work with those organisations to gather feedback on their operations that can then be used to inform the review and to inform regulation and policy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend has become the greatest champion that Ynys Môn has ever had; every time she asks a question in this Chamber, she is always promoting her fantastic and beautiful constituency. Her constituents are very lucky to have her as their Member of Parliament. Once again, as so often, she is absolutely right: we will be driven by data and evidence from the frontline, not simply copying what has been done in the past. We therefore all look forward to seeing what happens at Holyhead.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about Ukraine? My thoughts are with the people of Ukraine and I fully support them in their sovereignty.
I welcome the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency to his place. One result of Brexit is that we have an independent sanctions regime, so why have the Government not taken the opportunity before now to go further in their sanctions against Russia?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If the hon. Lady has had a chance to look at the annunciator, she will have seen that the Prime Minister will be making a statement at 5 o’clock. It is best that my right hon. Friend make the statement, rather than my trying to pre-empt him.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Following this morning’s inexcusable attack on independent Ukraine, may I put on record the SNP’s unequivocal condemnation of President Putin and his actions, and repeat our support for and our solidarity with the people of Ukraine?
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State for fantasy island—sorry, the Minister for Brexit Opportunities—to his place. That was an easy mistake to make, particularly as he believes that Brexit is already a success and that there is no evidence that it has caused trade to drop, despite the Office for National Statistics reporting that UK exports to the EU have fallen by £20 billion in 20 months. How can we trust him to deliver growth when he has hitherto been unable to accept the evidence of the ONS and the experience of just about every exporter in the UK who is losing business while drowning in a sea of paperwork and bureaucracy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I welcome the cross-party support for the actions that the Government are taking in regard to Ukraine, and the cross-party support for the people of Ukraine in these very difficult circumstances.
As regards the hon. Gentleman’s statement about exports, he may have missed the fact that there has been a pandemic. I know that sometimes the SNP does not pay careful attention to public affairs, but the pandemic has had an effect on supply chains across the world and is one of many things that cannot be blamed on Brexit. I am delighted, however, that Scotland is reaping the rewards of Brexit and has decided to have a green freeport, which will be an enormous boost to the economy of Scotland. Perhaps he has noticed that, through the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, more powers have been devolved to Scotland. Is it not eccentric that our Scottish friends would like to be ruled from Brussels, rather than being part of a United Kingdom that works effectively for everybody?
Brendan O’Hara
Yet another classic example of “If the facts don’t fit the narrative, ignore the facts.”
Such was the faith that the Minister had in himself to find these Brexit opportunities that the first thing he did was issue a “What would you do in my shoes?” appeal to readers of a national newspaper. I am sure that the suggestions for what he could do came thick and fast, but what was the best suggestion that he received? Will he be implementing it?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I have received 1,800 recommendations from the wise readers of The Sun. I believe that the British people have an enormous amount of wisdom from which politicians, particularly politicians in Scotland, could benefit.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Businesses and business organisations in my constituency are eager to engage with the Brexit Opportunities Unit. Will my right hon. Friend be touring the UK to promote Brexit opportunities, and if so, may I invite him to visit Cleethorpes in the near future?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) compete with each other to be greatest champion of their constituencies. I look forward to visiting Cleethorpes in the not-too-distant future. There is a date in the diary, and I am looking forward to the finest food that Cleethorpes can provide when I go there to speak.
Mr Speaker
Don’t get too excited. You should be going to Lancashire for food.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Her Majesty’s Government are reforming the procurement rules to make it simpler and quicker for suppliers, including small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises, to bid for public sector contracts. The reforms will entrench transparency for the full extent of a commercial transaction, and will make it easier for buyers to take account of previous poor performance by suppliers.
Bill Esterson
The Government need to get on and reform those rules somewhat more quickly, do they not? In answer to my written question about steel targets for HS2, the Government told me that they were unable to set targets for British steel procurement because of World Trade Organisation rules, but that is not true, is it? The US sets informal targets through the Buy American Act because the WTO allows it to do so. Where, then, is the Buy British-made Steel policy in Government contracts in this country, using the informal targets that are allowed by the WTO? Labour will make more, buy more and sell more in Britain; why will the Conservatives not do so as well?
Mr Rees-Mogg
One of the opportunities of Brexit is that we will be able to encourage people to buy more from SMEs, which tend to be UK-based rather than from overseas. Opening up procurement has the effect of ensuring that more British companies get contracts, and that is a good thing to be doing, but there is always a balance to be struck between ensuring that one buys cheaply and efficiently and supporting British companies. I believe that British companies can out-compete, and be as efficient as, anyone in the world, and that that is how procurement ought to operate.
Kerry McCarthy
The Government spend £2 billion every year on food for schools, hospitals, prisons and so on. When they eventually respond to the national food strategy, will they accept its recommendations on reforming procurement rules so that food purchased with taxpayers’ money is always healthy and sustainable—and will the Minister confirm that foie gras will not be on the menu?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I do not think we need to go into my personal dietary habits. I have mainly been giving free publicity to Cadbury Creme Eggs over the years, rather than going into the details of whether or not I like foie gras—although people may be able to guess what the answer is.
As for the strategy for procurement of food, one of the things it will do is allow social benefit to be taken into account. It will not just be about value for money, although value for money is inevitably fundamental to all procurement, so it will be possible for people to make decisions on a broader range of issues.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s answer, and the reform that he has promised for contractors, but many large-scale projects suffer because the Government’s ability to procure and contract management have not been as good as they should be. In his role as Minister for Government Efficiency, will my right hon. Friend take that on board, and will he ensure that the Government set out new guidelines for procurement for themselves so that they do not keep changing them and hence building in inefficiency?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The new procurement rules will make it easier for buyers to exclude suppliers that have underperformed on other public contracts. Currently, that is possible only if poor performance has led to contract termination, damages or other comparable sanctions. We will establish a new, centrally managed debarment register, which will identify any companies that should be banned from any new public contract.
Crucially, though, there has been a change within the procurement from Government to ensure that the management of contracts once they are procured is improved and is the great focus of the energy of the procurement department, because however brilliantly the procurement is issued, if it is not then managed well and effectively the benefits are lost. This is, in fact, an issue that we discussed when I had another role in this distinguished House.
Jerome Mayhew
Government tender documents are full of ancillary requirements that have laudable objectives individually but collectively form an enormous barrier to the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises because it is much harder for them to demonstrate compliance than it is for large businesses. Will my right hon. Friend consider relaxing those non-core requirements, to enable SMEs in Broadland and elsewhere to compete?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The personal liability insurance that people were required to have when contracting with the Cabinet Office inevitably excluded some smaller companies for which the cost of the extra insurance may have outweighed the benefit of winning the contract, and one of the first things I did in this post was to ask for that to be reviewed to see if it was proportionate and what we really needed. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is the detailed pettifogging conditions that keep SMEs out, and we want to bring SMEs in.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Around 70% of all central Government contracts in 2021 went to suppliers in the south of England, with almost half going to companies in London. The Conservative Government’s procurement strategy could not be more at odds with the stated aims of their levelling-up agenda. They have made big promises but they are failing to deliver. We must see proper investment in our communities to create good-quality jobs and opportunities across the country and to boost local economies, so can the Minister outline the specific targets in the procurement Bill that will ensure that Government purchasing of goods and services is better spread across our country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I cannot reveal the details of Bills before they are published, but I agree with the hon. Lady’s basic thrust and point. One of the advantages of our new procurement system is that we will have better data and will therefore be able to ensure that the whole of the country is represented. To revert to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), part of the way of spreading it more widely around the country is to bring in smaller businesses, which means getting rid of rules that are unnecessary and that hinder businesses from tendering for contracts.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Minister is very welcome to come to Worthing, where I am sure he will get an even better culinary experience than when he goes to Cleethorpes. One of the great benefits of Brexit is that we are no longer bound by EU bureaucratic procurement rules, so will he ensure that there is clear guidance to local authorities, local schools and other areas of public procurement that they should favour local businesses, particularly smaller businesses, and local producers so that our children and public service workers can enjoy quality food and drink products that are locally produced in this country, environmentally friendly and create fewer air miles?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I look forward to my trip to Worthing and I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s invitation. He is absolutely right; this comes from the de-bureaucratisation—if that in itself is not a bureaucratic word—of the system, because it makes it easier for small companies to apply. The thing to remember is that large companies have departments that fill out tender documents, but small companies do not. We need to simplify the tender documents to bring the small companies in.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Over a year ago, at the Public Accounts Committee, I discovered that there were 10,000 shipping containers filled with millions of items of personal protective equipment costing billions of pounds, and I am afraid of waste. A few months later, I heard that there were 14,000 shipping containers full of unused PPE. I have put in a parliamentary question for an update, but so far it remains unanswered. Can the Minister please give us an update on how many shipping containers are still full of PPE this month?
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is a matter for the Department of Health, but I would defend the procurement of PPE because we needed PPE urgently, as we needed a vaccine urgently. We have heard constant criticism from the Opposition of something that had to be done urgently and had to break through the slowness of normal procurement timescales. Normal procurement takes three to six months, but we needed PPE tomorrow so we had to act urgently, as we did.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Steve Barclay)
Our national cyber strategy sets out how we will ensure that the UK remains a leading democratic cyber-power that is more resilient and able to counter cyber-threats. This and the Government cyber-security strategy are supported by £2.6 billion of taxpayers’ money over the next three years.
Dr Wallis
I welcome the Government’s pledge to create regional cyber-clusters across the UK as part of their levelling-up agenda, but does my right hon. Friend agree we need to be conscious that, if we attempt to standardise security protocols across multiple organisations, the overall effectiveness of the security of each individual organisation must improve and not be weakened as a result?
Steve Barclay
I take my hon. Friend’s point, but having the 12 regional clusters will help businesses that want to do the right thing and know how best to protect against the risks of cyber. Our aim is to help businesses improve their cyber-security. Given events in Europe today, it is particularly pressing that businesses take this seriously.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
On 15 December, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of the right hon. Baroness Heather Hallett as chair of the public inquiry into covid-19. The inquiry is set to begin its work in spring 2022.
Afzal Khan
On Monday, the Prime Minister told the House that we must learn to live with covid-19. This is cold comfort for the bereaved families whose loved ones will not have that opportunity. What does the Minister have to say to families like mine who feel that the inquiry is simply being kicked into the long grass? Does she agree, now that all restrictions will be lifted, that there is absolutely no reason why the inquiry cannot move forward immediately?
Mrs Wheeler
I sympathise fully with the hon. Gentleman. He has told us about his family bereavement many times, and we have all been very moved by those comments.
The inquiry will play a key role in ensuring that we learn the lessons from this terrible pandemic. To do that, we must get the terms of reference right. When the Prime Minister appointed Baroness Hallett as chair, he said he would consult her and Ministers from the devolved Administrations on the inquiry’s terms of reference, and he said that Baroness Hallett would then run a process of public consultation and engagement before the terms of reference are finalised.
To give an update, the Prime Minister has now consulted Baroness Hallett and the process of consulting the devolved Administrations is well advanced. The next stage will be to ensure that those most affected by the pandemic, including those who have sadly lost loved ones, can have their say. This process will begin and conclude very soon.
Marsha De Cordova
I associate myself with the earlier comments. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Ukraine right now.
Throughout the pandemic, disabled people and those with underlying health conditions accounted for six in 10 covid-related deaths. Shockingly, when the Prime Minister declared the end of all covid restrictions and measures on Monday, there was no plan for how he would support and protect some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Have the Government not learned any lessons from the last two years? Will this public inquiry have a specific focus on the disproportionate impact of covid on disabled people?
Mrs Wheeler
I associate myself with the hon. Lady’s comments about Ukraine. South Derbyshire and the Derby area have a very large diaspora of Ukrainian-related families, so my thoughts and prayers are with them today.
To answer the hon. Lady’s question, and I will try to answer questions in my new role, I believe the answer is yes.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The covid inquiry has a website and a chair, but it has not formally started and a letter from the Prime Minister is required, so holding hearings and collecting evidence by the spring is going to be incredibly difficult. In addition, “spring” is a vague period of time; daffodils are already out in my garden. We have been promised time and again that the inquiry hearings would start this spring. The Prime Minister told us that, as did Health Ministers, the former Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Paymaster General, and now another Minister is telling us that. I am tired of coming back to this Dispatch Box and reminding Ministers of this but not being given a date.
I ask the Minister to be straight with me and, more importantly, to be straight with the bereaved families, who are very worried that this inquiry is not going to start in the spring, that we will not be hearing what happened during covid and that we will not be learning the lessons. Will the Minister tell me today when the terms of reference will be passed to the chair for consultations to start and when the inquiry hearings will formally begin?
Mrs Wheeler
Derbyshire is a lot further north than Putney and the daffodils are not out in my garden—we still have snowdrops, which are very pretty, so spring is definitely a moveable feast.
The UK Government are negotiating and discussing terms of reference with the devolved Assemblies, and when we receive their replies, we will absolutely move this forward with Baroness Hallett, who is ready to go. The Prime Minister wants this to start as soon as possible, and it will start by the spring.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Steve Barclay)
The Government’s approach to national security was set out in the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. The National Security Council provides strategic direction to ensure that the review is implemented, and provides the necessary flexibility and agility to respond to the changing global context.
Bob Seely
On responding to the changing global context, would it be accurate to say that this morning deterrence has failed? Do the Government also agree that perhaps if we had a national strategy council that looked forward a decade to the trends shaping our world, our policy might be less ad hoc, less reactive and less last-minute, and our ability to deter wars, which are currently breaking out in Europe, might be stronger?
Steve Barclay
I know that my hon. Friend takes a close interest in these issues, so he will know better than most that the whole purpose of the integrated review was to look at the period up to 2030, and it clearly identified China as a systemic competitor. I also know from my time as Chief Secretary to the Treasury that at the spending review 2020 we put in place the biggest investment in the Ministry of Defence—in defence—for about 30 years. That shows this Government’s willingness to look longer-term at what the right strategic approach is.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Last week, I met port industry representatives to discuss Brexit opportunities, and I intend to meet a wide range of interested parties across different sectors and industries. Ministers and officials from each Department regularly engage with the devolved Administrations on specific policy areas, and I intend to do so in areas of common interest. I am delighted to have had a letter from Angus Robertson asking to have a meeting, which I look forward to doing. We will include in these meetings reviews of retained EU law.
Deidre Brock
Annual tax loss to evasion and avoidance in the UK stands at £38 billion, which represents more than 14% of the world’s total tax loss and £570 per UK citizen per year. The EU is implementing new tax evasion rules to clamp down on it, but the UK refuses to act similarly. Does the Minister accept that this is yet another Brexit harm? Or does he see the evasion of tax by wealthy individuals and companies as a Brexit opportunity?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Actually, the Government have a very good record in clamping down on the tax gap and ensuring that people pay the tax that is owed. Fraud, within the whole system of government, is something that must be borne down on. Every element of fraud is taking money from other taxpayers. Therefore, the Government have a strong drive to bear down on it, and have introduced over the past 12 years a number of measures to reduce the opportunities for any tax fraud. We do not need the European Union to tell us how to do it; I could go through some countries of that organisation that have a pretty poor tax collecting record.
Richard Thomson
The Government have touted their so-called Brexit freedoms Bill as a means of cutting up to £1 billion-worth of red tape, yet Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that new customs rules resulting from Brexit could lead to increased costs for businesses of up to £15 billion each year. Is it not the case that the only cuts to red tape that have been made since Brexit have been the repeated cutting of red tape lengthways to create many more miles of the stuff than ever existed when we were part of the EU?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman conjures up images of origami; I am waiting to see what creatures he will create with the papers he cuts up. It is fundamentally important not only that we cut red tape that was imposed by the European Union but that we do not, as a country, impose red tape on ourselves. We now have the freedom not to impose red tape on ourselves, which is something that I, in my new role, am keen to ensure.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Two weeks ago, the courts again threw out the Welsh Labour Government’s legal challenge to the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. Does my right hon. Friend agree that instead of spending the past five years expending an enormous amount of time, energy and taxpayers’ money on fighting a democratic referendum result, the devolved Administrations would have served their populations far better by working collaboratively with the UK Government on the great national mission of levelling up our one United Kingdom?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is noticeable that the hard-left Administration in Wales, backed up by separatists, is not acting in the interests of the people of Wales. It would be much better to accept the democratic result of the Brexit referendum. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave; we have now left and the opportunities will flow. To waste taxpayers’ money on taking fruitless legal action is, to my mind, the sort of thing that only the hard-left socialist would do.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
The One Public Estate programme has provided support and £140,000 to explore estate collaboration across the emergency services and wider public sector partners in London. The programme is working with the Metropolitan police and the Greater London Authority to establish where project opportunities could be progressed.
Munira Wilson
With police stations throughout London up for sale, including in Teddington, the Mayor of London is determined to flog them off to the highest bidder, which generally means luxury housing developers. Does the Minister agree that if precious taxpayer-owned sites such as Teddington police station must be closed, they should routinely be part of the One Public Estate programme so that they can be repurposed for community use—for example, for Park Road surgery, an important GP facility in my constituency—and for affordable homes for key workers and young people?
Mrs Wheeler
I thank the hon. Lady for her interesting question. She led a Westminster Hall debate on the disposal of Teddington police station yesterday; as the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), said then, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime is responsible for the disposal strategy, but it can take into account the wider social, environmental and economic benefits. He will write to the hon. Lady with further information on this matter.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister without Portfolio (Nigel Adams)
It has been the case under successive Governments that civil servants and special advisers provide assistance on communications. We employ photographers to capture Government work, including that which cannot be captured by a press photographer due to its sensitive nature. Photographers are a cross-Government resource, supporting other Departments and Ministers, and play a critical role in the support of the Government’s digital communications activity and in progressing key policy areas.
Dame Diana Johnson
Well, Mr Speaker, that was a nice try at justification, was it not? As I understand it, Downing Street employs three tax-funded photographers to chronicle the work and life of the Prime Minister, Cabinet members, and even the Prime Minister’s pets. Given the cost of living crisis and the rise in taxes for most families, is it really good value for taxpayers’ money to have three photographers for Downing Street?
Nigel Adams
It plays a key role in the support of modern Government communications on social media. With respect, I will take no lectures on spin from Labour: the Labour Government spent £2.5 billion a year on marketing and communications and 4,000 spin doctors worked in central Government and their quangos—
Mr Speaker
Order. Minister, this is about the Prime Minister and press; I do not think we need to wander around the world.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
Mr Speaker, with your permission, as this is a very detailed question, I would like to give a detailed answer.
The PPE high priority lane was established as one way of efficiently triaging and assessing the thousands of offers of support for PPE early in the pandemic. One hundred and fifteen contracts were awarded to 51 suppliers identified through this route and the total value of those contracts was £3.8 billion. Between May 2020 and March 2021, 50 suppliers had priority referrals for covid testing support and were awarded 128 contracts with a total value of £6 billion. All contracts awarded, no matter the route, were rigorously evaluated to ensure that the products that were progressed met the required specification. There was no separate high priority lane or process.
Neale Hanvey
The Minister will be aware that it has been established that there is in existence an additional 18 VIP lane contracts, bringing the total to 68. Between them, they were awarded £4.9 billion in PPE contracts. Gareth Davies, the head of the National Audit Office, the Comptroller and Auditor General, has said that the Health and Social Care Department was
“open to the risk of fraud.”
What steps are being considered or taken to investigate that and to assure the House that the contracts awarded through the Government VIP lane were not fraudulent?
Mrs Wheeler
I can answer the hon. Gentleman. I am delighted to tell him that he has his facts wrong: recent media articles claim that 19 additional suppliers were referred through the HPL, which is totally inaccurate. Having reviewed the records, I can tell him that only one other company was included, so in fact, instead of 50, the total was 51.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Steve Barclay)
I begin by welcoming an excellent new ministerial team. This includes an expanded role for the Paymaster General to include Minister for the Cabinet Office. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs Wheeler) is the new Parliamentary Secretary, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) is the new Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency.
As right hon. and hon. Members will also know, the Prime Minister has pledged to make changes to the way Downing Street and the Cabinet Office are run so that we can better respond to delivering across the UK and to the issues raised by parliamentary colleagues across the House. In my role as a Minister and the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff, I will be supporting Cabinet colleagues in delivering for the British people, uniting and levelling up across the UK.
Mr Carmichael
I am sure the Minister will have been as appalled as I was to see the scenes of Russian aggression on our televisions. We should be equally concerned, however, about the Russian aggression that we cannot see. The Minister has responsibility for cyber-security. Can he give the House some assurance that his Department is now taking urgent steps to ensure that Government and commerce in this country will be protected against what we should reasonably expect to be coming from that direction?
Steve Barclay
The right hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. It is one that I touched on in my opening remarks about Cabinet Office plans for domestic resilience. It is something that we are working on across the United Kingdom, including with the Scottish Government. Through the excellent work of the National Cyber Security Centre, we are ensuring that the new national strategy that I launched before Christmas and the Government strategy on cyber that we launched shortly after Christmas are taken forward. They are about building resilience to the cyber risk for the whole of society while also recognising the huge opportunities that online platforms offer.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
We know that veterans make brilliant employees, and the picture on veteran employment is good, with 83% of veterans employed full time six months after leaving service. However, we are not complacent; we are putting in place further practical support, such as tax breaks for those employing veterans, guaranteed job interviews for those seeking to join the civil service, and brilliant armed forces champions in jobcentres across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Further to the question from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), may I urge the Minister to give more detail on civil resilience, especially in light of what is happening with cyber-attacks and threats emanating from Russia. What extra support is being offered to businesses? I know national infrastructure is important, but many businesses across the UK are concerned about this. Has the national security cell done an assessment, and will that assessment be published?
Steve Barclay
This is an area of common ground across the House. I know the National Security Adviser has shared briefings with Opposition leaders, as referred to earlier in the week, and we continue to work closely across the House. The clear message being sent by all parties today is extremely welcome. On the specific question of cyber, we will set out further details of the work that the Cabinet Office is doing. We had a Cobra meeting this morning and that was one of the topics focused on.
Angela Rayner
I thank the Minister for that response. My heartfelt sympathies go out to Ukraine and my support is there with its people. The tragic events of this morning show that there is no space, excuse or justification when it comes to Putin’s continued influence in the UK’s democracy and national infrastructure. We have seen this week that Russian oligarchs and Kremlin-linked organisations have begun intense lobbying of Government Ministers in an attempt to avoid sanctions if Moscow invades Ukraine. Will the Minister confirm that none of his Conservative colleagues have accepted donations from anyone with links to the Kremlin currently lobbying the Foreign Office?
Steve Barclay
Again, the right hon. Lady raises an important point. She will well know that there is a long-standing principle that permissible donors are those who are on the UK electoral register: in essence, if people can vote in the UK for a party, they are able to donate to it. It is important in our discussions in this House that we remember—although I do not think that is what she was saying—that people in this country of Russian origin are often British citizens.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mrs Heather Wheeler)
My hon. Friend is a champion for everything that has gone on since the Grenfell fire tragedy, and I completely understand and share her concerns about the information that has come to light through the Grenfell public inquiry. Current Government policy is to take into account suppliers’ past performance when awarding contracts. We are currently in the process of transforming the way Government procedures work, which will mean that in future poorly performing suppliers can be more easily excluded from procurements and buyers will have more scope and discretion to do so where suppliers have performed poorly in previous public contracts. Furthermore, the Government’s Building Safety Bill will establish a new regulatory regime for construction products and of course we continue to take action against specific companies where we can.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
In part, by physically going to areas such as the north-west—I referenced my visit to Preston earlier—working on a cross-party basis to look at creating a cyber-corridor across the north-west, bringing the talent and skills agenda through schools into the universities with courses such as those at the University of Central Lancashire, and ensuring a better pipeline of apprentices into both the business community, such as BAE in that part of the world, and Government itself.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Nigel Adams)
I welcome the opportunity to celebrate the extraordinary contribution Her Majesty has made to the United Kingdom, the realms and the Commonwealth during her 70-year reign. May I also wish Her Majesty a very speedy recovery? I know the thoughts of everyone in this House are with her. In addition to the four-day UK bank holiday weekend, which includes the platinum jubilee pageant, the Cabinet Office is marking this historic occasion by leading a competition for the award of a number of prestigious civic honours, including city status, and we will announce the results of that later this year. Also, the good people of North Norfolk and those across the UK will be as excited as I am that the ballot for tickets to a platinum jubilee party at Buckingham Palace on 4 June has opened today.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Steve Barclay
I think this issue has been well rehearsed at pretty much all the Cabinet Office questions that I have participated in. As was touched on earlier, the purpose of the high priority lane was to efficiently prioritise credible offers of PPE, and that is what we did. The priority was to ensure that our frontline services had the PPE they needed. That is what we invested in and that is what we secured.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Steve Barclay
I very much agree that levelling up is a UK-wide endeavour and there are often pockets of variance within regions, as I know with a constituency in the fens: North East Cambridgeshire has a very different set of issues from Cambridge. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of levelling up from the skills, health and transport infrastructure perspectives, which impact differently within different regions of the UK.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I want to put on record my fullest support and solidarity for the people of Ukraine as they face the unlawful, aggressive and unprovoked invasion by Russia.
The Minister will know that the recently published national action plan does not include a commitment on aid transparency, which is critical for all of us in ensuring that taxpayer money goes to those who need it most. Bond, the network of development and humanitarian organisations, is calling on the Government to engage in meaningful and inclusive consultation on this. Will he commit to meeting Bond to create an ambitious target to ensure that we remain a world leader on the transparency of our aid budget?
Steve Barclay
First, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks. The theme this morning has been the unified voice with which this House has spoken on the troubling events in Ukraine. In respect of transparency in the aid budget, I am happy to highlight his concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and ask whether she or one of her Ministers would be willing to meet him to discuss the issue he raises.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the cross-departmental work to tackle illegal immigration across the English channel, and specifically the plans for the establishment of an offshore immigration detention and processing centre?
Steve Barclay
As part of taking back control of our borders, this is an issue of huge concern. That is why, through my role in the Cabinet Office, I have been working closely with the Home Secretary and other colleagues on a whole-of-Government response to the challenge of illegal migration. The Home Secretary has set out a number of areas of that work and we will be saying more on that in the weeks ahead.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
How many staff is the Downing Street chief of staff the chief of? How many of them are civil servants? How many of them are political appointees or Spads, and how many of them are employees of the Conservative party?
Steve Barclay
In terms of how many people currently work in No. 10, it is slightly over 400. Within the Cabinet Office, the number is much larger, but that depends on whether we cut the data to include fast-streamers, who sit on the Cabinet Office headcount, or to include the Government Commercial Function, which is located with different Departments. In short, one can have a wider answer depending on how we want to analyse the data. The wider point is how we have very clear lines of accountability, how we ensure that the issues raised by the House are addressed and in particular how we empower the Cabinet and Cabinet Government. That is something I am keen to help facilitate through my engagement with Secretaries of State.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Earlier this month, a former civil servant was awarded a large pay-out after suffering a prolonged and sustained campaign of racial abuse, hinting at a systemic problem in the Cabinet Office and its agencies. What steps is the Minister taking to tackle racism in his Department?
Steve Barclay
There are two issues there. The first is the issue of pay-offs when people leave roles, and we have a manifesto commitment. It is something I was committed to in the Treasury, and I know that the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke), is taking forward proposals on the size of payouts. We had a manifesto commitment to cap those at £95,000. The issue the hon. Lady raises is slightly different, because it pertains to employment law, and as the House knows, it is not appropriate for Ministers to comment on individual cases. Where there is common ground between her and me is that it is important that the civil service is an exemplar in how it supports colleagues across the civil service and how it champions diversity, which again is a theme that has come out of the discussion this morning.
Speaker's Statement
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before the urgent question, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that there are active legal proceedings in the Court of Appeal in respect of the quashing of convictions of postmasters and postmistresses which relied on evidence from the Post Office Horizon IT system. I am exercising the discretion given to the Chair in respect of the resolution on matters of sub judice to allow reference to those proceedings, as they concern issues of national importance. However, I urge Members to exercise caution in what they say and to avoid referring in detail to cases that remain before the Court of Appeal.
May I also say that I am disappointed, as this urgent question could have been granted at other times over the past three days? I was promised there would be a statement. There has been a chance to convert it to a statement, but that has completely failed. Thank goodness that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) stuck with it by putting in for a UQ every day. If you are going to give me advice, I expect you to stick to it. I do not think it is a good reason.
Post Office: Horizon Compensation Arrangements
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on compensation arrangements for those sub-postmasters/mistresses who have been impacted by the Post Office Horizon software scandal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
First, I apologise, Mr Speaker, for the misunderstanding. I was prepared to make a statement, but obviously the current situation and affairs have got in the way. I am happy to provide an update on Horizon matters since I last made a statement in December. I met the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee last month, and last week the Select Committee published its interim report on the Post Office and Horizon IT scandal. The Government will consider the Committee’s recommendations and respond in due course.
People need to know about how this scandal came about and what protections are in place to avoid history repeating itself. That is why the Government established the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry to investigate exactly what went wrong. The evidence from postmasters who have participated since the inquiry hearings began last week has been harrowing to hear, and I thank those postmasters for their courage and their willingness to revisit the trauma they have experienced. Compensation cannot take away the suffering that affected postmasters have experienced, but we are determined that each eligible person gets what is due to them, and that that is paid as quickly as possible. Of the 72 postmasters whose convictions have been overturned, more than 95% have applied so far for an interim compensation payment of up to £100,000, of which 63 offers have been accepted and paid. The Government are pushing for final settlements for quashed convictions to follow as quickly as possible, and negotiations on the first two have begun. The Government are determined that all unjust convictions are quashed. The Post Office is reaching out to affected postmasters.
The Post Office is also in discussion with other public prosecuting bodies responsible for the convictions of postmasters that may have relied on Horizon evidence to ensure that those postmasters are also contacted and enabled to appeal. Offers have been made to over 40% of applicants and compensation has been paid to 764 postmasters who have applied to the historical shortfall scheme. So far, 28 postmasters are proceeding through a dispute resolution process aimed at achieving acceptable settlements. At least 95% of those cases should have been dealt with by the end of the year.
With compensation for overturned convictions and the historical shortfall scheme well under way, the postmasters on whom my attention is now focused are those who exposed the whole scandal by taking the Post Office to the High Court. I know that many hon. Members support the Select Committee’s view that it is unfair that they received less compensation than those who were not part of the case. I sympathise with that view too. I cannot yet report a resolution of that legally complex issue, but we are doing everything we can to address it.
The compensation that postmasters are due will exceed what the Post Office can afford, so the Government are stepping in to meet a good deal of the cost of that compensation. I recognise that is an unwelcome burden on the taxpayer, but the House, and I am sure taxpayers themselves, will agree that the alternative is unacceptable.
Andrew Bridgen
I thank the Minister for his response. As he is aware, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who I am glad to see in his place, and I are the only remaining Members of the House who were part of the original Post Office review working party that was set up to address the issue over a decade ago. In the years that have followed, we and others have been repeatedly dismissed and fobbed off by all the previous incumbents of my hon. Friend’s current ministerial position when we called out what we saw at the time, the evidence we had uncovered and what, in retrospect, with so many cases, was an obviously flawed computer system and a huge miscarriage of justice.
The issue was first highlighted to me by my constituent Michael Rudkin in 2011. He had been forced out of his position as a national representative of sub-postmasters and his wife had been advised to plead guilty to a crime that she had not committed because of a flawed computer system, which Post Office officials were too arrogant to believe could possibly be to blame, and because of a Post Office management whose relationship with the sub-postmasters I described in this House as “feudal” in 2015.
My constituents are just two of the hundreds who lost their jobs, assets and reputations in what is the largest miscarriage of justice in this country’s recent history. Their lives have been affected for 20 years or more. There is no excuse for further delays to compensation. They were wronged by the Post Office and let down by Ministers and officials who apparently took the Post Office’s word without question. They deserve justice and adequate compensation now—not in months and years when the Department, which is partly culpable for the situation, finally gets its act together.
I have written to the Minister, as I have been passed a letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, Lord Callanan, addressed to Lord Arbuthnot, who was also part of the original Post Office working party and maintains a strong interest in the issue from the other place. The letter states that no formal request for the funding of sub-postmasters’ compensation has been submitted to the Treasury by his Department. Can the Minister clarify whether that is still correct?
Does the Minister agree that all the sub-postmasters who lost out due to the faulty Horizon accounting system should be compensated? I need not remind him that many hundreds of sub-postmasters are due compensation, not just those who have been wrongly convicted, who number at least 736, but the many hundreds—I suspect thousands—who made up shortfalls created by the faulty Horizon system out of their own pocket under threat and coercion from the Post Office but who were not criminally prosecuted. Can he inform the House whether a system has been set up to identify those individuals and put in place a scheme for their compensation?
I warn the Minister and the Government that it is better for us to get on the front foot with the issue, rather than let a claims management company look at the opportunity, which will undoubtedly result in more litigation and delay at a far greater cost to the Government, and ultimately the taxpayer. The Minister will have read the damning Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee interim report by now. It is time that we accelerated compensation, got closure for the sub-postmasters and ensured that it can never happen again.
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in the campaign for both his constituent and for many other sub-postmasters across the country, and I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), whom my h F mentioned, and James Arbuthnot—Lord Arbuthnot—to whom I spoke earlier this week. I have spoken to Nick Read, the chief executive of the Post Office, and officials about this because, as I was quoted as saying in The Times last week, this, of all my wide range of responsibilities, is the one area that keeps me awake at night and absolutely drives me to get resolution.
My hon. Friend asked about the 555 and our commitment. As I have said, the 555 have been pioneers in this area, and I will absolutely work at speed. I do not want this to go on a moment longer than necessary, which is why we have tried to do everything we can to short-circuit any bureaucratic processes to be able to get on and compensate everybody fairly. The 555 postmasters who secured the group litigation order exposed this whole scandal by taking the Post Office to the High Court, and they performed a massive public service by doing so. I have written to the Select Committee with details of the costs and the preparations we have made with the Treasury.
When talking about this legally complex issue, we must remember the timeline of this and the timescale with which we are working. Horizon was installed in 1999, and the prosecutions started in 2000. In 2004, Alan Bates set up the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance, and in 2009 press reports really started to look into the concerns about those prosecutions. Over this 20-year period, many different Ministers have been involved and there have even been Post Office reorganisations, but now—after this 20-year scandal, frankly—we want to make sure, at pace, that everybody, including the 555, get justice, answers and fair compensation.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for securing this important urgent question, and I really pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for all his work on this issue.
The Horizon scandal is perhaps the most devastating miscarriage of justice in British history, damaging the lives of over 700 wrongly convicted sub-postmasters and their families, and the lives of so many who have been affected but have not been convicted. I join the Minister in paying tribute to those postmasters who have been relentless in their quest for justice. As the judge-led inquiry into this scandal has just begun, we have now been hearing extremely moving and devastating testimonies. I recommend that every Member spends time listening to the accounts just to understand how widespread this injustice has been.
Last week’s very important Select Committee report shows that, 12 years on, we are still painfully far from all the sub-postmasters receiving the compensation they deserve. Sadly, 33 of them have died before receiving any recompense. My thoughts and those of the whole House will be with their loved ones.
Given the cripplingly slow pace of justice, I want to press the Government on a few issues. First, without the extraordinary efforts of the 555 litigants, much of what we know would not have come to light. The Minister expressed his sympathy, but as Labour has pushed for time and again, will he now confirm that this group will be able to claim the compensation that is due, as he has hinted, and if so, when? Secondly, a year on from the historical shortfall scheme closing—I understand that over 2,500 have applied—only 30% of claims have been processed. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to hold the Post Office to account in urgently getting through this backlog, and can he clarify the definition of “eligible” that he stated? Finally, could he provide the House with an update on how long it will be before we get closure on compensation for all those affected?
The Minister is right that we will need to learn the lessons, understand the causes and ensure that this never happens again. The devastating reality of this scandal will be felt by so many families for years. The Government have taken some of the right steps, and we do appreciate that, but justice is not happening quickly enough and it is not going far enough.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady, and I sympathise and empathise with everything she said. I know that for everybody affected, whether the 555 or those who were not prosecuted but lost money, nothing will be quick enough, and there is nothing we can do to restore up to 20 years of hurt and distress. On the 555, yes we want to ensure that those people who broke open the case and were the pioneers get full compensation. I am not yet able to outline a resolution for them, but I am working at pace within my Department, and with our legal representatives, Post Office legal representatives, and those of the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance. I hope to have news for the hon. Lady as soon as possible.
Again, the historic shortfall scheme is not moving as fast as anybody would like. The Post Office has paid the de minimis cases and the most straightforward, smaller amounts. For the rest, it is working through the early cases, which will then benchmark the value of compensation for others. That will then allow the Post Office to start rattling through these cases a lot quicker. The Post Office says that it wants this to be 95% finished by the end of the year. I want to say 100% by the end of the year, and that is the kind of timescale I am working on.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response, and for his tone. My constituent, Tracy Felstead, is due to give evidence to the inquiry on Friday. She wants people to be held to account, and so do I. We know that civil servants were non-executive directors on the board of the Post Office, and that they were principal accounting officers for UK Government Investments. We know that civil servants told Ministers to come to this place and to tell MPs that there was “nothing to see here.” Those civil servants are not on the list of the core participants giving evidence to Sir Wyn Williams. How can those civil servants be held to account by Ministers for their failure to act in this case for so many years?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she does on behalf of Tracy Felstead and others. Tracy’s case is one that I often hold up as someone who was so young that she has spent more than half her life under this absolute shadow, explaining to her children now what happened all those years ago. On civil servants, I set up an independent inquiry to get those answers, and it is right that it remains independent. I do not want anybody to feel that they can get away with this, or that they do not have to answer those questions. I will ensure, as I am sure will my hon. Friend, that Sir Wyn calls up exactly who he needs to call as the facts are uncovered, so that everybody answers without fear or favour.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on securing this urgent question, and I join him in thanking Lord Arbuthnot for his tenacious efforts over the years. I congratulate the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee on its report. It is clear that the only reason this scandal was unearthed was that 555 postmasters, including my constituent Tom Brown, took the Post Office to court. They were forced to settle because the Government and the Post Office used a tsunami of public money to defend the indefensible. The Minister and I have spoken. He knows that these people need compensation. The report recommends an independent comprehensive scheme, outside of the Post Office, and that is what we need now. I congratulate the Minister on what he has done in this area, but if the problem is the Treasury, can he not call that out now, so that we can put the fire on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure we get the funding that is needed properly to compensate these individuals? The Minister knows as well as I do that this scandal will not go away.
Paul Scully
I reiterate my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the work he has done for Tom Brown and all the postmasters. There is no single blockage in the Treasury. We are trying to work through the holistic view about where the money is coming from and how that is justified to taxpayers—as I said at the beginning, however, when taxpayers understand the scale and depth of this, they will clearly want to ensure that those postmasters get their review. We are also trying to unpick that legal settlement, which was, as he rightly describes, pushed through the Post Office under considerable pressure, considerable cost and considerable might. That will take a few days, but I want it to take days, not months—certainly not years—and I am working as quickly as I can to get that resolution. I am really hoping that I will be able to come back to the Dispatch Box and have good news for him in the next few days.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Minister may have just answered my question, but I will press him. I do not doubt the complexities and legalities, and I know how sincere he is on this issue for the brave group of postmasters who fought and were acquitted at the earlier stages. However, my constituent Nicola Arch and her family’s lives are on hold. She lost her job, and she tells me that when the Stroud newspapers covered the story, she was spat at and she lost her home. She thinks that she will have to litigate again. She is waiting. I was going to press him on a timeline, but I think he said days, not weeks or months. Will that be the case—for more information, at least—so that they can have some comfort in the knowledge that information is coming?
Paul Scully
I believe from my Twitter feed that my hon. Friend is meeting Nicola Arch tomorrow—Nicola and I have those exchanges. Again, my heart goes out to Nicola, because being spat at and stigmatised shows the extra suffering that people experience. It is not just about the convictions, tragic as they are, or the money, difficult as that is; it is about what has happened to these people in their communities as former champions of those communities. I cannot give her the timescale. As I said, I am working at pace and need to give myself a little bit of leeway, but it is days or weeks—it certainly will not be a moment longer than is necessary to put these people out of their misery and give them compensation and justice.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I am speaking in a dual role as I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices. The Minister, the APPG and I meet regularly. He has described the Horizon case as “harrowing”, but it is beyond that, and it has gone on far too long. I commend all hon. Members of this place past and present—I will not name them all—who have worked tirelessly on it. The nub of the matter is: is the Treasury really on board for all the money required to compensate for this farcical tragedy and for supporting the continuation of the Post Office network? It is disgraceful that people in Government and the civil service have known about it for so long—far too long—and almost refused to do anything about it. I do not include the Minister in that, because I know that he is working hard, but it requires more than him to work hard; the different silos of Government need to come together and completely sort it out.
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for her work on the Post Office in general as chair of the APPG. She talks about the case being harrowing, and that is why I am so determined to get it done. We have heard about Tracy Felstead and all the years of it that she has had, and frankly nothing that I say at the Dispatch Box will make her trust me because every member of authority, whether in Government, the Post Office or the judicial system, has let her and all those people down. We need to act—actions and outcomes are what matter—which is why I am so driven to ensure that we can resolve the case as quickly as possible.
The Treasury is not a blockage. Clearly, we are having conversations with the Treasury not only to ensure that we can underwrite the additional costs for the Post Office beyond what it can afford, as it has outlined in its accounts, but to give the Post Office the future that it needs. Realistically, we will not be able to get to that until we have sorted out the past. We continue to work constructively.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). They are absolutely right, and they have been long-term campaigners on the issue. Mr Speaker, I smiled to myself when you made your statement, but I understand it and support it. This Minister cares passionately about the issue, and, whatever he says, as a long-term Whitehall hand, I see the symptoms of a Minister caught between the jaws of the Treasury and Whitehall lawyers. Lawyers do not always deliver justice and the Treasury rarely does. What I will say to him is this: nobody deserves justice more than the 555. They opened up the worst miscarriage of justice in modern Government. If it helps him in his battle to get this done quickly and properly, I will say this to him: if he cannot do it, we will find a way of having this House instruct the Government to do it. Let him use that in his battle with the Treasury and the lawyers.
Paul Scully
I can quote the Francis Urquhart line back at my right hon. Friend, but any pressure will be gratefully received. The last two years of covid have been about learning to speed up Government. As someone who has been running small businesses for 25 years, I am used to making decisions, cracking on, getting on and doing things. The Government do not always work that way. We have learnt in the past two years how to do it and I fully expect it to happen in this case.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
As a relatively new Member of this place I am coming to this frankly unbelievable scandal much later than many of my colleagues. However, I recently met a former postmistress in my constituency, Alison Hall and her husband Richard, who have suffered unbelievable stress and financial hardship as a result of this scandal. As well as losing their existing business in Hightown, they were also forced to abandon plans to open a new post office in Roberttown. Does the Minister agree that alongside the dreadful personal trauma that this scandal has been for so many, and which must be urgently addressed, it has had a seriously detrimental impact on communities like mine in Batley and Spen?
Paul Scully
My heart goes out to Alison and Richard. Absolutely. Post offices offer not just economic value. Having more branches than banks and building societies put together has a social value, bringing communities together, and at the heart of that are sub-postmasters. That is why we need to give the Post Office a real future by sorting out the past.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for securing this urgent question. I know he will agree with me that the role of the whistleblower has been pivotal in highlighting the known issues with the Horizon system. This has been a devastating series of events for many people, but for constituents like mine who saw their father die in the premises of their shop without seeing his name cleared, the devastating impact has been absolutely tremendous. There is a difference between a settled sum in a civil court and compensation. People need to be adequately compensated for the traumas and the experiences they have had. They have had their names cleared, but they now need to be compensated for what has happened to them.
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does on protecting whistleblowers. As I say, I want to make sure we can get fair justice and compensation for everybody involved. That needs to go through a process and we need to get the balance right. That will be done by benchmarking people’s losses and how they have been affected. We have regular conversations both with postmasters and, importantly, their legal representatives to fully understand the harm done to them, so we can reflect that in any scheme we put forward.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for securing this urgent question and I pay tribute to the Minister, because I know he cares passionately about this issue. He came before the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and expressed himself with great candour. May I press him on the issue of fair compensation? We have heard from many Members today, and we will hear more, that the correct way to address this situation is not by fair compensation, but by full compensation for all those past losses and expenses. They have paid money back to the Post Office and they need that money back. They need their future losses recovered, their pension losses recovered, and psychiatric injury and exemplary damages for their loss of liberty. That needs to be reflected in the system. We cannot have a compensation system on the cheap. These people have to be compensated in full. Will he commit to that?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the beginning of his question. He outlines the complexity of what we need to do and what the Post Office needs to do to right this wrong. That will be reflected in conversations with legal representatives to ensure, without being able to restore the past 20 years to the people affected, we do everything we can to make sure they get full and fair compensation.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
As a former postmaster, I think I speak for everybody when I say that this Minister has done more than anybody else in his position to pursue this injustice. Last night, I was told that the community of Sheringham in my North Norfolk constituency is losing its post office and I will do everything I can to get it back for them. That shows how important it is for everybody to have postmasters and mistresses in their areas.
Compensation is one thing, but over 800 people were prosecuted and fewer than 80 have had those overturned. What pressure can my hon. Friend put on to speed up that process, and when are we going to start talking about Fujitsu and its role in this?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend brings to the House his experience of being a sub-postmaster and of the social value of the post office in his area. He is absolutely right; we have asked people to come forward to have their prosecutions overturned. Clearly, some of those people have been let down. They do not trust the Post Office and the Government, but we are trying to work through legal representatives of other organisations to encourage them to do that. We want to ensure that we can get people through this system as quickly as possible. I will make sure that I do everything I can with him and others to get this sorted out.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If the Minister really wants to borrow quotes from Francis Urquhart, I suggest to him that he might want to
“put a bit of stick about”,
because the Post Office’s handling of the historical shortfall scheme has been nothing short of another scandal in itself. I recently took part in what I can only assume was ironically titled a “good faith meeting” in which the Post Office itself was not represented. It only had a lawyer from Herbert Smith Freehills, which, I understand, is not exactly at the budget end of the market. At the end, they said to us, “Of course, if you want to take this further, you should be aware that the offer we have made could be withdrawn”. That is how the Post Office is approaching the issue. It is still the same culture that caused the problem in the first place. My more recent meeting was a bit more promising, but it is clear that anybody who has settled under that HSS has probably not had a just settlement and the Minister and his Department need to look at it.
Paul Scully
I will certainly continue to look at it. We want to encourage people to go through such things as the alternative dispute resolution so that we do not need to have prolonged cases going through the courts yet again. As I said, we want to get this sorted out quickly, but not in haste. We do not want to get it wrong so that we have to start all over again. I will certainly keep the Post Office’s feet to the fire.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
In 2008, Harjinder Butoy, who ran a post office in Sutton-in-Ashfield, was jailed for three years and four months after he was wrongly convicted of stealing over £200,000. It has taken him 14 years to clear his name. He is bankrupt, he cannot get a job and it has destroyed his life. Compensation is one thing, but when are the people responsible for this going to be brought to justice?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that question; my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) said much the same sort of thing. I set up the inquiry with Sir Wyn Williams to get to the answers on this. The prosecutions department has been keeping this in abeyance as well. It is important to be able to investigate. That will come up with the answers and, whatever those are, legal proceedings or whatever will flow from that.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The individuals concerned who have had so much damage done to them need not only compensation, but damages awarded for grievous injustice, reputational damage, emotional trauma, mental health damage, stress and the wrongful contempt from their communities. The Minister referred to the importance of post offices to their communities. What the Post Office also did as part of this process was to cynically use it to permanently close post office branches, so many communities, first, had their postmaster or mistress taken from them in dreadful circumstances and then they had their branch closed. Will he review that because an awful lot of branches were permanently closed in an awful lot of places as a result of this scandal? To reiterate comments from across the House, there needs to be a day of reckoning for those who perpetrated this dreadful injustice on these people.
Paul Scully
I want to make sure that everybody comes before the inquiry to give evidence and feels confident in doing so, so I do not want to impose my opinions at this stage about who did what; otherwise, the inquiry would not be independent. Once the answers are known, however, there will be that day of reckoning, I am sure.
On post office closures, at the moment we are exceeding the 11,500 criterion, which still stands, alongside the access criterion. It is incredibly important to have that social value that I have talked about.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
My constituent Rubbina Shaheen lost her livelihood and her home. She was wrongfully convicted of stealing £40,000 from the Post Office and served 12 months in jail in 2000. She is one of the fortunate ones who have received some compensation, but it has all gone to the lawyers she had to engage to protect her name. I back the calls across the House for a proper compensation scheme to reflect the damage that has been inflicted by a faulty computer programme. I endorse the comments of colleagues: why has Fujitsu not been held to account for the damage that it has caused to so many people?
Paul Scully
My heartfelt thoughts go out to Rubbina Shaheen and her family. That is exactly why those who were convicted had the £100,000 interim compensation: to ensure that they could go a little way towards restoring some of their losses and that, if they needed legal representation, they had those costs paid for. We are working at pace trying to achieve full compensation.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on miscarriages of justice. This is the greatest miscarriage of justice that anyone can remember in this country. Most of us have had such tragic cases, and we have worked across parties as Members of Parliament doing our job. I have found the people I have helped pathetically grateful for MPs of all sorts standing up in this House and working on an all-party basis to get this right. Justice and compensation still need to be delivered fast—the faster, the better.
Paul Scully
I agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said. What he says about individual MPs doing amazing work goes to the heart of the early part of the problem, when all the sub-postmasters thought that it was just them. They did not realise that so many people—hundreds across the country—were suffering the same issue because of a faulty bit of software. It was only when they came together, when pressure built, when there was coverage in the media and when other champions raised the issue in this place and elsewhere that it burst open with the 555. Now we need to make sure that we bring it to a proper conclusion.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome what the Minister has said today. To be honest, previous Ministers have failed miserably to grasp the situation; I welcome the fact that since his appointment we have made rapid progress. I had a couple in my surgery who were elated a few months ago because they thought that real progress was being made, but were deflated when they came a few weeks ago. They are an elderly couple. When convictions are quashed, surely compensation can follow pretty quickly—a quashed conviction is clear evidence to all that they are innocent. They should get at least an interim payment. What can the Minister do to assist in those circumstances?
Paul Scully
As I say, we have made good progress on interim payments. If my hon. Friend’s constituents have not applied for or received their interim compensation of up to £100,000, will he please let me know? I will certainly look into it, because that is exactly why those payments are there: as a stepping stone to the final sums.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the fortitude and strength of character of my constituent Della Ryan, the former sub-postmistress of Dukinfield post office in my constituency. Compensation is one important side of the equation, but another is ensuring that natural justice is not just seen to be done, but done. The hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) posed an important question about the involvement of civil servants in that justice over a long period. What assurances can the Minister give the House that there can be no hiding places at all for those involved in perpetuating this injustice?
Paul Scully
I ask the hon. Gentleman to pass on my heartfelt sympathies to Della for what she has been through.
This is exactly why we set up the inquiry. My Department has said from the beginning that we will work with the inquiry in the fullest sense to ensure that we offer all the information, support and evidence that Sir Wyn wants, and I have received an assurance to the same effect from Fujitsu and the Post Office itself. I am determined that that process will be carried out.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank Members on both sides of the House, and indeed the Minister, for their efforts. As for the 555, lives have been ruined. Now lives have been lost; people die. The compensation must be delivered quickly. Why can people not have access to interim payments? That is the least we could provide. I accept that there are the legal challenges that the Minister mentioned, but this is something that we could and absolutely should do now.
As for the independence of the scheme, Herbert Smith Freehills acted for the Post Office in the litigation to reduce compensation, so how can it be right that it now acts with the Post Office in delivering compensation? That cannot be right, especially given that Herbert Smith Freehills oversaw the Lloyds Bank compensation scheme that was judged independently to be unable to deliver fair and reasonable outcomes to the victims, so it all had to be done again. If we do not put independent oversight into this—with a High Court judge—it will all have to be done again as well. We must act now to change the way in which this is working.
Paul Scully
That is why the Post Office has an independent panel to oversee the process. So there is independence. On the interim payments for the 555, they are there for overturned convictions. That is a legal issue that I am working through at the moment because, in the eyes of the law, it was a full and final settlement. That is what I have to tackle at speed because the 555 will understandably not understand this and want to crack on now; they want to receive the compensation. I am determined to ensure that that happens.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I concur with those who have thanked the Minister in particular for his genuine interest and commitment, which we all recognise.
The report produced by the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee makes difficult reading for those who took their cases to court and are worse off than those who did not. Constituents of mine who are affected have been asking, where is the equality for all that was promised? Their reputations are shattered and they are financially bereft. Will the Minister direct his team to right this wrong as quickly as possible?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and for his ongoing interest. I am pleased to say that, as the first week of evidence to his inquiry finishes, Sir Wyn will be travelling around the country. He will go to Cardiff, and also to Belfast. It is important for him to hear from people close to where they live, so that they can feel comfortable and confident about giving evidence. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: we need to crack on with this and secure the equality that he seeks.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Sadly, some of those who have suffered so much are no longer alive to see justice served. Will the Minister do all in his power to ensure that the full inquiry reports back as soon as possible, so that those who are accountable can finally be held to account?
Paul Scully
I can assure my hon. Friend of that. People have died because this has taken so long, and other people have died because they have committed suicide. It has been horrendous, and that is why we are determined to ensure that we can get this sorted out as soon as possible.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Soon after I was elected, I was contacted by a constituent whose father had been wrongly caught up in this scandal. He lost everything: his livelihood, and, more important to him, his reputation. He sadly passed away before he had the opportunity to clear his name, and he will never see the benefits of this compensation. Have the Government any plans to offer personal, individual apologies to the family members of postmasters who are no longer with us?
Paul Scully
I cannot give a particular commitment, but what I can say is that the Prime Minister is personally exercised by this, which is why we met some postmasters last summer. I was talking to him about the matter just yesterday. He is personally involved, and he gives me the kick that I need in order to give other people a kick to ensure that we can get everyone the apology, the compensation and the justice that they need.
Mr Speaker
That is the end of the statement—the urgent question, actually. It should have been a statement.
Speaker’s Statement
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the business questions, I wish to say something about the conduct of Prime Minister’s questions. PMQs are an important opportunity for the House to hold the Prime Minister to account. It is important that they are conducted according to the rules of the House, that we have an opportunity for as many Members to question the Prime Minister as possible in the given time, and that the Prime Minister and those asking him questions can be heard. I want to address three issues that were raised yesterday and are relevant to that.
First, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) made criticisms of the conduct of the right hon. Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer). Those types of criticisms may only be made if the House is considering a substantive motion that deals with them. They may not be made as sideswipes during questions or during debates on other matters. That is to avoid our question times and debates descending into partisan accusations and counter-accusations. I know that the hon. Member for Bradford East understands the issue and that he has apologised to the right hon. Member for Sherwood.
Secondly, I want to address the issue of the length of questions and answers. I wish to call as many Members as possible. Sometimes we have over-long answers, and I often have to interrupt Ministers when that is the case, but sometimes the questions themselves are far too long. They are meant to be questions, not statements followed by a question, and I hope that Members will consider others rather than themselves. We saw a little bit of that yesterday from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Considering that a certain amount of time is made available to the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the Scottish National party, the remaining time is limited and I have to make sure it is used as effectively and fairly as possible. If Members take too long with their questions, they take away the opportunity for other Members to ask questions. When a Member is asking an over-lengthy question, I try to give them an opportunity to come to an end before stopping them, as I did yesterday. There is nothing personal about that, and I routinely have to call Members on all sides to account for the length of questions. I plead with all Members to keep questions focused and brief.
Finally, I want to deal with a related issue. It is not always easy to ask short, snappy questions when other Members are shouting and barracking. There was far too much of that yesterday, with a disproportionate amount of it coming from the Government Benches, and particularly from those at the side of the Chair, which made it very hard to hear what was being said. I hope that those on the Government Benches will take this on board, and in particular that the Chief Whip will deal with some of his crowd at the side of the Chair. If Members persist in making excessive noise and barracking colleagues, they will be asked to leave the Chamber.
We want PMQs to be a showcase for this House and for our democracy, so I say to all hon. and right hon. Members: please respect the rules of the House about how we refer to each other; make questions and answers concise; and behave with dignity in a way that allows questions and answers to be heard.
Business of the House
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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 (Mark Spencer)
I would be delighted to. The business for the week commencing 28 February will include:
Monday 28 February—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Tuesday 1 March—Remaining stages of the Professional Qualifications Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions Bill, followed by a motion to approve the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation etc.) (Revocation) (England) Regulations 2022 (SI, 2022, No. 161).
Wednesday 2 March—Opposition day (14th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 3 March—General debate on Welsh affairs. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 4 March—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 7 March will include:
Monday 7 March—General debate on the Ukraine, followed by remaining stages of the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill [Lords].
Mark Spencer
A general debate on Ukraine. I thank the hon. Member for his assistance.
Tuesday 8 March—Opposition day (15th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 9 March—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 10 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, followed by a general debate on International Women’s Day. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 11 March—The House will not be sitting.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your reminder about conduct.
The Leader of the House said that there will be a debate on Ukraine on 7 March. Seriously, whatever happens in the next few days, I ask him to consider whether it could be moved up the Order Paper, because it seems an awfully long way away. I appreciate that things might change rapidly over the next few days.
We have woken up to the grim but unfortunately predictable news that Russia has mounted a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The Government must urgently reinforce our NATO allies and take the hardest possible sanctions against all those linked to Putin. The influence of Russian money must be extricated from the UK. The House agreed to our Opposition day motion yesterday, so will the Leader of the House confirm when the Foreign Secretary will be implementing, in full, the recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report? The report was published nearly two years ago, and it really should not take a war to clean up. The Opposition stand ready to work together on this in a bipartisan way.
Economic crime now runs to an estimated £100 billion a year, a huge cost to taxpayers. Earlier this month, the Treasury Committee concluded that the Government are still not prioritising economic crime. It said that, since the Government launched their economic crime plan two years ago,
“economic crime has not reduced but has instead continued on an upward trend.”
Again, this is relevant to the current situation. Will the Leader of the House press his Treasury colleagues to report on actions to stem the flow of dirty money and corruption?
The Prime Minister commented yesterday that the long-promised economic crime Bill will make an appearance, but not until the next Session. I am afraid that rather proves the Treasury Committee’s point. We all want to tackle economic crime, and we will work with the Government to pass this vital and urgent Bill, so will the Leader of the House find time to introduce it in this Session?
The Government first promised a registration of overseas entities Bill five years ago—it is a similar theme—to begin tackling corruption and money laundering. We need transparency, and it is crucial that overseas companies make the same level of disclosures on their beneficiaries as UK companies do. We have had prelegislative scrutiny, but I am afraid to say—again, this is a pattern—there is no Bill. The Minister for Security and Borders could not say yesterday when the Bill will be introduced, so will the Leader of the House please help?
It has been clear for years that Companies House has not done the job it needs to do. Unfortunately, urgent reform is needed so that UK companies can no longer be used as laundromats for dirty money. There are countless examples of UK-registered companies with fake directors.
Not only does a weak Companies House enable international economic fraud, but its inadequate powers, resources and remit enable domestic fraud, too. This is part of the cause of the extensive covid-19 business support fraud, and the Government have written off at least £4.3 billion of taxpayers’ money. That money went straight into the hands of fraudsters, so can we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on when reforms to Companies House will be brought forward? Can we also have a statement from the Chancellor on why the Government are continuing with this policy?
Finally, we need to take urgent steps to close the loophole that allows foreign money to be donated to UK political parties. Yesterday the Prime Minister appeared to refuse to commit to this. Labour’s amendments to the Elections Bill would prevent the use of shell companies to hide the true source of donations to political parties by foreign actors, and they would prevent non-residents, including people who live in tax havens to avoid paying tax here, from donating to political parties. Will the Leader of the House please explain why we would not want to make it harder for foreign money and donors to infiltrate UK politics? Will he please find time to persuade the Prime Minister of the value of Labour’s amendments to the Elections Bill?
Today of all days, the Government must send a strong, unequivocal message to the world that the UK is not a haven for corrupt money, especially not from Russia. We stand ready to work with the Government on this. They must act, and they must act now.
Mark Spencer
It is a pleasure to present business questions in conjunction with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I hear the hon. Lady’s plea about 7 March. Clearly, there will be a debate on Ukraine on 7 March, but that will not be the only opportunity for the House to debate these important issues. Just this week, we have had not only Defence questions, but two statements on Ukraine; three hours of debate on Russia sanctions; Prime Minister’s questions, where the Leader of the Opposition raised the matter; and an Opposition day debate on Russian aggression. We are also going to have a Backbench Business debate this afternoon on the UK’s relationship with Russia and China. The House has debated this matter an awful lot this week and there will be more opportunities coming forward, so I think she will support us in that matter. Clearly, this is a huge problem.
The hon. Lady mentioned economic crime, and it is worth pointing out that already we have published this landmark economic crime plan in 2019, increased the number of investigations into corrupt elites, established a new economic crime centre, passed the Criminal Finances Act 2017, and become the first major economy in the world to implement a public register of beneficial ownership of domestic companies. We are going to go further and continue to push on. We will bring forward the economic crime Bill. I know that she wants that as soon as possible and says she wants it in this Session, not the next. My constituents and hers do not necessarily understand the concept of this Session or the next Session; they just want this very soon, and the next Session is coming very soon, so that Bill will be coming forward very quickly.
Turning to covid procurement matters, it is very easy to look back through the prism of hindsight and criticise decisions made at the beginning of a very intense pandemic. This country was trying to procure as much PPE as possible in a very challenging market. The global market was trying to secure as much PPE as it could and we had to make very rapid decisions. Mistakes will have been made, but the Opposition were screaming like mad at the time for the Government to get on and buy PPE from any source they could procure it from. It is rough to look back through the prism of hindsight and criticise those decisions, which were made in the best interests of the country at that moment. I think history will judge the Government’s performance on covid pretty well; when we consider all the big decisions made at the time by the Prime Minister—on going into lockdown, on delivering the vaccine, and on delivering the booster programme and getting us out of covid faster than any other country in the G7—we see a record to be enormously proud of.
Finally, the hon. Lady mentioned foreign donations to political parties. The policy that someone has to be a UK-registered voter in order to be able to donate to a political party is right, but the answer is sunlight—it is transparency. So anyone who donates to a political party should register that donation and we should all be able to view that.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
May I start by welcoming the Leader of the House to his place? Will he find time for a debate on the scope of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991? Currently, it does not recognise dog-on-dog attacks as an offence unless the dog under attack is an assistance dog. Consequently, owners of dangerous dogs are not prosecuted unless another human fears injury or is injured. My constituent’s beloved dog Millie was recently mauled to death and no action has been taken against the owner of the dog involved.
Mark Spencer
Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me welcome my hon. Friend to her place; it is a pleasure to see her at business questions. She carries on a great tradition from her predecessor, who loved business questions and was a regular at this session. I understand that there are existing powers to allow dog-on-dog attacks to be tackled effectively, including through the issue of a community protection notice and the prosecution of offences under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and the Dogs Act 1871. It is for the Crown Prosecution Service to assess on a case-by-case basis whether to proceed with a prosecution under the legislation. However, my hon. Friend asks for a debate, and I hope that she will take her request to the Backbench Business Committee or to Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions on 10 March, where she may wish to ask Ministers directly.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I think the whole world shook just a little on its axis this morning as all our worst fears were realised with the invasion of Ukraine. Even though it has been fully expected, the full horror of what has happened this morning has been quite difficult to comprehend and process. We are grateful for the Prime Minister’s statement, which I understand will be at 5 o’clock today, but will the Leader of the House assure us that it will be the first of many Prime Minister’s statements and that he will promise to keep the House updated on any progress or development?
I welcome the Leader of the House’s words about being flexible with the business, but we need to hear more about that. I am sure he will agree with me and the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), that any legislation required to make the toughest of sanctions must take priority over any other business announced for next week.
We are hoping to hear that the Prime Minister will at last take the firm, decisive action that we have all been calling for and that is now required. Will the Leader of the House tell us what type of legislation might be required for the toughest of sanctions? How long might it take to get through the House? The minimalist measures are proving to be totally inadequate and ineffective; we now need to sanction to the max and end the City of London being Putin’s financial laundromat of choice.
We also need a statement about Russian propaganda. We need to prevent Russian propaganda from being pumped 24/7 into the houses of the UK. The Prime Minister has said it would require an intervention from Ofcom to take RT off air, but does he not now agree that that is a technicality the time of which has passed? I should also say to the Leader of the House that RT contributor Alex Salmond is as much a member of the SNP as the UK Independence party’s Neil Hamilton is a member of his Conservative party. Such petty point scoring should now come to an end, because the Ukrainian people want to see the unity in this House.
This a dark day for Ukraine and for the whole of Europe, but if the Leader of the House brings forward the decisive, hard measures, he will get our support.
Mark Spencer
I genuinely thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. The uniting of this House in its objection to Russian aggression is fundamental to our response. A unified House means that we can present ourselves, along with our international colleagues, in a way that sends a strong message to the Russian President.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Government and the Prime Minister have kept the House up to speed, and that will continue to happen, not least at 5 o’clock this afternoon when the Prime Minister will come to the House.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to assisting with legislation; the speed of the progress of legislation is assisted by cross-party and cross-House unity. I am sure that, together, we can send strong messages and try to assist the people of Ukraine at this very dark hour.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who is the Minister responsible for water, visited Montgomeryshire and stood with me at Clywedog reservoir, noticing that it was quite full, with three storms heading our way. I am unhappy to report to the House that the River Vyrnwy and then the River Severn hit record, historic peaks. Will the Leader of the House facilitate a debate on cross-border water policy? Most water does not respect the border between England and Wales, and the Environment Agency and Natural Resources Wales must work together on flood prevention as well as drought prevention.
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the necessity of cross-border co-operation: it is vital that colleagues in the Welsh Assembly co-operate with the Environment Agency and our friends in DEFRA. My hon. Friend is an assiduous campaigner on this matter and I am sure he will find a way to raise it in the House regularly.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business, particularly the Welsh affairs debate on 3 March and the International Women’s Day debate on 10 March. May I give him advance notice that we have an application for a debate on the Irish in Britain on St Patrick’s Day, 17 March? That is already on the stocks.
Members will have noticed in the statement that the Leader of the House referred to estimates day, the third allotted day. The House will be asked to agree all the outstanding estimates at 7 pm that day, but applications for the subjects of those debates need to be sent to the Backbench Business Committee by no later than 2.30 pm tomorrow. In particular, if Select Committee Chairs want the spending of the Department that they oversee to be the subject of those debates, they should please submit their applications by tomorrow.
The Backbench Business Committee has only eight members—eight hard-working members who are very diligent in their activities. Unusually, though, the Committee has a quorum of four. At the moment, we are two members down because they have been promoted by Her Majesty’s Government to be Parliamentary Private Secretaries and we have one Member on outstanding long leave, so we currently have five active members and a quorum of four, which makes life a little difficult. Will the Leader of the House look again at the following options: increasing the size of the Committee; reducing the quorum of the Committee; or getting his party to appoint some members to the Committee?
Mark Spencer
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s plea for St Patrick’s Day, which I am sure will be considered in due course. It is worth recognising that a number of my Conservative colleagues will have seen that two members of his Committee have been promoted—that is the route to promotion, clearly—and I am sure there will be a clamour to join his Committee to get on the promotion ladder in due course.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Yesterday, the Government announced that both Hyndburn and Rossendale have been identified as two of the 109 places for levelling up for culture, meaning that they are a priority for additional investment for our fantastic arts, culture and heritage across Hyndburn and Haslingden. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is exactly what we mean by levelling up and putting Hyndburn and Haslingden back on the map? Will he allow a debate in Government time on how we make sure that places such as Hyndburn and east Lancashire are at the heart of the Government’s levelling-up agenda?
Mark Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. It is vital that we recognise the enormous amount of culture that exists not just in London, which is a great city recognised internationally, but across the country, and she is right to highlight that. She should pursue either an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate to make sure that she can spread that message to as many people as possible.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Can we have a debate on the operation of tier 1 visas, following on from some of the reports in The Sun and other newspapers today? I have hold of a leaked document from 2019 from the Home Office, which says in relation to Mr Abramovich:
“As part of HMG’s Russia strategy aimed at targeting illicit finance and malign activity, Abramovich remains of interest to HMG due to his links to the Russian state and his public association with corrupt activity and practices. An example of this is Abramovich admitting in court proceedings that he paid for political influence. Therefore, HMG is focused on ensuring individuals linked to illicit finance and malign activity are unable to base themselves in the UK and will use the relevant tools at its disposal (including immigration powers) to prevent this.”
That was nearly three years ago, and yet remarkably little has been done. Surely Mr Abramovich should no longer be able to own a football club in this country. Surely we should be looking at seizing some of his assets, including his £152 million home, and making sure that other people who have had tier 1 visas like this are not engaged in malign activity in the UK.
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the statutory instrument passed in the House this week, there is the opportunity for the Government to take very strong action against high-profile Russian individuals who are of concern. He will be aware that the Home Secretary will be at this Dispatch Box next Monday for Home Office questions, and I am sure that he will be able to challenge her directly.
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, Southport was the recipient of a £38.5 million town deal to drive jobs, growth and investment. One of these investments is the £75 million Southport surf cove. Yet Labour-controlled Sefton Council is embarking on another consultation about some more unwanted road-blocking cycle lanes. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State outlining that jobs, growth and investment should not be impeded by unwanted vanity projects such as cycle lanes in areas that have been given town deal money by this Government?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for Southport and has secured millions of pounds for his constituents. It is right that he continues to hold the local council to account for how it spends that money. The potential for jobs, growth and investment is a key driver of the towns fund, which is a crucial part of the Government’s commitment to levelling up. I am sure his constituents will recognise that he is standing up for their best interests.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Last month, the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill containing powers to extend the line to Manchester was published and presented to this House. Hidden in it is a proposal to sever the Metrolink line to Ashton-under-Lyne, which runs through my constituency. The line would be mothballed and HS2 would run bus services instead. Can the Leader of the House indicate when Second Reading will be and can he, through his good offices, put in a request to the Transport Secretary to meet the three Tameside MPs to try to find a solution before then?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The business will be announced in the usual way and he will be updated at that moment. On 17 March, however, there is the opportunity for Transport questions; I am sure he will be present in the Chamber and able to ask the Secretary of State for Transport directly what his constituents want to hear.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Through the Derwent valley mills world heritage site, Derbyshire’s industrial heritage has been rightly recognised by UNESCO for its international importance. That brings value and visitors to Derbyshire, but I am concerned about the state of disrepair the historic mills are in. The owner has had them for more than 20 years and spent virtually nothing on them. I showed the mills to the Heritage Minister during recess, but can we have a debate on preserving our nation’s historic world heritage sites and their value to local communities?
Mark Spencer
It is important that we protect our nation’s cultural heritage for everyone to enjoy. Certainly those in Derbyshire, like the rest of the 33 designated world heritage sites across the UK, are some of the finest examples and are recognised at a global level by UNESCO. Derwent valley mills, like many other sites, has faced challenges in striking a balance and reconciling heritage and conservation with economic development. I strongly encourage all those responsible for conservation of the site to work in partnership and take their obligations under world heritage conservation seriously.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
Last night, I attended a town hall meeting at St Anselm’s church in Kennington in my constituency to speak about the aftermath of and the momentum built around COP26. With the relentless news cycle at the moment demanding our attention in so many areas, it is vital that we stay focused on this important issue. Will the Leader of the House please relay that to his colleagues in government and ensure that there is regular and sufficient time to consider the climate emergency?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady is right to highlight our commitment to dealing with the environment and progressing with our COP commitments. COP questions will be next Thursday, and I am sure she will be present in the Chamber to ask about that. However, I compliment her on ensuring that her constituents are engaged in this process and informed at the same time.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Opposition Members quite rightly like to remind us that we should be careful about the sources of money coming to this country. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should gently remind the Opposition that we should also consider moneys from China, and that maybe we should have a wider debate about where moneys come from?
Mark Spencer
I think it is important that we have a system of political donations that the general public have confidence in and that is open and transparent. Anyone seeking to make a donation to a political party should register that and should be publicly accountable for that donation.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
This week, the all-party parliamentary group on ending the need for food banks, which I co-chair, and the APPG on debt and personal finance, chaired by the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), met to discuss research from the Trussell Trust showing that nearly half of all people referred to a food bank in its network owed money to the Department for Work and Pensions. The Cabinet Office carried out a consultation on fairness in Government debt management in the summer of 2020, but 18 months later the webpage says the responses are still being analysed. In the meantime, thousands of people have been pushed into destitution. Can the Leader of the House update the House on when that consultation will report and commit to giving the House time to debate this vital issue?
Mark Spencer
I am sure there will be many opportunities to debate such issues. The Government’s record on the cost of living is a good one. I know that the hon. Lady will hold Government Ministers to account and I am sure she will be present at DWP questions to put her questions directly to the Secretary of State.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I am always cautious about what I read in the papers, but if the Government have reached a conclusion on extending the covid regulation on the receipt of pills for abortion at home, can I gently remind the Leader of the House that in a parliamentary democracy it is better to have the debate before the decision?
Mark Spencer
I think I am confident in saying that the Department of Health has issued a statement this morning setting out its extension of the scheme for six months. This is a temporary extension. However, I know my right hon. Friend will continue to raise the matter in this House.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Further to that question, this morning’s written ministerial statement clearly says that it is a six-month extension and then we will return to the original legislation around abortion. I understand that that is a retrograde step by the Government. The alliance of organisations that are opposed to tele-medicine for abortion services being removed include the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health, the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of General Practitioners, Mumsnet and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The written ministerial statement says that the policy will be kept under review. Could we have a debate on how that review will take place and how we can feed into it so that the right decision can be made for women accessing essential healthcare services?
Mark Spencer
I recognise the right hon. Lady’s contribution on this matter and her interest in it. She is a vociferous campaigner on that side of the argument. She will understand the sensitivities of this discussion and the desire of the House to have a say on the situation. As she says, there is a temporary extension of six months. There will be Health questions in the House next Tuesday, when it would be worth raising the matter with the Secretary of State for Health.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)
Last night’s “Panorama” programme was harrowing viewing about the loss and harm of babies under Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust care going back decades. Much of this was revealed through the Ockenden inquiry, which was launched by the then Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) at the request and through the tenacity of my then constituents Rhiannon Davies and Richard Stanton, who featured in the programme and suffered their own tragedy that they wished to see no other parents go through. The programme alleged that a culture existed promoting normal birth practices so that the trust had the lowest rate of C-section interventions in the country. Those who raised patient safety concerns were not taken sufficiently seriously and were apparently subject to bullying. I know that the trust has taken significant steps to improve its practices and acted on all recommendations that Donna Ockenden produced in her initial report in December 2020, since when about 4,000 babies have been delivered safely under the trust’s care. Her final report is expected later this month. Will the Leader of the House ensure that a full response is made to the conclusions of that report in this House so that the Government take heed of the lessons to be learned not just in SATH but across maternity services throughout the NHS?
Mark Spencer
I know that my right hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on this matter, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan). The Ockenden review is assessing the quality of investigations relating to cases of newborn, infant and maternal harm at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. Donna Ockenden is finalising her second report, as he said, and it is due to be published in March 2022—very shortly. We have Health questions next Tuesday, and I am sure the Department will want to update the House on this matter at the earliest opportunity.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Yesterday one of my constituents, Anish Subramaniam, visited Parliament in his role as the youth ambassador for ONE, which, along with ActionAid, was making the case for vaccine equity. Will the Leader of the House make time for Parliament to debate how we can do more to ensure that everyone, everywhere in the world, receives a covid-19 vaccine?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. We have a proud record in the United Kingdom of supporting the world in getting vaccinated. I think we have done more than 1 billion doses of vaccine through COVAX, and it is important that we continue to do more. She is right to highlight the fact that in dealing with a global pandemic, we need to make sure that the world—the globe—is vaccinated, and I acknowledge her raising this matter.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Further to the question from my neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), may I ask that the Minister who comes to the House to make the statement on the Ockenden review be the Secretary of State? I am in awe of the women who have come forward to that review, and it would be appropriate that it is the Secretary of State who makes the statement to the House.
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute once again to the work that my hon. Friend has done in raising this issue on many occasions. Obviously I cannot commit the Secretary of State to personally make that statement, if one is forthcoming, but I know that the Department will be keen to put it on the record and to give colleagues the opportunity to ask questions and challenge the response.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I inform the Leader of the House that coming into Parliament this week, I was approached by a large number of women waving placards? They were the loveliest people. They were campaigning on women teachers’ pensions, and I promised that I would call for a debate on pensions in the education sector: in the university sector, in the early years sector and across the sector. Many people—particularly women, but it is not entirely women—are very worried about their pensions and the future.
This is the first chance I have had to say how much we miss Sir Richard Shepherd. He was a great parliamentarian and a great friend of mine. He used to be my pair when we all could pair. He was at the London School of Economics with me, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), Frank Dobson and Mick Jagger. It was an illustrious year.
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Sir Richard Shepherd, the former Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. He was a great man and will be sadly missed. The hon. Gentleman can do better than ask for a debate; he could apply for one. He could apply for a BackBench Business debate or an Adjournment debate. He knows those routes are available to him, and I wish him luck in the ballot.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
In recent months, branches of HSBC and Barclays have closed on Brent Street in Hendon, in addition to the closure of branches of Lloyds and NatWest at Hendon Central. All four branches have taken with them the free-to-use ATMs. Will a Treasury Minister come to the House to make a statement to say what representations the Government are making to the banks to ensure that my constituents can access their money without having to pay a fee?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that it is difficult, certainly in rural communities, to get access to cash through cash machines. It will be Treasury questions on 15 March, and I am sure he will be able to raise the matter there. There are other avenues available to him, too: perhaps he would like to apply for an Adjournment debate or even a Westminster Hall debate on the matter.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Inflation is due to reach an eye-watering 7%, yet this week the Government have recommended a maximum pay rise of 3% for those NHS workers who risked their lives for us throughout the pandemic. Can we have an urgent debate on why this Government hold our indispensable NHS workforce in such contempt?
Mark Spencer
This Government do not hold our NHS workers in contempt. We value the contribution that those people make to our society. It is not just NHS workers, however; people up and down this country are contributing to the economy and working very hard, and the Government have to strike the right balance between making sure we reward those people who certainly deserve a pay increase and supporting those who are vulnerable with the cost of living as it increases. We recognise the challenge that inflation brings, but there are enormous global pressures on the economy at this time, and the Government are doing their best to manage those.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I never thought that I would wake up one morning to find that a democratic independent European country had been invaded by a bigger country. I am grateful for the Prime Minister coming to the House so often to keep us updated, and I know that he is coming this evening, but could the Leader of the House arrange for tomorrow’s business to be changed so that we can have a full-scale debate on Ukraine and what the Prime Minister says in his statement? He will undoubtedly bring forward further sanctions and maybe even break off diplomatic relations with Russia. I am very much in favour of private Members’ business, but surely we should change tomorrow’s business and have private Members’ business next Friday.
Mark Spencer
As my hon. Friend will recognise, there have been a number of occasions this week to discuss a rapidly changing situation. I hear his plea. There will be an opportunity for an urgent question to be submitted tomorrow. The Prime Minister will update the House at 5 pm, and of course that will not be the last occasion on which the House is updated on the situation in Ukraine. We will continue to keep the House informed as the situation develops.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
Can we have a debate about why Vnesheconombank was not sanctioned this week? As the Leader will know, its deputy governor was appointed by Vladimir Putin in 1999. On 29 April 2016, that deputy governor was given $8 million by a sanctioned individual, Suleiman Kerimov. Shortly thereafter, Lubov Chernukhin—wife of Vladimir—transferred £1.5 million to the Conservative party. Missing from the sanctions list this week was that deputy governor’s bank. The Government will want to avoid any suspicion that they were paid to look the other way, and I do not want to apply for an unexplained wealth order against the Conservative party, so can we have a debate to clear that up once and for all?
Mark Spencer
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. He will be aware that the statutory instrument that was introduced this week allows for high-net-worth individuals associated with the Russian regime to be sanctioned. I know that my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are looking at a number of high-wealth individuals who will be subject to that sanctions regime. We have announced some names already and I am sure that others are being looked at as we speak.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The communities of Ynys Môn are facing a new and real threat from the constant battering of the weather. The 2.4 km Victorian breakwater, which is the longest breakwater in Europe and which protects Holyhead and the UK’s second-busiest ro-ro port, is in urgent need of large-scale refurbishment. Will the Leader of the House commit to working with me, the port authority Stena Line and the Welsh Government to support that vital refurbishment? Will he pack his wellies, accept my invitation to visit Ynys Môn and walk along the longest breakwater in Europe?
Mark Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for the question. I pay tribute to the community of Ynys Môn for its resilience. Holyhead is an important gateway to the UK and we note the value of its ongoing operations locally and nationally. As a devolved policy area, that is primarily an issue for the Welsh Government, but I know that the maritime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), would be happy to meet her and the other parties involved to understand the issues further.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
We awoke this morning to a very dark day and a barrage of distressing images and videos showing the devastating aftermath of Russia bombing Ukraine in an unprovoked and unjustifiable attack. Those images also show Ukrainian citizens fleeing for their lives. I am proud to say that they would be welcome in Wales, which is a nation of sanctuary for refugees. Can we have a statement on what the Government will do to help the 2.9 million people already in need of humanitarian aid and those who will be displaced if Russia continues this abhorrent power grab?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady is right to highlight that issue. It is important to respond with our international colleagues, such as the EU, the US and those across the world, to ensure that we have an international response. The UK has a proud record of welcoming refugees and of supporting people in those circumstances. She is right to highlight that and I am sure that, working with our international colleagues, we can assist those affected by the humanitarian disaster that will ensue from Russian aggression.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Following my question to the Prime Minister on his statement on Ukraine earlier in the week, can we have an urgent statement from a Government Minister on the impact of the cost of living on people up and down the country? Following the Russian invasion, oil prices have gone up to more than $100 a barrel and energy prices are rocketing, which will have an impact on millions of people across the country and make petrol and energy even more unaffordable.
Mark Spencer
My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to this issue. Clearly, the conflict in Ukraine between Russia and Ukraine will have an impact not only on global fuel prices, but on global food prices. Ukraine is an enormous supplier of food—wheat and bread—and this is something the UK Government will monitor and of course assist with, through our work to try to lessen the burden of the cost of living.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
A desperate—truly desperate—constituent has just contacted my constituency office as his wife and daughters are still in Ukraine. They have no visas, but the consulate has now closed and moved closer to western Ukraine. We have tried contacting the Home Office this morning, but there are no updates. He could get them out using an organisation called Project Dynamo—that is not absolutely certain, but it is a possibility—but they are likely to be turned back when they arrive here as they have no visas. Could the Leader of the House please help me? Could he give me advice, and could we have a statement immediately—urgently—from the Home Office about what is going to happen to people such as my constituent’s family?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and the direct answer is yes, we can assist. I will put her in contact with the right people at the Foreign Office, who will be able to assist her and her constituents.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then, the Leader of the House will be aware of the ongoing issues that we have at Ashfield District Council. The latest shenanigans is that the environmental health department is investigating a private rented home where the landlord is actually the council leader. I think any investigation should be done independently. Does my right hon. Friend think there is enough in the levelling-up White Paper to tackle rogue landlords in this situation, or do we need a debate in this House?
Mark Spencer
Now then—[Laughter]—there has never been a better campaigner for Ashfield than my hon. Friend. I have to say that he is campaigning for his constituents, and it is disappointing to hear about the standards of the rented accommodation he describes. Everyone has the right to a safe and habitable home, and all social housing should meet the required standards. Landlords should be carrying out planned maintenance and responsive repairs to keep their homes well maintained. My hon. Friend is right to draw this important matter to the attention of the House, and it is important that council leaders practise what they preach.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Next Monday, 28 February, is international Rare Disease Day, and yesterday I met representatives of patient groups at our Rare Disease Day UK reception. It is important that we ensure that people with rare diseases receive the diagnosis and the treatment that they need, so can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of implementing the rare diseases framework?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Fortunately, rare diseases are rare, but she is right to highlight the fact that people who suffer from rare diseases are often late to be diagnosed, and that the symptoms are often not spotted or associated with the disease they have. She is right to highlight that, and I think she should apply for an Adjournment debate, but she will have an opportunity to ask Health Ministers about it at the next Health questions.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
Residents of Rother Valley are becoming more and more concerned about the safety of the Kingsforth Lane-Cumwell Lane road that links Thurcroft and Hellaby, and many of my constituents refuse to travel on the route as it is far too dangerous. Over the last couple of years, several people have lost their lives on it and, tragically, most recently—on 11 February—a 30-year-old man was killed. Despite calls from me and local councillor Simon Ball, Rotherham council seems to be dragging its heels on implementing much-needed safety measures such as speed cameras, barriers and lowering the speed limit. What steps can the Government take to get Rotherham council to act swiftly to ensure that no more lives are needlessly lost?
Mark Spencer
I am sorry to hear about my hon. Friend’s constituent. He raises an extremely serious matter, and I would be happy to pass on his concerns to Ministers in the Department for Transport. Local traffic authorities have responsibility for making decisions about the roads in their care, including setting local speed limits and introducing traffic-calming measures such as speed cameras and speed-activated warning signs.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
This week a much beloved actress, Anna Karen, who lived in my constituency, tragically died in a fire not far from my constituency office. Anna was well renowned for her role on the series “On the Buses”, and its spinoff film, which was the biggest British box office hit of 1971. She also appeared on “EastEnders” between 1996 and 2017. She was much beloved of my constituents, many of whom will be heartbroken to hear this tragic news. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate about the contribution of soap operas to the British world, and to pay tribute to London Fire Brigade, who tackled the awful blaze so heroically earlier this week?
Mark Spencer
I read that news in the paper this morning, and I was very sorry to hear about the actress who played Olive in “On the Buses”. It highlights the importance of ensuring that people have an active and working smoke alarm, and I say to anybody who is watching this sitting of Parliament today, that once they have finished watching, they should go to their smoke alarm, press the button, and check that the battery is working and operational, as that could genuinely save their life. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that the London Fire Brigade is brave in tackling such fires, and it is sad that we have lost a great actress from the United Kingdom.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
On this dark day for Ukraine, Europe and the world, may I join colleagues throughout the House in expressing our solidarity with the people of Ukraine at this dreadful time, and in condemning this abhorrent invasion by Russia? My thoughts and prayers go out especially to the civilians in Ukraine who face terrifying and awful choices as they try to protect their families. I note the comments by the Leader of the House about the upcoming business, but will he reassure colleagues that there will be sufficient parliamentary time to consider the UK’s international actions and also, importantly, our domestic resilience preparations?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend will recognise that the Prime Minister will be in the Chamber at 5 pm, and that will be his first opportunity to question our right hon. Friend. I have not announced further business other than a debate on Ukraine on 7 March, but I think the Government’s record of giving Members many opportunities this week to discuss this matter will be an indication of how we will proceed going forward.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
If we are to make sanctions stick and deal with dirty money being laundered through the City of London, enforcement and regulatory bodies need proper resourcing. Companies House says that it often cannot take on Russian oligarchs, because they are very wealthy and use lawyers that it cannot access because it does not have the resources. Similarly, the mining company Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation has taken the Serious Fraud Office to court for having the audacity to investigate it. It makes in a week what the SFO spends in an entire year. May we have a statement on the resources given to those enforcement and regulatory bodies, so that we can impose these sanctions and deal with the dirty money being laundered through the City of London?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that matter. The statutory instrument that we passed earlier this week is very robust and allows for strong action to be taken against those individuals. It gives the Government enormous power to tackle them, but it is not the end of the process. I am sure there is more that we can do, and the Prime Minister will update the House at 5 pm today on further matters and measures that will be taken.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
My constituents have woken up to news of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and I put on record both their and my own full support for and solidarity with the Ukrainian people. This conflict will impact on global energy prices. Given that the energy price cap rise will be devastating for those on the lowest incomes, who will have to choose whether to heat their homes or feed themselves and their families, many will be fearing further pressure on their bills. May we have an urgent statement to assure my constituents in Dundee West that there will be no further raising of the energy price cap, and that an emergency financial package to support the most vulnerable will be introduced?
Mark Spencer
Among the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Dundee, as with my constituents and those of Members throughout the House, there is recognition of the challenge that we face due to global energy prices. I encourage him to look at what the Government have done to try to help families with their household bills, including the £150 council tax rebate for those in bands A to D, the £500 million household support fund, the maintaining of the energy price cap to protect consumers from the cost spike, the £140 rebate and seasonal cold weather payments—the list of assistance that the Government give to people goes on and on. We recognise the challenges, and we are working to ensure that they are mitigated.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
This week, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and I, as co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on tackling loneliness and connected communities, were delighted to host a meeting in Parliament with the Danish Minister for social affairs and senior citizens to discuss our two nations’ strategies for tackling loneliness. Strong, well connected and resilient communities have an enormous role to play in tackling loneliness and isolation as well as in promoting community cohesion, transforming our towns, preventing extremism and supporting health and wellbeing. For me, building such communities should be a fundamental part of the levelling-up agenda and of covid recovery. Will the Leader of the House therefore grant Government time to discuss this important topic and outline how the Government are working across Departments to build well connected, resilient and vibrant communities throughout the UK?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Member is right to highlight that. We often do not understand or appreciate the impact of loneliness until we meet or know someone suffering from a lack of contact with others. The work that she and other Members across the House are doing to build that resilience in our communities is worthy of praise. I congratulate her on her work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There have been many debates and statements on the genocide against Rohingya and other minority groups, but that has not stopped the Myanmar military from carrying out atrocities. Will the Leader of the House encourage a Minister or Secretary of State to make a statement about the International Court of Justice case assessing whether Myanmar’s military carried out genocide against Rohingya and other minority groups?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Member will have the opportunity at Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions on 8 March to put that to the Foreign Secretary. I know that he is a long-time campaigner on the rights of many suppressed communities across the world as well as an experienced parliamentarian, so he will know of many other routes by which he can raise the matter, and I suspect that he will do so.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Government say that they want to be a world leader on animal welfare. However, despite a ban on the production of animal fur products and foie gras in the UK, there is, as of yet, no ban on imports of these horrifically cruel and completely unnecessary products. Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out his opposition to importing those products into the UK? Will he introduce legislation ensuring that such imports, which allow the UK simply to outsource its animal cruelty, are banned as soon as possible?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady is right to highlight that issue. In a former life I was a UK farmer and I am enormously proud of the United Kingdom’s fantastic record on animal welfare. We have made manifesto commitments to introduce such legislation and I see no reason why that will not be forthcoming. Indeed, in the business today I announced the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill, which is an example of such legislation being introduced by the Government.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
An unspeakable human tragedy is unfolding in front of our eyes. We must stand with the people of Ukraine. Colleagues in the other place have scrapped tomorrow’s business to give a full day’s debate on the urgent business of Ukraine. May I reflect views from across the House and insist that, to unleash the UK’s most punitive sanctions on Russia, the Leader of the House immediately announces a special sitting of Parliament tomorrow to accelerate legislation against the Russian regime? That legislation must include the register of beneficial ownership Bill, which we know is ready to go, and sanction measures that enable us to go after all of Putin’s associates as well as disrupt all business currently benefiting the Putin regime.
Mark Spencer
I can do better than tomorrow; I can do five o’clock tonight, when the Prime Minister will stand at the Dispatch Box to update the House. The hon. Member should be here to question the Prime Minister and get the reassurances that she seeks. It is worth putting on record that that will be the eighth moment this week alone that the House has had the opportunity to debate the crisis in Ukraine. I see no reason why that level of activity would diminish in the days and weeks to come.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
My constituents in Newcastle, like those of Members across the House, are horrified to see ordinary working Ukrainian people waking to Putin’s invading forces. Generous Geordies will want to help. Can we have a debate on how local communities such as mine in Newcastle can help and support Ukrainian people and how the Government can root out Russia’s dirty money and provide clean, good money for humanitarian support?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the generosity of the British people. In such serious times and in past conflicts, the UK has always stepped up to support the most vulnerable in the challenges that they face. I commend her for drawing attention to it.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
My team work hard to do their best for my constituents, but it is frustrating when Departments take too long to respond. The Home Office in particular is a repeat offender, with some cases hitting the six-month mark before we get a reply. Will the Leader of the House encourage his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that Departments meet their service level agreement targets?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Member is right to highlight that. As a constituency MP, I have also suffered with long times before I get a decent reply. If she is waiting on a specific matter that she wants to raise with a Department, I would be more than happy to take that up on her behalf and try to assist her.
Royal Assent
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Finance Act 2022
Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022
Dormant Assets Act 2022
Charities Act 2022.
Higher Education Reform
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
It is hard to make a statement without reflecting on the tragic events overnight with the criminal invasion of Ukraine, a democratic free country, by Putin. My family lived through and experienced a despotic dictator in Saddam Hussein who lashed out at his neighbours. It never ends well for them, because ultimately democracy, truth and justice prevail. I am certain that they will prevail again.
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about how the Government are safeguarding the future of our universities, putting them on a sustainable path for taxpayers and students. Our universities—indeed, our entire higher education system—are some of the most innovative, important institutions in our country. Four of our great institutions are ranked in the global top 10 list. They are a true powerhouse of innovation and research—they even played a leading role in the development of the covid vaccine—and they will play a significant role in the prosperity of our country for years to come.
We recognise that education at all levels plays a role in learners’ personal fulfilment and pursuit of knowledge, whether that is in the humanities or in science and engineering as in my case, and in higher or further education. As we move past the pandemic and start a new chapter in our country’s history, now is the time to ensure that our universities are on a solid footing and sustainable ground for generations to come. To do so, I am announcing the launch of two consultations, which, taken together, outline our proposals for the higher education sector and secure a better deal for the student and the taxpayer. The consultations will deliver solutions to the problems that Sir Philip Augar’s independent panel examined in such depth and so thoroughly. The higher education policy statement and reform consultation, and the lifelong loan entitlement consultation, address the pivotal recommendations made by the panel, to whom I am indebted for their excellent work.
As Members across the House know, one of the Augar panel’s core recommendations was the provision of a lifelong learning loan allowance. That is why today I am launching a consultation on the lifelong loan entitlement, to seek views from the sector and the public on the shape and scope of this important policy. Under this new and flexible skills system, people will be provided with a loan entitlement equivalent to four years of post-18 education to use over their lifetime, whether in modules or as a whole. They will be able to train, retrain and upskill as needed in response to changing skills needs, sectors and employment patterns. It will be a powerful and innovative vehicle in levelling up, providing real opportunities for everyone and giving businesses the skilled workforce they need to thrive and grow.
In light of the new entitlement, it is now more important than ever that our higher education funding system is fair for both the student and the taxpayer. The bottom line is this: if we fail to act, we can expect just 23% of students who enter full-time higher education next year to repay the full cost of their loan. That is a challenge that our reforms will address. We are maintaining the repayment threshold at its current level for current plan 2 graduates until 2025—those who took out loans after 2012. We are also reducing the repayment threshold to £25,000 and extending the loan repayment period from 30 years to 40 years for students starting their studies in autumn 2023. That will make the system fairer for students and taxpayers. Graduates will see the benefit of their degree all their earning life, so it is only right and fair that they continue to contribute. We expect that as a result of our changes the proportion of students paying back their loan in full will increase to just over half. Our significant regulatory reform work, which we are taking forward with the Office for Students, alongside the measures we are consulting on, will drive up student outcomes and help students to access high-value employment that benefits them and the economy.
Without those interventions, the student loan book will balloon to nearly half a trillion pounds—half a trillion pounds—by 2043. I have thought very carefully about fairness for students when pulling together this balanced package of reforms. I am pleased to say that we have delivered on our manifesto commitment to address high interest rates, by reducing interest rates for students starting next year to RPI plus 0%, ensuring that graduates, under these terms, will not have to repay more than they have borrowed in real terms. New students starting in the academic year September 2023 are expected to borrow an average of £39,300. I have seen some spurious headlines today. In today’s prices, they will borrow £39,300.
We forecast that the average graduate will repay £25,300 in today’s prices over the course of their loan. How does that compare with the current system? Under the current system, £19,500 is what they repay. I hope that offers colleagues clarity, rather than claptrap headlines. I want to be clear: no student will repay more than they took out in today’s prices. Let me repeat that: no student will repay more than they took out in today’s prices. We are also continuing to freeze tuition fees for all students for a further two years. The combination of those measures, the reduction in interest rates and the two-year freeze, means a student entering a three-year course next autumn could see their debt reduced by up to £6,500 at the point at which they become eligible to repay. When the total seven-year freeze is taken into account, that totals up to £11,500 less debt at the point at which they become eligible to repay.
Alongside that, we are investing almost £900 million in our fantastic higher education system over the next three years. That includes the largest increase in government funding for the higher education sector to support students and teaching in over a decade. An additional £750 million will be invested in high quality teaching and facilities, including in science and engineering, in subjects that support the NHS, and in degree apprenticeships. There are those who say, “Why aren’t you making higher education free?” To those people I would say, “Look at our counterparts in Scotland.” Over the last five years, universities in England have been able to cover their teaching costs more successfully than their Scottish peers, because of our more sustainable system of tuition fees and grants.
As part of our plans to reform the higher education sector, we are building on our work with the Office for Students to set minimum expectations around completion rates and progression to graduate jobs or further study. We are seeking views on policies that will help to ensure that every student has confidence that they are on a high-quality course that leads to good outcomes, a good job and ensuring that the growth in our university sector is focused on high-quality provision wherever they are in the country. We are consulting on controlling student numbers and introducing a minimum eligibility requirement to access student finance. I want to make sure that every student who goes to university will be able to reap its true benefits and not feel that they have been mis-sold and saddled with debt after completing their course.
It is really important that we have the conversation about the need for minimum eligibility requirements to ensure students are sufficiently prepared to benefit from higher education before they enter university. For example, that could be a return to the old requirement of two E grades at A-level, or a pass in GCSE English and maths. Of course, there will have to be exemptions for some groups, including mature students and part-time learners, on which we are also consulting. Young people should not be pushed into university if they are not ready. After our proposed exemptions that we are consulting on are applied, less than 1% of total entrants would be affected by a minimum eligibility requirement set at grade 4 at GCSE, but we will listen and be open-minded.
Student number controls would limit the uncontrolled growth of provision that does not lead to good outcomes or good jobs. Incentivising the expansion of provision with the best outcomes for students, society and the economy has to be our goal. The proposals are about advancing real social mobility. That means shifting from a focus on simply getting students in the door counting the inputs, to ensuring they complete their course and secure a good outcome after they graduate—being obsessed about outputs and outcomes.
As with everything my Department does, my officials and I have also considered carefully how we can support disadvantaged students with this package of reforms. Access to higher education must be dependent on attainment and ability to succeed, and not inhibited by a student’s background. Our proposals to reduce fees for foundation years would make them more affordable for students who need a second chance to enter higher education. Our flagship national scholarship programme, in which we will be investing up to £75 million, will help to support high-achieving young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to achieve their dream, regardless of course or university.
Finally, to complement the lifelong loan entitlement, we are rolling out new approved higher technical qualifications. Those will be high-quality, job-facing alternatives to degrees, approved to deliver the skills that employers need. From academic year 2023-24, we will extend student finance access to those qualifications and allow learners studying them part-time to access maintenance loans, as they can with degrees. That will address financial barriers for learners and move towards the flexibility that we envisage through the lifelong loan entitlement. Those two policies will be vital to bringing further and higher education much closer together, just as the independent panel recommended.
I believe that these reforms are fit for a dynamic and growing economy. The reality is that, apart from buying somewhere to live, taking on a student loan can be one of the biggest financial commitments that any young person can make. I am confident that they will set the sector up for success in the years to come and keep our student finance system fair and sustainable for students and the taxpayer. I have been continually impressed by the resilience demonstrated by students throughout the adversity of this pandemic. We owe it to this generation, and generations to come, to ensure that education remains open to anyone with the ability and desire to benefit from it. I commend this statement to the House.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance sight of his statement and I join him in his comments about the events that we see unfolding in Ukraine.
Given that 1,000 days have passed since May 2019, Members might be forgiven for forgetting the recommendations of the Augar review and the context in which it was launched. Concerns about fairness and affordability for students seem to have been lost entirely today. As the then Conservative Prime Minister outlined in launching the report:
“removing maintenance grants from the least well-off students has not worked”.
There has been little sign of any real concern for less well-off students this week. Instead, we have seen the Government’s total lack of urgency about any matter except their own self-preservation; their lack of ambition for our young people; their lack of ambition for our universities; and ultimately, their lack of ambition for our country. This is a Government whose approach to some of the biggest issues facing our universities is simply to kick the can down the road. They are freezing fees, not changing them, and tying interest rates to measures that they intend to phase out, and there is a deafening silence on living costs for students.
Time and again, this Conservative Government reach for the pockets of working people, with council tax put up twice, income tax thresholds frozen, a national insurance hike and now falling repayment thresholds that will see working people paying more for longer. This Government, who are responsible for a growing failure to support young people to achieve at GCSE, now want to shut people out of university rather than raising standards in schools, slamming the door on opportunity and ambition. As for the lifelong learning loan, which, as the Secretary of State noted, was a core recommendation of the review, why are we waiting even longer for yet another consultation when that was first promised as part of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill?
This is not the approach that we need. It will not fit our country to face the challenges of tomorrow. These announcements hold back our universities, our young people and our country. A generation of children has gone through education under Conservative Governments since 2010. Let us consider what their experience has been: real-terms cuts to funding per pupil; secondary school classes at their largest for a generation; hundreds of thousands more children eligible for free school meals; school building repairs cancelled and postponed; hundreds of days lost to the pandemic; botched exam arrangements; and a historic failure to invest in the children’s recovery plan that the Government’s expert recommended and which our children desperately need. As those children now look ahead to university and the years that follow, they will see higher costs than ever before, stretching almost to retirement. This is a generation of children let down from primary school right the way through to university.
Those decisions are about choices and priorities, but for this Government, our children and young people are an afterthought—an opportunity for a Treasury saving, not the future that we create together. It need not be like that. In Wales, the Labour Government have chosen to focus on supporting students to succeed. They chose to provide extra help on the cost of living and to widen access—two themes missing almost entirely from the statement that we heard.
Today’s response, for which we have waited all this time, represents a failure by the Government and, sadly, by the Secretary of State. I have a great deal of respect for him and I know how seriously he takes his role, but what we have is 1,000 days of complacency ending in a victory for the Chancellor, not a victory for Britain. There was a failure last autumn to persuade the Treasury that higher education should be central to the economy and success of our country. There has been a failure to rise to the challenges that our universities face and to design a solution, and there was a failure, this spring, to navigate the chaos of a Downing Street paralysed by scandal.
The people who will feel the pain of this failure and that defeat are not in the Chamber today. They are teaching and learning in our universities. They are sitting in school dreaming of the better future that they deserve and which Labour believes we can achieve. Labour sees their future and our universities very differently from the Government. We believe in matching the ambition of our young people, in enabling university staff to support young people and our country to succeed, and in creating thriving universities at the heart of our towns and cities.
The tragedy today is that the Secretary of State knows full well that this is not good enough, but he cannot persuade his Treasury colleagues otherwise. Unlike this Government, the next Labour Government will treat universities not as a political battleground, but as a public good, central to the success of our country.
Nadhim Zahawi
I respectfully remind the hon. Lady that someone from a disadvantaged background today is 80% more likely to go to university than they were a decade ago. Let me go further and remind her that, in 2016, the coalition Government introduced the new apprenticeship standards and made sure that businesses were at the heart of setting those standards, because it is not politicians or experts in Whitehall who can decide what sectors of the economy will change and re-emerge.
There is a common theme—a strategy—running through all our reforms, from the apprenticeship standards, with more than 5 million people entering apprenticeships, to the skills White Paper, the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, which we just voted on and sent to the other place, and now our HE reforms. What if someone had said to me when I was choosing those new standards as the apprenticeships tsar that there would come a Prime Minister and a Chancellor who would back adults at any point in their life to upskill or reskill, or that we would say to someone in Aberdeen oil and gas who wanted to go and work in offshore wind, “We will stand behind you” with funding of £37,000, the equivalent of four years of education? That is what this Government are delivering and I am proud to be the son of a country that gives real opportunity to people from all backgrounds.
The hon. Lady mentioned the issue of excluding those who may not do so well in GCSEs. That is not what the consultation is about. It is about making sure that there are routes for those people, so that if they do not do well in their maths or English GCSEs, but do well in their A-levels, university is still open to them. However, a different route—an apprenticeship degree—is also open to them, as well as other vocational qualifications. Bringing FE and HE together was central to the Augar panel’s recommendations and that is what we are doing.
Finally, I respectfully remind the hon. Lady, who talked about our financial settlement, that my Department has a settlement of £86 billion for 2024, with £4.7 billion going into schools, £3.8 billion going into skills and £900 million—the highest uplift in a decade—going into our universities. That is our plan; she has no plan.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I broadly welcome the Government’s proposals. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and particularly to the Minister for Higher and Further Education, who I know has worked hard on them; I am very grateful for the briefing that she gave me.
I welcome the cut in interest rates, which I think will make the system fairer. I have always felt it unfair that working-class people in my constituency of Harlow and across the country have a huge tax burden to pay for people to go to university and get better-paid jobs. The Government are right to rebalance that; I just urge caution on the maths and English GCSE issue. I know that the Secretary of State has qualified it, but there is a better option: just as apprentices do functional skills while doing their apprenticeships, why not make students who have difficulties with maths and English do refresher courses while they have the chance to go to university?
A more fundamental issue is that our education system narrows too early from the age of 16. I urge the Government to consider introducing an international baccalaureate system, as is used in 150 other countries. It could include vocational and technical education, but also English and maths: we would then not face the problem of people not being able to do maths and English by the time they get to university.
I really welcome the extra £900 million investment. I urge the Secretary of State to allocate a significant proportion—perhaps £500 million—to degree apprenticeships, which would mean an extra 34,000 apprentices at higher level. That would solve the student finance problem, because students would earn while they learn and would meet not only their own skills needs, but those of the country. They would be almost guaranteed a job, because 90% get a job at the end. That is the way forward. I know that the Secretary of State wants a 10% target, but a target over the next 10 years for 50% of students to do degree apprenticeships would transform skills in our country and transform the lives of those students.
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the support for our proposals from my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee on Education. I will absolutely be listening—this is a real consultation—to his proposals and concerns about the maths and English GCSEs. I completely agree that the concept of someone having to pay back more than they have borrowed is unfair; addressing that is a manifesto commitment, so we are delivering it. I am proud that we are touching 20,000 students on degree apprenticeships. I want to go much further than that and have set a target of 10%.
On the international baccalaureate, my right hon. Friend will know, because he has known me for a very long time, that I am about delivery and outcomes. I have the Department focused on skills, schools and family. Sometimes if you try to hug the world, you don’t do anything well enough, but I hear what he says. Let me deliver what I can while I have the privilege of leading the Department and then go back and do some more afterwards.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement; I recognise that a lot is going on this morning and that not everything has happened on the normal timeline, so I appreciate it. I add my voice to those expressing solidarity with the Ukrainian people as the horrific events unfold.
The UK Government are presiding over a cost of living crisis, yet they are pursuing policy after policy such as the national insurance hike, the universal credit cut, the mandatory energy loan—even for students without a permanent address, who will have to pay it back despite not necessarily getting it this year—and now this. The UK Government’s decision to create a lifelong graduate tax by increasing the number of years in which graduates pay back will affect only those who are not well off enough to pay it back already. So the tax will hit hardest those who are already struggling to make ends meet.
If new students will on average pay £6,000 more back, where is the money going to come from? Has the Secretary of State done any assessment of the effect on those people’s pension pots as they approach retirement age, given that £6,000 less disposable income will be available to them? If half the students will be paying back the loan for almost their entire lifetime, it makes little difference to them what the total value of the loan is. The changes proposed benefit those who are already paying back, not those who have no hope of doing so.
In Scotland we believe in free education. We believe that it is important, and we will keep tuition free. I make no apologies for that position; it is the right thing to do. How can the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues who paid nothing to attend university justify burdening those who go to university now with lifelong debt?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s remarks and her solidarity on the situation in Ukraine.
I respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady because, when we look at the overall reforms, we should focus on the outcomes for students. That is what the reforms do. The lifelong learning entitlement, the work that we have done on skills, the ability to do a T-level as a fusion between an apprenticeship and an A-level—there are different paths to achieving a great career as an adult.
Non-graduates continue to pay—at the moment, all taxpayers fund higher education in England at 41p in the pound. We do not think that that is fair or equitable. As former students reach 50 or 51 years old at the 30-year repayment stage, they are coming to their peak ability to earn, so it is only fair that they be able to pay back the loan that they have taken out to give them the opportunity of a great job.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I must say that I particularly welcome the Secretary of State’s opening statement about Ukraine. If this country has one institution that speaks for liberality, openness of vision, and conversation across cultures and across parts of our nation, it is the university. His statement at the beginning was absolutely right, and I welcome it.
I hugely welcome the measures that the Secretary of State set out. I congratulate him and the Minister for Higher and Further Education on their work, particularly its focus on quality and inclusiveness together. I can tell them both from a Herefordshire perspective that if someone is coming out of a career serving Her Majesty in the Army or the special forces, the chance to go back and learn as a mature student and pick up a lifelong learning entitlement is of inestimable value. We should massively welcome it across the Chamber.
I also hugely welcome the combination of HE and FE. Skills-based higher education is absolutely vital. As for this conception among the Opposition that there is some lack of ambition, nothing could be further—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Please could we have the question?
Jesse Norman
Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker—in my exuberance, I was enjoying that. Could I ask the Secretary of State to talk just a little more about how the package will work and how it will meet the twin goals of quality and inclusiveness, which are so central to our future development as a nation?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support for the package. He is absolutely right to cite those who come out of their time serving their country with the opportunity to feel that their Government will stand behind them for the equivalent of a four-year degree course. Crucially, they can pull it down in modules, which speaks to the dynamic high-skills, high-productivity economy. That will make a difference. On his point about inclusion, I know that he has been a great champion of the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering in his constituency. That innovation in our HE sector is equally important. I see it as a priority in our levelling-up agenda.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Will Members please go straight to their question, with no preamble?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
My only preamble, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that every Member who has spoken so far has had free higher education, including me, the Secretary of State and you, I believe. Anyone in their right mind knows that this is an area that we should look at—of course we should, so I am glad that it is open to discussion. I have a vested interest: in a former life I was a university academic. Indeed, I taught you at university, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Sheerman
Obviously not very well.
I am also a visiting professor and have a long-term interest in this area, and I have worked with the Secretary of State before. I am worried about some of the unintended consequences of this. I am worried about the long-term impact on many, many people’s lives of higher tax burdens. I am not thinking of the high-fliers, such as those who go into high finance and merchant banking; I am thinking of the core of our skills, the people who became teachers, doctors, nurses and social workers. May I ask him to make this inclusive and, as far as possible, to secure all-party agreement on some of the aspects? As for lifelong skills, many people have tried it but no one has really cracked it. Please value FE as well as HE.
Mr Deputy Speaker
That was completely not what I asked Members to do—bad man.
Nadhim Zahawi
I think I can say that, on this topic, the hon. Gentleman is the voice of reason on the Labour Benches. As he said, I have worked with him, and I know that he has been a great supporter of some of these thinking on this in his work with a think-tank. We are consulting with an open mind to bring people together across parties, and I make that offer to my opposite number as well. Let us try to take the yah-boo politics out of this and get it right, because it is a big moment when we are able to truly integrate FE and HE. And I do not hold it against the hon. Gentleman that he educated you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I welcome this announcement, and I understand that Buckinghamshire New University does as well. I welcome the interest rate reduction, but may I ask whether the lowering of the threshold for people to start paying will apply retrospectively to those who have long since graduated? Buckinghamshire New University has advised me that the freezing of the tuition fee cap means, overall, a real-terms reduction in funding compared to the 2012 level. Will my right hon. Friend consider additional ways in which universities can earn income, such as expanding the number of international students who can come here?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for these proposals. I can confirm that the lowering of the threshold will not be retrospective. The £900 million will of course make a difference to the HE sector, and that has been welcomed across the sector. We are very ambitious in our targets for international students. We set a target of 600,000 by 2030, and we have just smashed it: we have reached a total of 605,000, and I hope we can continue to beat that target in years to come.
Chris Bryant
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not mind that you were taught by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
I am concerned about academics, because working in academia is pretty grinding at the moment. Academics are trying to run a business, trying to make the sums add up every year, trying to recruit the right students and the best students, and trying to meet all sorts of different quotas, while also trying to get on with their research. What in this package will really make the life of an academic an attractive one?
Nadhim Zahawi
I hope that our £900 million investment in the higher education sector will send a strong message about our backing for it. The Augar panel recommended that we bring down the fees, but we did not choose to take on that recommendation. I think that academics are doing an excellent job, and I am very grateful to them. I am pleased to see them making sure that students are given the quality of HE that they deserve by returning to face-to-face education.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
I am grateful to the universities Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), for the assurance that she gave me when we chatted this morning, but there are still a lot of anxious graduates in my constituency and across the country who fear that they will be hit in their pockets by a reduction in graduate repayment thresholds. Can the Secretary of State confirm once again that that will not hit current graduates?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Given the world that we are in now, given the threats that we face and the opportunities that we want to seize, why would any Government make education harder to access, particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds? Let me give just one example. The number of students with special educational needs and those on free school meals—as I was—who are attaining GCSE maths and English is falling under this Government. Why should they be excluded from higher education?
Nadhim Zahawi
The simple answer is that they are not; quite the opposite. If the hon. Lady looks at the Government’s track record, she will see that someone from a disadvantaged background is 80% more likely to go to university than was the case a decade ago. We are consulting on how best to deliver the outcomes. If we become obsessed with the outcome of a great education, a great career or embarking on further study, that is the right thing to do, and we will achieve what we all want to see, which is disadvantaged young people getting the education they need. This package includes £75 million that is focused precisely on disadvantaged pupils who need additional help to get that degree. As the Prime Minister has said, talent is evenly spread in our country; opportunity is not.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I tell my constituents that the best investment they can ever make is in themselves, and they can do that by going to university. I urge the Secretary of State not to fall for the rhetoric about people not being able to afford to go to university. It is possible to gain employment part time, or even full time in some cases, so it can be done. May I push him further on the issue of value for money for students? I would have liked to see university tuition fees go down, as proposed in the recommendations, and I would certainly like to see a service level agreement to provide students with a level of teaching, tuition and instruction that they have not been given during the pandemic. Perhaps, now that university vice-chancellors are receiving such high salaries, we could think about money going back to the students.
Nadhim Zahawi
The most valuable resource on this earth is the human resource, and our investment in the skills agenda, in our schools and, of course, in our families will mean that our HE sector is also able to deliver great outcomes for young people. My hon. Friend and I may disagree on this, but in real terms the amount of money going into universities is going down because of the freezing of fees. He raised an important point about the return to face-to-face education post pandemic. I urge all those brilliant academics to ensure that they deliver quality and value for money to the students who are taking out loans in order to gain great careers in the future.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I am afraid that the Secretary of State has been trounced by the Treasury. Students will pay more, universities will get less, social mobility will be capped, and when it comes to student repayments, those on lower and middle earnings will actually be disadvantaged. There is a further knock-on effect for universities in terms of research and development, which, as we know, is cross-subsidised. The Government are already struggling to reach their 2.4% R&D target. Presumably the Secretary of State has carried out an impact assessment, so will he publish it?
Nadhim Zahawi
It has been published, with the consultation. I disagree, respectfully, with the hon. Gentleman. The Government are focused on levelling the playing field through the lifelong learning entitlement, and by ensuring that university courses are of the highest quality and that drop-out rates fall and completion rates increase, and of course those career paths are there. Ultimately, if we are obsessed with outcomes, we will deliver a much better and much fairer system for all students throughout the country.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I warmly welcome the lifelong loans, and the funding reforms, however difficult they may be, are infinitely preferable to an increase in fees or interest rates, but as the consultation proceeds, will the Government look closely at the impact on women and, if necessary, take some mitigating actions?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Raising fees or interest rates would have been hugely unfair and debilitating. The consultation is a true consultation in the sense that we want to get this right and I am willing to work with anyone who wants to join us on this journey to deliver great outcomes for all students in our country.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
On entry requirements, the Secretary of State said that he would listen and be open minded, and I fully support getting the best possible results for kids in their GCSEs. Back in 1990 when I sat GCSEs, I struggled with maths. I resat and still struggled to get a C—I kept getting a D, for some reason—but I still went on to further education and from there to higher education where I secured a distinction in finance, accountancy and managerial economics. Not bad for a kid who could not get a GCSE in maths. Can I urge the Secretary of State to tread carefully and ensure that he does not pull up the ladder of opportunity from kids like me in the future?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point and I congratulate him on his achievements. Having gone from being a kid who could not speak a word of English to standing here as Secretary of State for Education, I understand what it is like to fight quite hard to achieve. He makes the important point that we have to look at this really carefully. This option on the GCSE in English and maths is only one option that we are considering. As he suggests, there will be some students who not do well in GCSE but do better at A-level. I repeat that I am truly in listening mode on this. I want to get this right.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend. There is clearly a temptation for universities to attract young people who are not prepared to do university courses, and indeed do not have the qualifications, just to get the money from the students, and then they fail them at the end. Research shows that many people are unaware of the opportunities for apprenticeships and other further education. Will my right hon. Friend agree to invest more money in creating greater awareness and career guidance, rather than shovelling people straight into university when it may not be the best course for them?
Nadhim Zahawi
That is exactly what the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill is doing. I do not think he is in his place any longer, but the Chair of the Education Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), is pushing us even further on those interactions between students and businesses and the opportunity of apprenticeships, and on doing more to ensure that teachers have the tools to enable them to share with their students the opportunity of an apprenticeship or a T-level as well as an A-level.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and I sat together on the Business Committee scrutinising the Conservative funding system, which he now describes as unsustainable. He will recall that some of us argued that at the time. A review was clearly needed, but he has been very selective in adopting its recommendations. The Augar review stated strongly that these sorts of changes to loans must be accompanied by the introduction of maintenance grants of at least £3,000 for disadvantaged students, which he has ignored, and that any reduction in tuition fees—which is what a freeze is, particularly at this time—should be matched by an increase in teaching grants across all subjects, not the selective additional resource that he has talked about. As the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) and others have pointed out, this plan cuts university resources and transfers massive debt from the Treasury to graduates. Is the Secretary of State not effectively making students pay more for less?
Nadhim Zahawi
I remember our time on the Business Committee when Lord Browne made the initial proposals and we scrutinised them. It is only right that one is able to go back and refine the system and get it to work sustainably, and that is exactly what we are doing in this case. On disadvantaged students, the investment of £75 million in scholarships will make a huge difference. But also, when the hon. Gentleman and I sat on that Select Committee, there was no lifelong loan entitlement where students had a different path to gaining those skills and that career path to university. It is only right that we get the balance right between students and the taxpayer.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
On behalf of the many thousands of Scots studying at English universities and of the many parents of Scots currently at university in England, I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for Higher and Further Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), for engaging with those of us who had concerns about how the Augar report, the review and the announcement today were proceeding. I specifically welcome the abolition of interest rates above inflation and the extension of the freeze on maximum tuition fees, but there will be those who are worried about the lowering of the repayment threshold. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that in this country and under this Government it will always be about ability and never about background when determining someone’s access to some of the best educational establishments in the world?
Nadhim Zahawi
That is absolutely right. I could not have put it any better.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
It is estimated that 4,000 Muslim young people every year choose with a heavy heart not to enter higher education because of the Islamic ban on interest. Nine years ago, David Cameron promised a system of alternative student finance to overcome that problem. We were told there would be a decision on that in this statement today. Does the Secretary of State plan to honour the promise made by the leader of his party to Muslim young people?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for that important question. It is only sensible that we align the future delivery of alternative student finance with these major reforms to ensure fair treatment for all students.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
In Burnley and Padiham we have a brilliant further education college, Burnley College, and a brilliant university, the University of Central Lancashire. It is really important that young people know the choices available to them and make the right choice for them on where they study and what they study when they get there. Can I encourage the Secretary of State, as part of looking at the synergy between the two, to work with careers advisers to ensure that we really bed that in, so that young people of 16, 17 and 18, looking at that next opportunity, can have all the information in front of them?
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Skills and Post-16 Education Bill that we are putting through at the moment will go even further in bringing the system much closer together. Let us look at what we have done with the investment in the institute of technology, which involves real collaboration between the university, colleges and business to create those opportunities and moments of inspiration for young people who will end up in a great career and with a wholesome and happy adulthood.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I understand that an impact assessment has been produced on the changes to the repayment of loans. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what the impact of those changes will be for young women who come from less well-off backgrounds?
Nadhim Zahawi
The really important thing to remind the right hon. Lady is that no student will pay more than they have borrowed. That is the most powerful message we can send out to anyone considering higher education.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that these reforms will prioritise the long-term benefits of high-value employment and ensure that university courses are giving students the skills and the knowledge they need to fulfil their potential? Recognising that you asked for no long preambles, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will make my postamble very short. It will be no surprise to the Secretary of State that this is exactly the philosophy behind MK:U. It is about getting the digital skills and the STEM skills needed by businesses in Milton Keynes so that we can future-proof our economy.
Nadhim Zahawi
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The work that MK:U is doing is exactly the sort of innovation that we need, in the same way that NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering—and others are doing as well. This is part of a long-term strategy. We began with the apprenticeship standards and reforms to ensure that businesses were embedded in the co-creation of our skills landscape. Skills are part of FE and HE, integrated together to deliver great careers and great outcomes for young people and the economy.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Today’s announcement could severely undermine the creative courses in higher education. The Government’s figures on this are always skewed, because they do not reflect graduates who become self-employed. We know that 47% of those who go into the creative industries are self-employed. What will the Secretary of State do to protect the creative courses that lead to high-value jobs in the creative industries? If he is in listening mode, will he listen to the vice-chancellor of Bath Spa University, who has been raising her concerns about this for a long time?
Nadhim Zahawi
As part of our £900 million investment, we will look at how we continue to support our brilliant creative industries, but it is not the only way to support them through our higher education reforms. I visited Pinewood Shepperton studios a few weeks ago, which is about to deliver 3.5 million square feet of studio and creative space to be used for many decades to come, and it has already been taken by the likes of Netflix, Amazon and Disney. They have been recruiting kickstarters and apprentices, and they are doing a brilliant job. I recommend that the hon. Lady visits to see the incredible enthusiasm of businesses and education institutions for working together.
Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)
As the Universities Minister who oversaw the publication of the Augar review 1,001 days ago, I welcome the Government’s considered response and the Secretary of State’s marked change of tone and attitude towards higher education, which is much appreciated by the sector.
Minimum entry requirements have now shifted to become minimum eligibility requirements, but perhaps the Secretary of State will consider minimum exit requirements. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said, universities would welcome the opportunity to take young students who, like the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), do not have a maths GCSE and to work with them on their functional skills. If it is about outcomes, we should tell universities that it is their responsibility to deliver the basic functional skills of GCSE English and maths as part of their degree programmes.
Nadhim Zahawi
I commend my right hon. Friend for his excellent work on the Augar panel. He is a passionate advocate for the sector.
With your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, I remind the House that, of every four international students, the United States take two, the United Kingdom takes one and the rest of the world shares one. That is how successful our higher education institutions are and have been. My right hon. Friend raises an important point, and this is a real consultation. I will take on board his suggestions and take a proper look at them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Many of my constituents in Strangford and people across Northern Ireland attend universities here on the mainland to pursue a career in health. Has consideration been given to helping our health service by waiving fees and giving bursaries to those studying severely understaffed medical disciplines such as optometry, where cataract removal waiting lists are up to three years, and orthopaedics, where the waiting list for hip replacements is up to five years? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Department for Education will work with the Department of Health and Social Care for the betterment of all throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman will know that we already work very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure we hit our target of 50,000 more nurses. We always keep that work and the bursaries we offer under review to make sure we continue creating sufficiency so that we have a world-beating NHS.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for responding to questions for just short of an hour.
Points of Order
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased that the Prime Minister is due to make a statement to the House as 5 pm, but I was surprised that he made a television statement to the nation at 12 noon today. On the basis that we are a parliamentary democracy and that statements should, of course, be made first to this House, as Mr Speaker has made clear on a number of occasions, I wonder whether you have been given any indication of why it was not possible for the Prime Minister to do that today and whether, in fact, it is possible for a Minister to make two statements to the House, if necessary, as I understand there are meetings later today with NATO and the G7.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have not received any information as to whether any statements will be made before the statement at 5 o’clock. These are exceptional circumstances. We all woke up this morning and saw what is happening. I think we are all devastated, as we have heard, and feel for the people of Ukraine.
If there are to be any additional statements, I am certain the House will be informed in the usual way. The right hon. Lady is right that Mr Speaker has made it absolutely clear that he prefers and wants statements to be made to Parliament first, rather than elsewhere. The next debate is on our relationship with Russia and China, and it will give Members and, of course, the Minister an opportunity to make their views known.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. To clarify it for the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), what the Prime Minister did was set out a statement of intent without setting out any new measures, which he said would be set out to the House of Commons. It seems, in fact, that all the usual proprieties have been recognised.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Could you clarify that it is changes in Government policy that are required to be announced to the House of Commons first? That does not muzzle the Government from making any statement about any matter, however serious, if there is no change of policy. I have read the Prime Minister’s statement, and I see no change of policy.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister actually used the word “militarily” for the first time. I think that is a very significant change of policy.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have nothing to add to my response to Dame Diana Johnson. The important thing for us now is to get on with the next debate and to hear the Prime Minister’s statement at 5 o’clock.
Backbench Business
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Relationship with Russia and China
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
A lot of people want to speak and we have two important debates today. Although I am not setting a time limit to begin with, Members should think about keeping to seven to eight minutes.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to develop separate but aligned cross-Government strategies for both Russia and China; and further calls on the Government to support the international order, working with allies across the globe to develop an approach to Russia and China that, whilst recognising their separate legitimate interests, ensures a robust defence of both UK interests and democratic values.
I will speak for 15 minutes, if I get that far, as I am mindful of others.
As of this morning, offensive war has once again broken out in eastern Europe, as Russian artillery and armour rain down on a peaceful neighbour. We have all seen the reports of columns moving from Crimea, of Kharkiv and Kyiv potentially being under threat and of bridges being blown up in Chernobyl as Ukrainians defend hearth and home.
This is arguably the first conventional war in Europe since 1945. The intentions of Vladimir Putin have long been clear: to control or destroy Ukraine, to shatter western unity, to build a new sphere of influence on the foundations of the USSR and to present the west as a decadent, mortal enemy of the Russian people and Russian identity. It is an agenda that is both febrile and dangerous, but sadly it is also very real. We have needed to understand it for some time, and we urgently need to get our heads around what is happening.
According to polling, the majority of Russians see war—and nuclear war—with the west as now more likely than not, which should be a sobering realisation for all of us. Russian state propaganda has prepared the population for conflict for years. The immediate news is clearly shocking, but I will still try to look more broadly, to talk about tactics rather than strategy and, where possible, to bring in China as much as Russia. People will forgive me if I do not always succeed.
Russia in the west and China in the east present differing but overlapping and increasingly significant threats. However imperfect our current global system, we have avoided major conflict, but that order is now under threat: in Ukraine today; potentially in Taiwan and the South China sea; and potentially in the Baltic and the Black sea in the weeks, months and years to come.
I lived and worked in Ukraine and the former USSR from 1990 to 1994, and I was fortunate enough to travel through the country for much of that time. I lived in Kyiv, but I well remember many of the places we are talking about now. I went down coal mines in Donbas, I visited Soviet dachas in Sevastopol, and in Moldova and Georgia I witnessed the first of the proxy wars engineered, probably, by the KGB. Many of my formative experiences as a young man were spent there, and I am deeply fond of the place and its people. What is happening pains me, because a KGB placeman will now pit Slavs against other Slavs to fulfil a fantasy about the Soviet Union and the world. The cold war was not a good world. It died 30 years ago and should remain dead. Tens of thousands are likely to die.
I would like to argue the following: the risk of direct conflict with Russia and China is growing and, in some senses, we are already in indirect conflict with both, in different ways—importantly, I am not directly comparing Russia and China. We are midway through a 20-year crisis with Russia that we are woefully ill-prepared for and have done our best to ignore. Frankly, this is now returning with a vengeance. We are at the beginning of a significant and potentially damaging change in our relationship with China—there may be greater opportunity there, but there may also be greater threat. Therefore, for the next 20 years the primary foreign policy goal for this country must be in old-school state relationships and the avoidance of direct conflict, and the establishment of working relationships with both, where we can, that are as productive as possible, while resolutely defending our values and our allies. I do not believe we are there yet by any means; and the coherence and integration of our foreign policy, and our policy in both cases, is not there.
Secondly, we need to understand the new world and the new styles of conflict being practised against us, and the new forms of covert and overt influence. Thirdly, as a result, we need to move to an era of “smart” containment, which is not only geographically based, but is a protection of our values, and of our IT property, our universities and law firms, and our City institutions and others. That includes things such as a national strategy council to complement the National Security Council, because frankly—the more I speak to people, the more I feel this—we need to relearn the arts of strategy and deterrence. We need to relearn how to use power properly—I believe we have forgotten that.
We also need to make provision for laws that we should have put in place years ago: a foreign lobbying Bill—my God, how many more scandals do we have to put up with before we realise we need one?; an updated espionage Bill; an economic crimes Bill; and changes to the libel and data protection rules to protect freedom of speech and to protect journalists from becoming peripheral victims of Russian oligarch intimidation to our freedom of speech.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wish to add to this list, although I share in everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is very intelligent and foresighted on these issues. Should we not also be looking at those who have dual nationality—Russian and UK, or Chinese and UK—reassessing and making them choose a nationality? Secondly, should we not be looking at everyone from China or from Russia who has a tier 1 visa and reassessing whether those should not be withdrawn?
Bob Seely
The hon. Gentleman make sensible points. I look forward to working with him on them and I thank him for his intervention.
Both the Russia and China leaderships see themselves as being in conflict or intense competition with the west. That may sound “hawkish”, but it is not designed to be so. It is designed to avoid conflict in the future by being clear about the times we live in. Let us face it: who of us today will claim that deterrence has worked in Europe? Let me remind the House that the best wars are not those that are won, but those that are unfought. Our greatest victory in world war three was that it did not take place, not that we destroyed our civilisation in order to destroy another.
In Russia, the security elites have believed for the past 20 years that they are in conflict with us—in a conflict of values and of information, with spheres of interest. President Putin alludes to a “western plot” that destroyed the Soviet Union and he sees “colour revolutions” in the same light. Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev regularly warns that the west wants to destroy Russia because we fear it and are jealous of it. The Kremlin’s confrontational strategy to change the post-cold war order began with a reassessment of military art in the early 2000s, which was played out somewhat in national publications such as Voennaya Mysl, or Military Thought, and Voenno-promyshlennyi kur’er—or Military-Industrial Courier. The result of that debate was a strategy that has, in effect, aligned Russia’s two ways of war, the conventional and the non-conventional, and seen the west as a psychological, spiritual and physical threat. It is not fundamentally a military doctrine—the Gerasimov doctrine—as some people falsely claim; it is actually a strategic art, not simply a military one. These ideas have formed in Russia’s military and national security doctrines, written by those around Putin, where the west is the existential threat, spiritual and physical. Swedish academic Maria Engström has discovered that at its worst there is a disturbing narrative among Russian ideologues that links Russia’s nuclear arsenal and Russian Orthodoxy, known as “Atomic Orthodoxy”, as the “sword and shield” against the Antichrist—the US and NATO. We are the Antichrist. The sword and the shield are also the symbols of Putin’s old KGB and now the FSB. We made the mistake of dismissing fringe Russian philosophers as neo-fascist nutjobs in the 1990s. Given what has happened since, it is unwise that we do the same again. In China, party document No. 9 lays out quite clearly that the Communist party seeks a dominant position of its socialism over western capitalism. The language of win-win is for an external audience, for us. The language domestically is to win and to dominate, and again we should be under no illusion about that.
Whereas Russia is a declining power, China is rising one. They present different but related threats, and both, to a greater or lesser extent, use the tools of hybrid conflict. The principle behind this is not just war plus information ops; it is much more. It is to see state competition as Darwinian, with war as an extension of politics—as set out by von Clausewitz—and politics as an extension of conflict. The latter idea was peddled by German world war General Erich Ludendorff in his book, “The Total War”. China believes in something similar, as readers of “Unrestricted Warfare”, published in the late 1990s, will know. Our opponents are harsh, harsh realists. Their secret police disappear people. They are not liberal internationalists. Although they share legitimate interests, and we need to work on those legitimate interests, their mindset is different from ours.
Putin is a product of the KGB; an organisation involved in some of the greatest crimes in human history, but one that, unlike the SS, has never had to collectively accept responsibility. He is both deeply rational and highly irrational. Russian integrated strategic decision making is years ahead of the west. Its general staff is probably the last Prussian organisation on earth. This war has been planned for years. He knows that EU dependency on energy is worsening and he has built up tens of billions in reserves. I suspect he laughs at the ad hoc tactics of the west, where we ask, “Do we do a no-fly zone? Do we do this? Do we do that?” From him, this is, as Sun Tzu would say, “tactics before strategy”—it is “noise before defeat”.
Putin is also fuelled by a bitter and cold anger at the loss of the USSR—at the loss of Ukraine—which he cannot abide and refuses to accept. This is the third stage of the Ukrainian conflict. The first, between 2004 and 2014, involved economic and political tools. The second stage, between 2014 and 2022, involved those as well as paramilitary violence. In their hybrid tools, both Russia and China seek elite capture in this country. We know about Huawei and about the academics and the universities. Twice in this House I have heard the claim that Huawei is a private company. Anyone who knows anything about one-party states and about communism knows that that is an incredible and bad claim for a Minister, or for an official putting words into a Minister’s mouth, to be saying. Both countries use covert military force. Both use an intimidating conventional military presence. Both use culture. Both use covert control of the media.
So what is our response? First, it is to understand our adversaries and potential enemies, because they spent a great deal of time understanding us. We need to keep reaching out to their leaders, however futile that now is in the case of Russia, and to their people. We also need to have a conversation in our own house about how we clean up our own house—about the Bills we need to bring in, which I have mentioned: the foreign lobbying law; the data protection law; and the laws on economic crimes.
That is just a start. If Confucius Institutes wish to remain in this country, they must stop spying on Chinese students, and be willing to discuss Hong Kong and Tiananmen Square. If not, they should be shut down. Military dual-use work should be banned. Work for Chinese military universities should be banned. Recruiters for the Chinese secret agencies need to be exposed and prosecuted. Front organisations such as the Chinese Students and Scholars Association should be banned. [Interruption.] I am aware of the time, Mr Deputy Speaker. We need to become significantly less strategically dependent on industry and manufacturing from China, not least because of the environmental damage they do to our state. Globalisation has in many ways been a force for good, but we need to have a conversation with ourselves about whether offshoring so much of our industry is a good thing.
The military dividend—the peace dividend—is over. Spending 2% on defence is not acceptable. To put it crudely, we need a bigger Navy and a bigger Air Force. We need to rebuild our alliances throughout the world. If there is one thing unique about British strategic culture—one of the greatest things this country has done in 200 years, arguably more than any other—it is our ability to build alliances throughout the world. We need to be at the heart of the building of new alliances. Potentially, our second carrier should be part of the CANZUK—Canada, Australia, New Zealand and UK—fleet. Potentially, we should put a physical NATO base in the Suwalki gap between Kaliningrad on one side and Belarus on the other.
I could go on but I am mindful of the time, so let me sum up. There are two courses for humanity in the 21st century. The first is the western model of a law-governed society with politicians under the control of the people. It is incredibly imperfect, as we all know, but it is the best hope for mankind. The second is the new militarism of high-tech authoritarianism that is championed by Russia, and a little bit by China. It promises the data-inspired, artificial-intelligence control of populations. We need foresight, strategy and resolve to fight to defend our values and the future of humanity. We should not underestimate the scale of the task nor shy away from it. The defence of human freedom, wherever it is in the world—in Taiwan, Ukraine, the Baltic or the Black sea—is the struggle for our age.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I inform the House that we will look to start the wind-ups at around about quarter to 3, with the next debate starting at around 10 past, so will Members please be conscious of the length of their speeches?
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this important debate. His timing could not have been better.
It is clear from today’s events that we live no longer in an era of change but in a change of era. That has three significant implications for our strategy on Russia and China, which is why the hon. Gentleman’s timing today is so fortunate. The three shifts entail a worldview different from that of UK policy makers, and they require a shift in our defensive strategy and a renaissance in creative diplomatic strategy whereby, quite simply, we in this country need to build a new rules-based order for the new silk road.
Let me start with the new worldview that is going to be needed. I generally try to avoid a Manichean view of the world as divided into black and white, because the world is more complicated than that, but the truth is that, from Kaliningrad through to Kamchatka, we are now witness to the creation of an enormous kleptosphere. Inside the borders of that kleptosphere, the merciless logic is that might is right: in the old phrase, the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. We have to be the guardians of what we might call the “canon-osphere”—the space around the world where there are rules, there is the rule of law and there is justice.
Just as we once rid the world of piracy and slave trading, we now have to be the place that leads the charge against economic crime, no matter where that crime is perpetrated. We have to be the guardians of the new rules-based order for this simple reason: if we think the scale of global corruption today is bad, we must think for a moment about the world that is to come. The World Bank estimates that the value of natural resources in countries with bad corruption scores is $65 trillion. Imagine the world of the future, in which those natural resources are extracted and the profits go to some of the worst people on earth. That is why there is now an urgency for a very different kind of philosophy to guide our foreign policy. We have to be the place, the country, the leader that seeks a world of not simply free trade but clean trade. That must be one of the defining features of our foreign policy for the years to come.
The second dimension is that we obviously need new defences. We in this House have to confront the reality that our strategy of deterrence has failed. Most of us who spoke in the debate on the economic sanctions were profoundly disappointed with the weakness of the package proposed. Frankly, many of us feel that the Prime Minister was a little late to the party. “Too little, too late” will be written on his political gravestone, I fear. None the less, we must now accept that the threat of sanctions has failed and we must now offer President Putin the iron fist. That has to take aim at Russia’s key strategic weakness, which is its 20 km border.
We must now envisage a different security environment along the Russian border. That means that we should have proactive talks with Finland and Sweden about how they partner with NATO; it means further reinforcing our presence in the Baltics; it means new kinds of conversations at the other end of the border, in Georgia; it means thinking about how we take on and equip those fighting the insurgencies in places such as South Ossetia and Transnistria; and it means that we have to take a completely different approach to the Balkans, and step up and accelerate the path towards NATO membership for Bosnia-Herzegovina.
We now have to start to roll NATO forward in strength across the border, so that President Putin’s tactical advance results in what is ultimately a strategic defeat. I am afraid part and parcel of that is that we will have to consider the deployment of intermediate ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe. The truth is that the intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty broke down because President Putin was breaking the rules and deploying SSC-8 missiles, which were prohibited by that treaty. Russia has built very effective anti-access and area-denial systems that safeguard it against air and naval attack. A defence against ground-launched cruise missiles is much more difficult. The Secretary-General of NATO has been right to rule out arming those missiles with nuclear warheads, but we must now think more aggressively about our defence posture, given the security threat President Putin now poses to this great homeland of Europe.
The final point I wish to make clear is that it is time for British grand strategy to go through something of a renaissance. This is not an original point of mine but something that people such as Lord Ricketts have been writing about for some time. If we look back over history, we see so many examples of how, when Russian and Chinese leaders feel strong at home, they advance into the periphery—into the borderland. That was true under Tsar Nicholas and under the Qing empire, and it is true today. That means that a corridor of chaos is potentially going to stretch from the Baltic to Ukraine, down through Syria and Iran, through Kashmir, into Myanmar, into North Korea and into the South China sea.
We have not only to think creatively and imaginatively about how we provide a security environment for that space but to think anew about creating a Marshall plan for that space, just as we did in Europe after world war two. Then, we created the OECD to foster Europe’s economic development; we now need to do the same for the silk road. The passage to India, the Pacific and beyond now needs a British-led institution that looks imaginatively at how we create new infrastructure. China will be spending something like $1.5 trillion on infrastructure across this great border zone. What are we spending? We do not know, but we could be using our skills to identify the infrastructure priorities in places such as Pakistan. We could be thinking imaginatively about how we mobilise infrastructure finance. London has been the home of infrastructure finance since we defeated Napoleon and Nathan Rothschild created the international bond market in London.
We have the wherewithal to mobilise sovereign wealth funds, which are growing radically and quickly in places such as the Gulf, and deploying that money in good strong contracts, with good strong standards, that avoid the kind of mistakes that we saw in the early days of the Qatari world cup stadium-building programme. We could be a force for good in building infrastructure, in financing infrastructure, and in making sure that there are good rules around that.
We could be thinking imaginatively about how we create free trade across this zone. We could be thinking imaginatively about how we settle disputes. We could be thinking imaginatively about the legal services and the consulting services that we offer out of London into this space. The reality is that, by 2050, the economies of the new silk road will be worth two and a half times the value of the economies on the Atlantic seaboard. The economic centre of gravity is moving east. This is possibly where I differ from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. In my view, we need to think imaginatively about offering the welcoming hand of trade as well as offering a strong shield and a strong sword.
I will finish with a quote from Dean Acheson, the US Secretary of State after world war two, who famously boasted that he was present at the creation. He warned us that
“the future comes one day at a time.”
We now do not have a single day to waste. That is why this debate is so very important.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I am very pleased to be here. I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for his prescience and timing in securing this debate. He is absolutely right: this is something that we have needed to discuss for a long time. The fact that he has got the House together to do so today is important.
This is really a debate about the future—a debate that challenges us all to think about the world in which we wish to live. We have already heard cited the kleptocracies that govern so much of our world and the threats to independent sovereign communities, such as Ukraine, that are being so violently and vilely challenged today. We have already heard about the ways in which that affects the very lives that we have here: the price of heating gas going through the roof; the price of petrol going up and up; and now, sadly, the price of wheat and therefore of basic food commodities rising higher and higher, hitting the families, the communities and the homes that we here are so privileged to represent. This is a debate not about a foreign country, not about foreign relations, but, fundamentally, about the British people and how we live our lives.
That is why I want to start by saying very clearly that this is not a time to live in fear. This is not a time to think that arrayed against us are some enormous armies against which we can do nothing, or that we should bow down, scrape and grovel, as I see some people doing today, praising Putin’s intellect, worshipping Xi’s ability to influence others through force. This is not the time, as others say, to compromise and accept the instructions of evil dictators and say, “No! Free people in Ukraine are expendable. They can suffer because they don’t matter.” That is cowardice. Worse than that, it is betrayal. It is betrayal not just of the people who are fighting for their freedom, but of the British people whose security depends fundamentally on freedoms around the world. We should call this what it is; it is treason and it is wrong.
This country can organise itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight described it exactly. Collecting alliances, building up partnerships, is exactly what we do. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Middle East has been doing a huge amount of work in getting us in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. She has been building up alliances in Asia—with free countries that want to be part of the rule of law, not the rule of force. This country can do it. We can build the infrastructure that keeps us safe, that protects the weak, that ensures that small countries are not just steamrollered by larger ones, and that large countries trade freely and on the basis of equality with each other and do not succumb to the bullying ways of evil tyrants. All this is possible. Not only is it possible, it is exactly what we are doing.
Failure to do that would be a betrayal of the legacy of those heroes who fought, defended and won our freedoms, who landed at Anzio and Normandy, and who fought through Belgium into Germany. It would also be a betrayal of those Soviet armies who, in 1946, handed over criminals to the trials at Nuremberg and charged them with the crime of waging aggressive war. What an irony it is that the last time Kyiv was under attack by a foreign army it was a Nazi force doing it, and the Soviets were there to help and protect. What an irony it is to watch what is happening today.
We have in this place, in this country and with our partners the courage to do this if we choose. We can make the commitment. We can build up the partnerships and the alliances that keep us strong. Today though the question is not just about alliances, but about ourselves. We need to call out the corruption in our own city. We need to evict those who have done so much to undermine the rights and liberties of the British people. We need to seize their assets, freeze their goods and expel them.
What Russia has done today is an act of war. There is no question about it, no equivocation, and no possible excuse. The naked aggression that we have seen—the paratroopers landing, the helicopters launching, the tanks rolling—is the beginning of the first war in Europe that we have seen since 1945. [Interruption.] Yes, the first state-on-state war in Europe perhaps. We have a choice. We can turn a blind eye; we can pretend that incremental sanctions make a difference—they do not. President Medvedev laughed at them three days ago, saying that we know how this play goes: they sanction us, we ignore them and then they come crawling back for business, which, sadly, is true from 2014 and 2008. Alternatively, we can take clear action. Given that a hostile state has launched an act of war, we can act now. We can freeze Russian assets in this country—all of them. We can expel Russian citizens—all of them. We can make a choice to defend our interests, to defend the British people and to defend our international partners, or we can do what, sadly, we have done too often in the past, which is to watch until it is too late and the British people have to pay a much higher price.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will have to introduce a six-minute time limit to protect this business and the next business.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this important debate. The eyes of the world may be focused elsewhere at present, but it is vital that we do not lose sight of other nations where people face abuses. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Ukraine today as they face aggression. Military aggression in Ukraine is not acceptable, and the House stands in solidarity with the people of Ukraine.
I thank the Office of Tibet, Tibet Action and Free Tibet for their briefings ahead of this debate. I thank, too, the all-party group for Tibet for all the work that it does. I declare an interest as the vice-chair of the said all-party group. I was pleased to have the opportunity to meet the Office of Tibet in London last year at the Labour party conference where I heard about the experiences of the Tibetan people.
Since it was annexed more than 70 years ago, occupied Tibet has been closed off to much of the rest of the world, preventing us from witnessing the repression against the people that live in the region. According to the Free Tibet campaign, the Chinese Government have been orchestrating a deliberate and systematic elimination of Tibet’s distinct and unique cultural, religious and linguistic identity through a sinicization of Tibetan Buddhism, its culture and its language.
Worryingly, those sinicization measures are reported to have increased in intensity over the past decade, reflecting the Chinese Government’s further attempts to subdue the Tibetans, who continue to resist the occupation. This process includes the Chinese Government’s bilingual education policy of replacing the Tibetan language—the common language of all Tibetans—with Mandarin. In the words of the Free Tibet campaign, this
“strikes at the very root of the Tibetan identity”.
It was reported late last year that two teenage Tibetan students were detained for opposing Chinese-only instruction in their school. A Tibetan teacher was also arrested after her Tibetan-language school was forced to close. According to research by the Tibet Action Institute, as many as 900,000 Tibetan children are estimated to have been separated from their families, while the teaching of the Tibetan language has faced further restrictions, with limitations on monasteries that wish to provide language classes.
Last month, I asked our Government whether they had raised that exact issue, specifically regarding Chinese-run boarding schools in Tibet, with their counterparts in China. I must say that the response to my written parliamentary question was disappointing. Although I am encouraged to hear that measures are being taken to urge the Chinese Government to respect the rights of all its citizens, including those in Tibet, I appeal to the Minister today to push specifically on this issue to ensure that families do not continue to be coerced into sending their children to residential boarding schools.
Nor has religion emerged unscathed from this process, with the Chinese Government imposing a raft of restrictions that are almost certainly designed to make Tibetan Buddhism compatible with President Xi’s vision of “religion with Chinese characteristics”, as he has described it. In reality, that has meant limitations on the influence of Tibetan Buddhism in community life and monasteries repeatedly being placed under Government control and surveillance. In practice, that means all monasteries being forced to fly Chinese flags and hang portraits of political figures on their premises.
The Government are also accused of proactively coercing Tibetans into renouncing any allegiance to His Holiness the Dalai Lama, a process that also extends to outlawing the portraits of His Holiness and arresting Tibetans who carry out seemingly small acts of resistance such as calling for his return to Tibet or singing songs that wish him a happy birthday. In the past three years alone, authorities have ordered Tibetans to place shrines to President Xi and other Government leaders inside their homes in place of religious figures. The Free Tibet campaign also reports that in some counties, authorities have gone to such lengths as physically inspecting households to ensure that that order has been carried out.
Finally, I will focus briefly on Drago county in eastern Tibet. Since last October the county, which is in Sichuan province, has been the site of a series of demolitions of sites of religious and cultural significance, accompanied by arbitrary arrests and alleged torture. One such example is reports of Government officials tearing down a Tibetan Buddhist monastic school that once housed more than 100 young Tibetan students. That was followed soon afterwards by the destruction of two Lord Buddha statues, including one that stood almost 100 feet tall, the construction of which was only completed in 2015 with funds donated by Tibetans and Buddhist disciples.
Further evidence of Government aggression and destruction includes the demolition of several monks’ residences, in addition to monastery prayer flags being removed and burned. It is clear to those who witnessed those incidents that, as well as lacking any free or informed consultation with the locals, the demolitions were carried out very deliberately to cause maximum distress, with members of the community in some cases ordered to assist in tearing down schools and statues, and others forced to watch. I hope the Minister will make a note of those ongoing events, given that the forced inspections continue to take place on an almost daily basis, which has led to the lives of all those involved rapidly deteriorating.
I want to highlight that 10 March is observed annually as Tibet Uprising Day. In 1959, hundreds of thousands of Tibetans banded together to revolt, in defiance of the Chinese invasion a decade earlier. That peaceful protest was violently crushed by the Chinese Government.
In closing, I urge the Minister to heed the concerns of hon. Members on both sides and push the Governments of China and Russia to ensure that all rights are respected, and that a way of life is not imposed on people that leads to the destruction and desecration of everything from the heritage to the culture, language and even the very identity of the Tibetan people. Their voices must continue to be heard.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The world order is at a pivotal point in history. From Moscow to Tehran to Beijing, autocratic rulers are attempting to enforce their undemocratic models not only on their own people, but on those beyond their borders. What we are witnessing in Ukraine today is the starkest example of that frightful and frightening phenomenon.
Almost unbelievably, in the 21st century we are witnessing the invasion of a peaceful European state by an armed aggressor—something we have not seen since the actions of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Yet, in a warped and perverted view of history, Putin last night compared Ukraine to Nazi Germany, painting it as a genocidal state that poses a threat to the Russian people. That can only be true in the deranged analysis of Putin’s mind as he unleashes a tsunami of violence against the people of Ukraine.
How could Ukraine be a threat to Russia? Russia has 4,100 aircraft; Ukraine has 318. Russia has 772 fighters; Ukraine has 69. Russia has 1,543 helicopters; Ukraine has 112. Russia has 12,400 tanks; Ukraine has 2,600. Let us also remember that Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal at the end of the Soviet era on the basis of a guarantee that it would not be invaded by Russia. One wonders whether, if Ukraine had maintained its nuclear deterrent, those tanks would be rolling across Ukrainian territory today.
Make no mistake: Putin will continue to challenge the international order and advance his imperial agenda until he is decisively confronted. He seeks to reverse the democratic result of the 1991 Ukraine referendum and resurrect the Soviet empire. With increased security control in Eurasia over recent years, the Baltic states and Ukraine stand as outliers—those states that have stayed beyond Moscow’s malignant grip.
The implications are clear. We must now increase the NATO presence in the Baltic states, as well as in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania, which will now be on the frontline. NATO countries must be willing now not only to raise the proportion of their GDP that they give to defence, but to give that money to NATO rather than making paper promises.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Gentleman mentions that Russia has 12,400 tanks. He will know that the Prime Minister mentioned that we had sent 2,000 anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Does he think we are doing enough to provide assets to Ukraine to defend itself?
Dr Fox
No, we have not been doing enough. Since we saw the occupation of Crimea in 2014, many of us, including some who are in the House today, have been arguing that the west should be giving Ukraine the proper capabilities to defend itself. It is clear today that we did not do so—something that I will come to in a moment.
Since sanctions were imposed on Russia in 2014, it has paid down state debt, had significant import substitution to make it less dependent on outside producers, and made large investments in European metallurgy, energy and critical infrastructure. In 2020, the inward stock of foreign direct investment in the UK from Russia was £681 million, and the equivalent EU figure was £112 billion. Sanctions must include restrictions on all Russian investment if we are to stop Russia from wriggling out of any new sanctions that are applied because of what it has done today.
To go back to the point made by the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), I hope the House will forgive me for quoting an article I wrote on 22 February 2015, which said that an option would be
“to give the Ukrainians the capabilities they most require in order to defend themselves against the military superiority of the pro-Russian separatists and their Kremlin allies.
Primarily, this would involve properly encrypted communications, UAVs for surveillance and targeting and anti-tank capabilities to deal with the massive deficit which the Ukrainians currently have on this front.
There is increasing scepticism in Washington that any diplomatic solution reached with the Putin government will be as worthless as that achieved in Minsk last September.”
What was true at that time about NATO is true today:
“Everybody wants the insurance policy, but too few want to pay the premiums.
Western nations are too afraid to reallocate funds from their welfare addicted domestic populations to their national security budget and Russia knows it.”
National security is the first duty of all Governments. Today’s shocking events should be a clear reminder of that to all of us.
The challenge of Ukraine is likely to be faced elsewhere, as despots start to believe that the west is weaker than it has been for many a long year. It will be a challenge to our values, our democratic way of life and our security. All of us in politics, at whatever level, should remember this: politics is essentially binary. Either we shape the world around us, or we will be shaped by the world around us.
I believe that the values we hold and the history and culture that we defend are worth not only protecting for ourselves, but extending to those in the rest of the world who should have a right to enjoy the same freedoms and benefits we have. The gauntlet was picked up by previous generations. The question is whether we will have the courage to do so today.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). I was reflecting as he spoke that it is now almost 40 years since our paths first crossed at the University of Glasgow. It is fair to say that our shared history has not always been characterised by broad agreement, but there was very little that he said today with which I would disagree.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate. As others have said, it is timely in a way that I suspect even he would not have imagined when he made the application to the Backbench Business Committee.
The House knows of my interest in our relations with China—I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on Hong Kong and on the Uyghur population—but today I want to focus my remarks on our relationship with Russia. Before I do so, I pose a fairly basic question to the House: if we acquiesce in Putin invading and occupying Ukraine on the basis that it is ethnically and linguistically Russian, which is his purported basis, what would we say to China if it were then to take the same action in relation to Taiwan? Consistency matters.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Equally, if we acquiesce in what is happening now, the same argument could be deployed by Putin with regard to many other parts of eastern Europe.
Mr Carmichael
That is exactly the case. We know that this is how Putin works. He will take so much, consolidate, bank it and let time pass, trade continues and then he asks for more. It is not just Putin; it is despots throughout history. The parallels with other despots in European history are there for all to see and I fear that we cannot ignore them for much longer.
I have to place on record my frustration that this debate is now the only opportunity that we will have to discuss this—as distinct from the Prime Minister’s statement, because a statement is not a debate—until a week on Monday. If nothing else, the opportunity for this House to debate specifically what is happening in Ukraine would be a very important signal for us to send to fellow parliamentarians in Ukraine that we stand with them in defending their democracy.
We may be shocked by what we have seen happen today, but we should not be in any way surprised. It has been obvious for weeks and months—some might even say years—that this day was always going to come. It grieves me more than anything else that our Government’s response to this challenge so far has been, bluntly, pusillanimous. The scale and nature of the sanctions that have been brought forward is wholly inadequate. We also have to get real about the opportunities that economic sanctions will bring us. Because of the way in which we have pursued our trade policy in the past decade or so, Putin has built up a reported reserve in the region of $640 billion, so it is clear that he will be able to withstand economic sanctions for some time, and we should not overestimate the opportunities that they bring.
With Putin, and others like him, it is always important to see that we have sent the right signals. What signals have we sent—by “we” I mean western Europeans—since 2014? We allowed Germany to go ahead and negotiate the construction of Nord Stream 2, a project that was designed specifically to take Ukraine out of the equation and allow a continued supply of gas from Russia to Europe.
I, like many people, find myself in a difficult contest between what my head and my heart tell me. My head tells me that we have seen all this before. My head tells me that despots using foreign policy to distract attention from problems at home is nothing new and only ends in one way. My head tells me that the proposition that national boundaries should be defined on ethnic or linguistic grounds is a dangerous road for any country to be going down. My head tells me that history tells us that appeasement never works. But at the same time my heart says that this risks taking us to a place where we have armed conflict on continental Europe. As somebody who was born in 1965 and brought up through the ’70s and ’80s, I believed that that was impossible and unthinkable, but now we need to confront that very real possibility.
I said that the Government’s response has been inadequate. That has been illustrated to me today by calls and emails I have received from constituents who tell me that at Sullum Voe oil terminal in Shetland, the oil tanker NS Challenger—which is owned and operated by Sovcomflot, a company wholly owned by the Russian Government—is, as we speak, loading oil for export out of Shetland. What does that tell us? It tells us that everything that the Government have said this week has been heard in Russia and has been understood, in simple terms, as saying that it is business as usual. “Why on earth”, my constituents ask me, “are we currently exporting as strategically important a commodity as oil out of Shetland in Russian-owned and operated tankers?” I do not know what answer I can give them other than that we have continued, even at the 11th hour and 59th minute, to send the wrong signals. We need to return to this in the days and weeks to come, but for now the challenge that we have is to the post-war rules-based international order. If we acquiesce in the face of that challenge, frankly, we do not end anywhere that is a good place.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who stands out as the only Scottish Member of Parliament who voted for the renewal of Trident in 2016. That is a great credit to him and to his prescience, because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, if there was ever a demonstration of the futility of nuclear disarmament, it is the position that Ukraine finds itself in now. Yet that is the policy of the SNP and of a great number of Labour MPs, and they are a threat to our national security.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing this debate. As the dark shadow of war once again falls across our entire continent, I reflect on the adage attributed to Leon Trotsky:
“You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
Everyone who loathes war and wants peace should reflect on that. If other people are determined to foment war, we have to take an interest.
The question in this debate is how we should now see Russia and China and the relationship between them. In the UK, we see Russia as an immediate threat, but China as perhaps the much greater long-term challenge. In the US, it is different. All US presidents since Obama have seen China as the existential threat and today’s Russia as yesterday’s problem, Europe’s problem, and a regional rather than a global threat. There are, to be sure, specialists in the US who understand that, like China, Russia is a long-term opponent, but their voices must compete with those who are effectively advocating appeasement for Russia—resets, normalisation, and the overlooking of previous illegal incursions, overseas assassinations, cyber-attacks on NATO allies and so on.
In Europe, Germany understands the existential nature of the Russian threat, but has until very recently pursued a policy of engagement with Russia. This now looks to have been deeply unwise. It has created serious vulnerability for Germany and for Europe as a whole. France, historically anti-American, must now accept that Russia presents the threat. Even this week, the French were, understandably, trying to use this to their advantage to prove their global influence and to try to secure peace. But all of Europe must now be united.
Nor is the United Kingdom beyond criticism. We have a firm understanding of the Russia problem in our analytical community, and of China, but until recently successive Prime Ministers chose to turn a blind eye to both problems. This is now changing, but the UK finds itself without the necessary tools to tackle the Russia threat and the China challenge. Our military has lost its ability to fight a peer enemy. Our legal system allows Russians and Chinese agents to exploit the vulnerabilities inherent in democracy. Our own blind reliance on spot markets to obtain cheaper gas has undermined our energy security. I have spoken before about how the UK Government lack the capacity for deep continuous strategic thinking to match the strategy and planning of our enemies, and I will return to that point.
Putin and President Xi have observed years of western failure to react to Russian encroachments and Chinese anti-democratic influence. We have encouraged them to join together in thinking that, despite our bluster, Putin’s taking Ukraine and China’s expanding influence are in their mutual interests and will remain largely unchallenged. That must now change, and it is changing. Until recently, it seemed that Putin might succeed, as he did in Georgia and Crimea, but Putin has miscalculated. His bullying has mobilised Ukraine’s resistance, is galvanizing support for NATO in previously neutral nations such as Sweden and Finland, and is rekindling Washington’s concern about Russia’s threat to global peace.
Geraint Davies
The hon. Gentleman will have seen a map drawn by Putin of Ukraine, where a lump is given to Ukraine by Stalin, another lump by Lenin and another lump by Brezhnev. Does he agree that the implicit plan is to take all that bit, to leave a little bit, like a doughnut, for the Ukrainians to be corralled in, to have them like the Uyghur population, to Russify the rest, to finish off Ukraine and to take the large majority of it?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
What is completely clear is that President Putin has repudiated his own words and security guarantees that were given to Ukraine on its existing borders.
Last night’s strikes by Russia on Ukraine’s military infrastructure and border guard units, and the incursions of military vehicles, show that there can be no compromise with Putin. We will only find peace through strength. What is there to negotiate? Putin is now seized by an irrational obsession to crush Ukraine by one means or another. His performance on Russian TV addressing his security council underlined how Putin is now acting out his emotions—his frustration, wounded pride and lust for revenge. According to him, only great powers count, and if you cannot bully your smaller neighbours into submission, you are not really a great power.
President Xi is very different from the usurper Putin. While Russia represents great culture and history, Putin’s rogue regime is fundamentally weak, trying to prove its power despite Russia’s internal dysfunctionality and economic failure. China, however, represents a far older, more consistent and altogether more considered philosophical tradition. Putin acts impetuously; President Xi demonstrates strategic patience. Russia is trying to distract from its failures; China is building upon its success. The task of the west is not only to deal effectively with Putin, but to give a clear message to China and to other countries that might consider endorsing or imitating Putin’s aggression.
To his credit, President Xi has now backed off from his earlier strong support for Putin, as he came to realise that a full-scale invasion of Ukraine will mobilise the west and enable the west to strengthen its defences and have a more competitive stance, against not only Russia, but China. China should reflect on the questions now being asked in Washington and Europe, as raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset. Why should we not formally recognise Taiwan’s sovereignty and its right to self-determination, if China is to co-operate so easily with Putin in Ukraine? China can use this moment to build trust with the west. The west will continue to have great differences with China, but we want to work together with China for global peace and security and for a sustainable planet. We cannot begin to do so if China aligns itself with the now rogue regime in Moscow.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am grateful to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, in this important debate. I will concentrate my remarks solely on the west and Russia today, although I have a great deal of experience in China.
By invading Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin is imposing misery on the Ukrainian people and his own people, and economic hardship on the rest of the world. Using military aggression to annex sovereign countries is a 19th-century grand power concept in the 21st-century world, where we should be able to settle our differences in a more sophisticated way. Putin wants to go down in history as the leader who restored the Soviet Union. He is tough, he appears not to respect the west or its leaders, and he will not back down easily now that he has invaded Ukraine. We all know what is going on even at this very minute, and how the whole of Ukraine is coming under pressure, and I think it will probably not be long before Kyiv falls.
It is completely false for Putin to claim that Ukraine, or at least parts of Ukraine, belong to Russia due to historical ties. Following such tenuous logic, other well-established European sovereign states that were former members of the Soviet Union would also “belong” to Russia, including the Baltics, or even those countries that have historically fallen under the Russian sphere of influence, such as Finland and Romania. I imagine many of the countries that have borders with Russia feel very nervous at this moment.
The fact is that Ukraine has gained independence and has had democratic elections for 30 years this month. Indeed, as several Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), have said, Ukraine gave up its atomic weapons following an agreement in 1994, which was backed by a peace agreement by Russia, America, ourselves and other nations. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said, it would be interesting to postulate what would have happened if Ukraine still had nuclear weapons.
While the west has responded with solidarity so far, it is very much a first step. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 was a first test by Putin of how the west would respond to his design on rebuilding Russia’s soviet legacy, and we know that responding weakly and ending sanctions as soon as we could has led to the situation we find ourselves in today. The decisive western leadership at the end of the cold war could not have been more different. The strong alliance between Thatcher and Reagan was crucial in the diplomacy that took place with Gorbachev, and their combined policy led to the end of the cold war and the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989.
What should our response now be? The two main elements are military and economic. Regarding military support, I am pleased that for a number of years the UK has been supporting the defence and security of Ukraine, helping to train more than 22,000 members of the Ukrainian army, as well as helping to expand the Ukraine’s naval facilities and capability. There is plenty more military support that we can provide without sending British troops. I welcome the Defence Secretary’s recent announcements about the defensive weapons we have been supplying, including light anti-tank armour and defensive weapons systems, but there is plenty more we could be doing, and I look forward to the announcement that the Prime Minister will make at 5 o’clock this evening. We could, for example, supply anti-aircraft missiles and satellite communication intelligence on Russian troop movements, which would help Ukraine plan its defence. We must continue to re-supply the Ukraine military with anything it needs. We must commit to do that until Russia leaves the sovereign country of Ukraine, so that Russia knows it will not have an easy task in attacking Ukraine.
What concerns me and many of my constituents in the Cotswolds is the somewhat limited economic action we have taken so far. As I have said, it is very much a first step, and we must look to further economic sanctions. We should, for example, examine the fact that Putin is one of the world’s richest men, with his wealth estimated at £200 billion, largely distributed about the world in dollars. We should go after that money and freeze it, and we should go after the people who have helped him make that money.
Furthermore, we should go after the oligarchs who surround Putin. If we start to make them really uncomfortable in their pocket, perhaps sooner or later they will start to influence Putin. We need to do that rapidly, because people have the ability to move money around the world very quickly these days. We should have already passed an Act in this Parliament about how we can freeze the sovereign debt of the Soviet Union, how we can get into the SWIFT—Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication—system and stop money getting in and out of the Soviet Union and how we can stop them dealing in dollars. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said that Putin has an arsenal of £650 billion, but that will soon run down if we take effective economic measures.
The west must stand together, impose a full set of economic sanctions and resupply Ukraine in any military way possible without leading to full-scale troop insertions from the west. Above all, we must continue to give Ukraine hope. We must keep morale up. The Prime Minister was dead right to ring the President of Ukraine this morning at 4 o’clock to keep that morale up, and we must keep doing that.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
It is a great privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). As he was talking, I was thinking about 1215, King John and his advisers and the necessity to curtail power. President Putin needs to be put back in his box. We need to support our Government in everything that they are doing in the weeks and months ahead. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing the debate in the Chamber today, even though it is a sober one. My thoughts are very much with my Ukrainian community in Bolton, where I have a Ukrainian social club and cultural centre, led by Yaroslaw, in the heart of my constituency.
Essentially, I will say three things to three different groups of people. I will make a first point to the Minister, a second to those with slightly more hawkish tendencies and a third to China—although I do not think it necessarily watches our debates that often. [Interruption.] Via the embassy, perhaps.
To the Minister, I say do not push China and Russia closer together. To speak to the motion, that should be the case if the Government are seeking to align their policy and strategy when it comes to Russia and China.
To those who are more sceptical and see the threats in the world at the moment, I say that we should choose strategy over ideology, because ideology on its own is not a strategy. As has been mentioned throughout the debate, one of our great advantages in this country is the alliances that we have built over many years and decades. We should be proud of them.
To China, I say that it has a chance to show leadership during this crisis and to show that it can be more sophisticated on the international stage. It is often the case that Chinese friends or contacts of mine will say that they ai heping—love peace. When they refer to Russia on social media, they will often refer to Russians as a zhandou minzu—more of a fighting people. My call to the Chinese in the midst of the biggest crisis that we have had in Europe is that China does not play the game that Russia is playing. It has a fantastic opportunity to show leadership.
On diplomacy and strategy, this week is 50 years since Nixon’s detente with Mao Zedong. It is awfully striking that we see the tectonic plates suddenly shifting again. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) spoke articulately about a changing world order. I do not fear the world order changing, because the only constant is change, but how it is happening is completely wrong. How Russia acted in 2014 over Crimea, and how it is acting in Ukraine today, is completely wrong. There should be processes involved—a democratic process—and that has not happened. That is why, in this country, we have to stand by our values in the face of that regime.
To continue thinking about western policy with Nixon, that week was all about Kissinger’s foreign policy. Over the last few years, the United States has had a reverse Kissinger approach to develop the relationship with Russia as opposed to with China, but that has failed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) alluded to earlier. Who will be the British Kissinger? Who will be the honest broker who brings China on side?
The United Kingdom has a fantastic opportunity. We were a superpower not that long ago and people in our society still remember that time. We had a very peaceful transition of power to the United States. We also have one of the most historical bilateral relationships with China, which predates the United States’ relationship and goes back to the Macartney mission in 1793 and touches on Lord Palmerston during the opium wars, which was a sombre time in that relationship. The Chinese respect the United Kingdom. They have a huge admiration for our culture and civilisation. The British Council’s statistics on the perception of the United Kingdom show that we are always among the most favoured nations in the world.
I have only a minute left to speak, but I note that we should be careful about conflating the issue of Taiwan with that of Ukraine. It was mentioned earlier that the Chinese are savvy when it comes to strategy. Indeed, Sunzi bingfa talks about shang bin fa mo, or buzhan ersheng—to win without fighting—as referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight earlier.
In our Government, our country and our society, we need to be careful about the short-termism that has come over us. Six months ago, when we invited the Ukrainian ambassador to speak to the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine, three MPs turned up, but we could see it coming down the line. Everything is too last-minute and we are spending too much time in this Chamber and in other parts of this place talking about things that are not as important as the issue that is at hand now.
Those are the three messages. In closing, I say to the Minister that she should not allow China and Russia to become too close—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I very much regret having to do this. I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the House and to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), because I misconstrued his record. It was in fact my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) who was the only Scottish MP who voted for the renewal of Trident in 2016. To the right hon. Gentleman’s credit, however, he is not actually a unilateral disarmer.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you for the point of order, Sir Bernard. The record will now be corrected.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance is just two years old this month. It is a growing group of 35 countries; I am pleased to say that two more have just joined. Each country has a Government-appointed representative, such as me, the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. The UK has the privilege of chairing the alliance in 2022. It is an active network of like-minded countries that are committed to advancing freedom of religion or belief around the world.
In 2020, Ukraine was a country that early committed to the principles and membership of the alliance—a commitment that cannot be lightly given or automatically accepted. Our principles are on the IRFBA website. It has been my privilege as chair of the alliance to work with alliance country representatives, and I put on record my appreciation of Ukraine’s active commitment to the work of the alliance, which so often includes working for the freedom of others in countries around the world.
As our Prime Minister said to Ukrainians today, as Russia invades their borders,
“we are with you, we are praying for you and your families, and we are on your side.”
Indeed, we are on their side in their passionate belief that the people of Ukraine should be just as free to live by the principles of IRFBA, which Ukraine as a country is committed to championing for others across the world.
I believe that IRFBA is one of the alliances referred to by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, whom I thank for his interest in the alliance, as having greater potential to work for the common good across the world. As the Prime Minister has said in this place:
“We all know that wherever freedom of belief is under attack, other human rights are under attack as well.”—[Official Report, 11 November 2020; Vol. 683, c. 898.]
Sadly, violations against freedom of religion or belief are increasing across the world, not least due to the unwarranted abuse of state power.
In that regard, I turn now from Russia to China. The Sino-British joint declaration was registered in 1985 with the UN as a legally binding international treaty intended to remain in force for 50 years. Yet as we all know—we have become all too familiar with the overt restrictions on rights and the encroachment on human rights on mainland China—over the past three years, Hong Kong’s freedoms, democracy, human rights and autonomy have been rapidly and dramatically dismantled and the rule of law increasingly undermined. One by one, we have seen basic freedoms destroyed, with the imprisonment of protesters, legislators and journalists, the closure of almost all independent or pro-democracy media outlets and threats to academic freedom.
Until recently, arguably one of the few remaining freedoms not overtly affected was freedom of religion or belief, but there are now increasing reasons to be concerned. Over the past two years, since the imposition of the draconian national security law, there have been numerous examples of freedom of religion or belief in Hong Kong coming under pressure. In 2020, the Hong Kong Catholic diocese discouraged lay Catholics from organising a public prayer campaign for the city, and the apostolic administrator at the time, Cardinal John Tong, issued a letter to all Catholic clergy urging them to be careful in their sermons. His exact phrase was “Watch your language”. Also that year, Hong Kong police raided the premises of Good Neighbour North District church, and HSBC froze the bank accounts of the church and its pastor.
More recently, just at the end of last month, the pro-Beijing newspaper Ta Kung Pao carried four articles attacking the Church. They contained a specific critique of Hong Kong’s bishop emeritus, Cardinal Joseph Zen; alleged that many of the protesters in 2019 were educated in Christian schools and accused churches of being behind the protests; and called for fresh Government regulations to control religious institutions. As experts have noted, when the Chinese Communist party regime intends to launch a new campaign or crackdown, it often trails it in pro-Beijing media first, so these articles in Ta Kung Pao are ominous.
Let us also remember that many of those currently in prison, including several whom I have had the privilege of meeting, are people of faith—jailed not directly because of their faith, but because of their courageous struggle for democracy, freedom and human rights, and often motivated by their faith. While the threats to freedom of religion or belief in Hong Kong currently may be much more subtle than those in some other countries and not today in the same fierce spotlight, that is no reason to be complacent. Indeed, it is all the more reason to call out these early warning signs and monitor the situation ever more closely.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this debate. As much as anybody in the House of Commons, having been chairman of the all-party group on Russia and being married to someone who is half-Russian, I have sought to understand Russia and the mindset of its leaders. What I am going to say in no way amounts to my approval of what is going through the mind of Vladimir Putin; I heartily condemn what has happened this morning. However, in this country and in the west, we think of the relationship of Russia and Ukraine in a rather similar vein to how we thought of the relationship between Germany and Poland before the second world war. Russian nationalists such as Mr Putin have a completely different mindset.
In his speech a couple of days ago, Mr Putin said that the Soviet Union “created” Ukraine, and in a way that is partly true. What happened was that there was a brief upsurge of Ukrainian nationalism in 1918 and 1919, following the collapse of the tsarist empire, but Lenin quickly snuffed out Ukrainian independence and in effect made Ukraine a vassal state. When Putin says that Ukraine has always been part of Russia, in a sense he is right because, following the partitions of Poland in the 1770s and the 1790s, Ukraine was an integral part of Russia for nearly 200 years. When we look inside the mind of a Russian nationalist such as Mr Putin, we can see that he does not recognise Ukraine as an independent state.
I have heard a lot of criticism of the responses of our Government and of NATO generally, but I think that nothing we could have done differently would have changed that mindset or probably avoided what has happened today. I personally think that the response of western Governments and of NATO up to now has been right and proportionate. What we have avoided doing, and must continue to avoid doing, is playing to the victimhood mindset of many Russian nationalists. They believe that they were humiliated by the west following the fall of the Soviet Union, particularly by President Clinton. They believe that Secretary of State Baker gave a solemn promise that NATO would not expand eastwards. Whether or not that is right is not important; they believe it.
President Putin has claimed, completely wrongly, that we are trying to make a vassal state of Ukraine, and he has used the issue of NATO membership to justify his actions. We could not have said to an independent country such as Ukraine that it could never join NATO, but the reality is that NATO has never made any effort to actually move this application forward. Indeed, the German Chancellor said only in the last week that Ukraine’s membership of NATO was “not on the agenda”, so when Putin claims that we are trying to make Ukraine a vassal state, he is lying.
What do we do now? I know that what I am going to say may not be very popular with some, but I think we have to continue with the strategy we have pursued so far. The Government have been attacked for the so-called weakness of their sanctions, but the sanctions they imposed earlier this week were only part of the story. What I am sure we will hear tonight is much stricter sanctions that will really hurt the Russian state. People will say that this is weak and that there should be some warlike response, and people will say that we should have allowed Ukraine to keep nuclear weapons, that we should arm the Ukrainians and that Ukraine should join NATO, but this is the path to war.
It is sometimes difficult to speak of a path to peace, but if we escalate issues and go into a tit-for-tat situation, then war can result. At the height of the first world war, the German Chancellor, Bethmann Hollweg was asked how the war started, and he said that he had no idea how it started and no idea how it escalated.
Bob Seely
As ever, my right hon. Friend is making some very sensible points. I do not think NATO should be asking Ukraine for membership, which is a 20-year path, because it simply enrages Putin, and it gives him a chance to respond and to claim that NATO membership is imminent. However, there is a difference between NATO membership, which is a red rag to a bull, and ensuring that Ukraine is too bitter a pill for Russia to swallow. Arming and training an independent, separate or Finland-like Ukrainian army is different from getting into a position where we are in direct conflict with the Russians.
Sir Edward Leigh
Well, I suspect that is what we have done. However, the German state simply sending helmets or a field hospital to Ukraine or our sending a few anti-tank handheld missiles will make no difference at all. I am not criticising the Government: we have gone through the motions, but the fact is that nothing we could have done would have been sufficient to arm the Ukrainian state well enough to be able to resist Russian aggression.
I want to say to the Government that they have to pursue the path of peace, and I do not think we should decry sanctions. Putin has now moved into the dark side of history, but if we cut off Russia entirely from the rest of the world economically, we can make a difference. I am sure what is going to be announced tonight will start the process of proving that the west can be resolute and determined that we are not playing to Putin’s war game and have never sought to make Ukraine in any sense a vassal state of the west. There was no intention—this is a complete lie—that nuclear weapons or a dirty bomb could have been restored to Ukraine. The Government have to pursue the path of peace, impose the most rigorous economic sanctions and not escalate to war.
My last point is that the Government should not hold the Russian people responsible for this. Most Russian people I know, and Ukrainian people, are not interested in this warped view of history and sense of victimhood. All they want is to get on with their lives in peace. They just do not want war: they do not want war between Russia and Ukraine, and they do not want war between the west and Russia.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
As chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and the all-party China group, it is a great pleasure to speak last—I think—from the Back Benches in this debate, which has been brilliantly timed by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely).
It is an extraordinary thing. No one could criticise the energy of our defence and diplomatic engagement with Ukraine and Russia in the past few weeks and even months. It is also true, however, that a united western approach, whether on defence, cyber, energy or even legislation, has been lacking, and that is what, paradoxically, President Putin may be helping to bring about. Our own analysis has been in the integrated review for a year and a half: “Global Britain in a Competitive Age” clearly outlines Russia as the most acute direct threat, and China as a systemic competitor. Nor do we lack policy goals in either direction. We aspire to be the leading European ally in NATO, and have the broadest, most integrated presence of any European partner in the Indo-Pacific, in support of mutually beneficial trade, shared security and values.
However, the best plans have to adapt to facts on the ground, so let us identify the challenge before us which, as the head of the Security Service put it the other day, is
“a contest of different worlds…between the liberal democrat model west and the more authoritarian model nations.”
In my view, that is only partly true, because we do—and should—work closely with nations and societies, whether in the middle east, Africa or Asia, that could not be described as following a liberal democrat model, but that may not wish for a change of global leadership.
In that new environment, we must think carefully about what our approach should be, and I believe the first thing is to define British interests, which include a global Britain, not a Britain decoupled from the world—as the head of the Security Service made clear, there is no need to cut ourselves off from the world. It involves understanding autocrats through engagement. In the context of China, that engagement very much includes forums such as the UK-China Leadership Forum, which brings British and Chinese leaders together to talk about issues of strong bilateral and indeed global interest. It includes the work of a Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office non-departmental body, the Great Britain-China Centre, and the all-party China group. That group has now run its first masterclass for Members of Parliament, so that we all have a better grasp of some of the issues, whether that is mainland China, the bilateral relationship, Taiwan, Hong Kong—whatever. Such courses play an important part in expanding our knowledge of the autocracies of the world. Engagement has suffered hugely from this pandemic. It has been terrible for engagement, as it is effectively impossible to travel to China or Hong Kong if one has to quarantine for three weeks, and that lack of physical contact is always dangerous in a more uncertain world.
Within that, our approach needs to consider a number of different things. First, careful scrutiny, not blanket prejudice, is incredibly important. Colleagues across the House have talked about not having any danger of prejudice against the peoples of Russia or China, as that would be contrary to everything that this House and democracies stand for. More trade and investment is a good thing; it brings countries closer together and ties us all in, while protecting our national security. Other colleagues have raised ways in which we can and should do that, and we have been too slow to do so.
We also need to define our positive interests as much as the things we dislike. There is sometimes a danger in this House that while we are good at criticising what we do not like, we do not make enough of what is positive—what is good about our own country, what we need to do more of, and how we can engage with the world more effectively.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
Through his chairmanship of the all-party China group, my hon. Friend and neighbour has probably done more than anybody in this House to engage with China. One thing he has always done when engaging with China is to be absolutely frank with the Chinese where they have got it wrong, as well as where they have it right. Is that how we should go forward?
Richard Graham
My hon. Friend and neighbour is very kind. I have always felt it incredibly important that we stand up for our values, and for the past 11 years, as chair of the all-party China group, I have never accepted mainland Chinese sponsorship of the group. That is precisely because I knew that somewhere along the line, that would be perceived as the group being obliged to a nation overseas, with whose values we do not always align. I have always felt it incredibly important to speak truth to power, whether that is our own Ministers, who may not always relish that, or foreign countries. It is all about the tone and how we engage, understanding where foreign countries, in particular autocracies, are coming from. There is no need for us to compromise on our values, but there is every need to find a way of co-existing peacefully with countries that will be here for a very long time to come. Our greatest challenge will be how we balance those two things.
I will conclude by musing on the fact that the story of the 20th century is fundamentally a story of how nationalist autocracies underestimated the resolve of the democratic west to come together in defence of what we believe in. It would be the cruellest irony and the greatest shame if the same were now to happen in our own century. For all those reasons, it is even more important that we double, triple, quadruple our engagement with those of different values in different systems, so that we understand where they are coming from and are better prepared to unite in a strategic approach together, if need be, to counter threats to our own future.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this debate which, although timely, I do not believe is the debate that he or any Member of the House would have hoped to have when he applied for it. I agree with almost everything that has been said this afternoon. I also agree with many of the solutions that have been brought forward, but I cannot help but regret the fact that it took bombs falling on civilians in Ukraine to get us to this position in the first place.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is an act of naked aggression that all right-thinking people must, and do, condemn. But let me be clear: our fight is with Putin and his cronies, with oligarchs who have become billionaires by having plundered Russia’s resources and hidden their obscene wealth in the west, and with those politicians close to the Kremlin who have encouraged and enabled this appalling attack on an independent sovereign state. They are the guilty ones in all of this, not the Russian people. As the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, the Russian people are not our enemy, and I believe we have a duty to ensure that the language we use does not in any way convey that we believe they are. I am sure that they are just as fearful of the consequences of a war in Europe as anyone on the continent is—indeed, given their history, probably more than most.
Of course, there are close ties, friendships and bonds that were forged during the second world war between Scotland—indeed, the whole of the UK—and the then Soviet Union. I am reminded of the actions of the people of Airdrie and Coatbridge who, when Hitler laid siege to Leningrad in 1941, organised relief packages and sent an album, letters of support and cards from churches, factories, co-operative societies and schools. Somehow, that album got through the blockade, and it was greeted enthusiastically by the women of Leningrad. They were so delighted that their allies—people on the other side of the world—had not forgotten about them in their time of greatest need. Despite struggling daily with hunger, disease, death and the consequences of a siege, the people of Leningrad managed to put together their own album containing letters, watercolours and prints and somehow got it back to Scotland, arriving in Airdrie in 1943. That album has been preserved ever since in the care of the Mitchell library in Glasgow. That is an important example of the solidarity and friendship that can and must exist between our peoples.
It is so important that, when we speak today, we do not speak of the Russian people as our enemy; we must make our remarks specific to the leadership in the Kremlin and those who support him. In so doing, and at the same time, we must also point the finger at those much closer to home—those among us who have facilitated the kleptocracy and grown fabulously wealthy by hiding Russian plunder for those people behind a cloak of respectability.
It is clear that the facilitation of what has been called criminal capitalism and the emergence of London as the money laundering capital of the world has infected not just our financial institutions but our politics, too. That can be seen in the oh-so-cosy relationship that has been allowed to flourish between Russian oligarchs and the UK’s governing party. Everyone can see that, for more than a decade, in return for everything from access to Ministers to priority visas, lunch with Ruth Davidson and tennis with the Prime Minister, very wealthy Russians have been throwing money into British politics.
Tom Tugendhat
The whole point of the debate was to bring the country together to help to support free people who are being oppressed. While the hon. Member mentions all those things, and many of us have condemned several of them, the idea that they are in any way relevant is appalling, particularly when his former party leader—someone with whom he sat on those Benches—is a propagandist for Putin. It is really shameful.
Brendan O'Hara
I utterly reject what the hon. Gentleman is saying. If we cannot shine a mirror on ourselves and say where we got this spectacularly and appallingly wrong, we are bound to make those same mistakes again. Let us not gloss over those mistakes. This is not a propaganda exercise. We are complicit—the British political system is complicit—in where we are right now. He spoke on Radio 4 this morning about the weakness of the sanctions regime put together on Monday. He recognises and has gone on record as saying that it was far too little, far too late.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. You have had six minutes, Mr O’Hara, so please draw your remarks to a conclusion.
Richard Graham
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I give the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) a chance to withdraw the effective implication that somehow a game of tennis played by the Prime Minister was responsible for the invasion of Ukraine?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Please resume your seat. Mr O’Hara, you are coming towards the end.
Brendan O'Hara
That was a nonsense assertion to make, and I utterly reject it.
We must be absolutely clear in what we do and what we say. We must be tough on Russia. There is no room for equivocation at all. It is time for the Government to get tough on those who have laundered Russia’s dirty money here in the United Kingdom. That is why the Scottish National party supports calls for an economic crime Bill to be brought in now, to unify the House. We want to see that registration of overseas interests. We want to see far more robust use of unexplained wealth orders, which have been not used at all, and a blacklisting of all dubious Russian banks. The UK Government must immediately ban Russia from the SWIFT banking system and take proper cognisance of and improve the Scottish limited partnership system before it gets further out of control.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I realise that I am running out of time. There is much more that I would like to say, but I cannot.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on securing the debate and on speaking up so clearly for the defence of human freedom. It is so important and appropriate that you are in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, as somebody who was sanctioned by China.
We woke up this morning to dreadful scenes on our televisions that were reminiscent of the 1945 period, with air raid sirens sounding in a European capital and a full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops accompanied by chilling references to denazification by President Putin. As parents, I am sure all of us in this Chamber will be thinking of our own children. My own are 19 and 27. If we were Russian or Ukrainian, they would be going to that terrible fate. We talk about war in far-flung places quite a lot, but let us not forget what it is. It can be the loss of limb. It can be the loss of life. It can be the loss of your mind. It can be the horror of war, where women are raped. It can be the loss of a family member or a permanent disability. Let us not forget the price tag of President Putin’s fantasy, as a Select Committee Chair called it. It is the coloniser’s fantasy that he owns another place, which is not his and does not belong to him.
I am so pleased with the tone of the debate. We have been united in our response to the provocations and hostility on display by President Putin to date. It is critically important that we remain united and rise above the partisan fray to speak with one voice in complete condemnation. I am so pleased that, as we speak, outside in Parliament Square the Union Jack and the flag of Ukraine are unfurled together. There are many pictures on social media showing that strength of purpose.
We know that Ukraine is an emerging liberal democracy, democratically elected and leaning towards Europe. Putin’s attempts to alter its course down the barrel of a gun is completely unacceptable and should be resisted. By his own comments, we know that he has designs not just on Ukraine, but on other nations which, under the Soviet sphere, were under the influence of Moscow. They have chosen a different path and we in this House support their right to choose. We know it is right to bring in sanctions—we look forward to the 5 pm statement, when we will hear more from the Government on strengthening those sanctions—so there can be nowhere to hide economically from the ramifications of the decision to take a country to war.
The situation we face today has ramifications beyond Ukraine. With his invasion of Ukraine, President Putin has put Russia on a collision course with the international system that the world has relied on since the end of the second world war. Many of the speeches today touched on the possibility that we are heading into a new chapter. Not only are we seeing the battle for Ukraine, but the battle for liberal democracy itself. Earlier in the week, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) spoke of
“a wider worldwide trend of authoritarian states trying to impose their way of thinking on others”.—[Official Report, 22 February 2022; Vol. 709, c. 177.]
She is right. Nations across the world will be watching events in Ukraine with a sense of foreboding and anxiety. If the international community fails to hold President Putin to account and abandons Ukraine and her people to President Putin and his warped notions of historical revisionism, then the system we rely on and treasure, and which has largely kept the peace in Europe since 1945, will fall away.
In my remaining minutes, I will briefly address the question of China. We all know that in the China picture, as the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) pointed out, there are differences. We cannot assume that all autocracies are the same. Like dysfunctional families, they all have different patterns. However, we do know that President Xi is intent on controlling Taiwan in some form, and that if President Putin can pull off his attempt to rewrite Europe’s borders without serious consequences, then President Xi will feel emboldened to do as he sees fit, particularly as he goes for a third term towards the end of this year. It is up to us to hold the line to defend our democracy and defend freedom over tyranny. I know that is a challenge the Minister recognises and is alive to. The UK’s relationships could and should be pragmatic and warm to the people of China and Russia, but we must hold their Governments to account when they challenge our values and our allies’ right to self-determination.
The immediate sanctions announced in response to President Putin’s renewed hostilities and invasion of Ukraine are welcome, as I said earlier, but obviously we seek reassurance on certain issues, such as a new computer misuse Act, a new foreign agents registration Act, a refreshed official secrets Act, the long-awaited reform of Companies House, a register of overseas entities Bill to deal with the buying up of expensive property in London and the south-east, and now across different regions, and a confident China strategy. The Minister and I have discussed that with her team. I believe that we need to flesh out the China strategy from the FCDO point of view and articulate that in a more confident way that crosses different Government sectors; for example, education in universities, our defence approach and trade and business. Is it safe? Are we ensuring that human rights are being observed? My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) gave an excellent speech about the Tibet situation, for example. All of us across the House have a commitment to opening up and understanding the allegations with regard to human rights and crimes against humanity in the Xinjiang region as well. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) Hill said, we are dealing with a kleptosphere. That is perhaps clearer in the case of Russia, but it is certainly present in the in-flows of renminbi to the UK economy.
Our issue will never be with the people of Russia and China. As parents, we think of the young people; we think of the fear of war. We sincerely hope for a peaceful future, but given the events of this week, with open conflict erupting on the continent of Europe, we must be brave and take the necessary steps that we to protect ourselves, our values and our allies. The world is watching.
The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for securing this timely and important debate. It has taken on a slightly different emphasis by virtue of recent developments, specifically overnight, and I will start by addressing some points on the situation in Ukraine.
The United Kingdom has stood and always will stand for democracy and freedom. The Government are clear that all nations should be held accountable for the international obligations and commitments that they freely signed up to. The UK strongly condemns the appalling, unprovoked attack that President Putin has launched on the people of Ukraine. He has chosen a path of bloodshed and destruction by launching that unprovoked attack. Russia’s attack on Ukraine is a flagrant breach of international law and the Government will stand with Ukraine in the face of that attack. As the Prime Minister said earlier today,
“we are with you, we are praying for you and your families, and we are on your side”.
We will work with our allies to respond decisively. As Members are aware, the Prime Minister will come to the House later this afternoon to update them on our response.
To turn to how the Government’s strategies help us to respond to these challenges, our strategic approach to security, defence, development and foreign policy under the integrated review is a very important starting point. The integrated review is clear that we are witnessing a growing contest between international rules and norms. It sets out a foreign policy baseline that helps to ensure that there are aligned cross-Government strategies. On my hon. Friend’s point, in addition, the National Security Council continues to provide clear direction for the Government’s Russia and China policies, and in doing so, reflects the importance of consistency in our foreign policy as well as the need to take a strategic approach to each country that reflects the complexities of each state and each relationship.
Since the integrated review was published, the Foreign Secretary has set out her vision for the UK to use all our weight, as the world’s fifth largest economy, to build a network of liberty and advance the frontiers of freedom. Russia’s current challenge of the international norms and of Ukraine’s sovereignty is a stark illustration of the importance of implementing that vision with our partners, as well as responding to the immediate challenges that Russia poses.
President Putin’s attack on Ukraine demonstrates his disregard for Ukraine’s sovereignty, for international law and for diplomacy. The United Kingdom and its allies and partners have responded with an immediate set of sanctions and have made it clear that more will follow. The situation in Ukraine today is an acute example of a security threat that could have disastrous consequences—in this case, for Ukraine and Russia—as well as wider global implications. These threats and tests of national resilience can take many forms, as our integrated review published last year sets out.
From the outset, let me be clear: there can be no normalisation in our relationship with Russia while it threatens the UK and our allies. I want to be clear that, as a number of hon. Members have said, while there may be tensions between our Governments, we have no quarrel with the Russian people. But while the Russian Government continue their aggressive behaviour, we will actively deter and defend against the full spectrum of threats emanating from Russia.
Amanda Milling
As I say, I will leave it to the Prime Minister to update the House on our response to what happened overnight.
Through NATO, we will ensure a united western response, combining our military, diplomatic and intelligence assets in support of collective security. We will uphold international rules and norms and hold Russia to account for breaches of them, working with our international partners as we did after the Salisbury attack. In the context of Ukraine, hon. Members will be aware that the UK is working intensively with allies to ensure that Russia’s actions are met with a united international response. We are doing so through NATO, the UN, the OSCE and our partners in the G7 and across Europe. We have engaged with the Russian Government at every level, but Putin has chosen the path of destruction over diplomacy.
The integrated review identifies Russia as representing
“the most acute direct threat to the UK”,
as well as predicting that it
“will be more active around the wider European neighbourhood”.
It makes a separate assessment of China, highlighting the
“scale…of China’s economy…population, technological advancement and…ambition to project its influence”.
It emphasises China’s increasing international assertiveness and scale as one of the most significant geopolitical shifts of the 2020s. Consequently, our approach to China aims to promote a positive economic relationship, but one that avoids strategic dependency and enables us to engage where possible to tackle global challenges. It also addresses the inescapable fact that China is an authoritarian state with a different set of values from the UK’s. We cannot let China undermine freedom and democracy. We will hold it to account for human rights violations, whether they are in Xinjiang or in Tibet, and for the erosions of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong.
The Government are clear that in areas of shared interest, the UK will preserve space for co-operation and continue to engage with China and Russia, which, like us, have permanent seats on the UN Security Council. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out in her Chatham House speech in December, we must be
“on the front foot with our friends across the free world, because the battle for economic influence is already in full flow.”
That requires a robust diplomatic framework that allows us to manage disagreements, defend our values and co-operate where our interests align, but let me repeat that we will not accept the campaign that Russia is waging to subvert its democratic neighbours.
As a P5 Member, China has a critical role to play. The UN Secretary General has said that Russia’s action
“conflicts directly with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations”.
Just as China refused to recognise the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, we would expect China to uphold the UN charter in the face of this latest violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The UK is determined to lead the way in defending democracy and freedom. We will continue to develop an international approach that defends UK interests and promotes our values, including with Russia and China. We will uphold the founding principles of international peace and security in the United Nations, which all three of our countries are duly bound to respect and protect.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
For up to two minutes, we will hear the final word from Bob Seely.
Bob Seely
I just want to thank Members very much for taking part in the debate. This is a pretty miserable day for all of us who care about democracy in Europe, so let us hope for the best.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to develop separate but aligned cross-Government strategies for both Russia and China; and further calls on the Government to support the international order, working with allies across the globe to develop an approach to Russia and China that, whilst recognising their separate legitimate interests, ensures a robust defence of both UK interests and democratic values.
Recognition of the State of Palestine
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UK Government position on the recognition of the State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel.
It is a real honour to speak about such a critical issue. I wish first to declare an interest as chair of Labour Friends of Palestine and the Middle East and co-chair of the Britain-Palestine all-party parliamentary group. Let me also welcome the Minister to her new role.
The time for recognising the state of Palestine was many years ago. With every year that has passed, the actions of the Israeli Government in creating facts on the ground, building and expanding illegal settlements and taking land and resources from Palestinians have only made it harder to bring this about: a viable, independent, sovereign state of Palestine, based on the 1967 lines, with a capital in Jerusalem.
The UK should make it clear that any future state must include both the west bank and the Gaza Strip. We do not at this stage have to specify precise borders; there may be agreed equal land swaps. Let us remember that when Britain recognised Israel in 1950, it did so without defining borders or its capital. For too long, in fact for over 40 years, successive British Governments of all parties have claimed to support a two-state solution. This claim for Palestinians rings hollow. We recognise only one state, Israel, and refuse to recognise the other. The Government’s position remains “not now”, but I ask the Government, “If not now, when?”
Palestinian statehood is a right to be recognised, not a gift to be given. It is in the power of the UK Government to do this, and do it we should. We have acknowledged that Palestine has obtained the hallmarks of statehood. The refusal to recognise its statehood sends a dangerous message: it reinforces the view that we support and uphold rights for one people—we rightly recognise the state of Israel—but do not recognise the rights of the other, the Palestinians. It shows that we are not at all serious in our claims to back a two-state solution.
Some argue that Palestinian statehood should be the outcome of negotiations. This allows successive Israeli Governments who reject Palestinian statehood to have a permanent veto. If that is the case, why did we recognise Israel? We recognise Israeli national rights, but not Palestinian national rights. We all want a proper negotiating process to start to bring lasting peace to both the Israeli people and the Palestinian people, but it would be preferable for Palestine to enter that process as a recognised sovereign state. It is essential that Israel knows that statehood for Palestinians is not something to be bartered over, but something that has to happen. Israelis are citizens of a state They have fully fledged passports. They have a vote at the UN. Palestinians are stateless. At best, they have travel documents. They can travel only with the permission of the occupier, Israel. In fact, they can leave one Palestinian city to go to another Palestinian city only with the permission of the occupier. An Israeli soldier at a checkpoint can prevent President Mahmoud Abbas from leaving Ramallah. Palestinians have no say in the control of their land, water, maritime area or airspace, or even their population registry.
Let me address the points that anti-Palestinian groups make. Recognising a state of Palestine is not about endorsing a particular Government or authority. We recognise many states while having massive disagreements with their Governments—Iran and Syria are examples. As it is, our diplomats meet and work with the Palestinian Authority. There are those who will inevitably say, “Well, what about Hamas?” Hamas wants a one-state solution, something we all disagree with. The longer we dither about recognising Palestine, the more potent Hamas’s argument that there will be no two-state solution becomes. By failing to recognise Palestine, we undermine the Palestinian national movement that agrees to two states in favour of the likes of Hamas. We would be recognising a state under occupation, but there is a precedent for doing that. In 1939, Stalin illegally incorporated Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the USSR. In 1990, the long Soviet occupation ended and they ceased to be states under occupation.
On the ground, which I have visited, it is hard to see where this second state is going to be. The moment anyone enters occupied Palestinian territory, they are confronted with the terrifying infrastructure of military occupation, defined by walls, barriers, checkpoints, earth mounds, firing zones and military zones. These are all designed to control Palestinian civilians who live under Israeli military law, as they have done for the past 54 years. In a parallel universe, they now have over 650,000 Israeli settler neighbours living in illegal settlements. This is a violation of the fourth Geneva convention and UN Security Council resolutions. These settlers live under Israeli civilian law. Two peoples living under two different legal systems in the same territory.
Settlers have subsidised housing and fast transport access into Israel, and they do not have to go through the checkpoints and barriers that Palestinians do. The settlers, with the collaboration of the Israeli military, harass and intimidate Palestinians to push them off Palestinian land. The levels of settler violence have gone up massively in the last few years. Violence and the dispossession of Palestinians from their homes are systemic across the occupied Palestinian territory. Israeli soldiers act with impunity and settler violence worsens, particularly in the areas around Nablus and in the south Hebron hills. These are not isolated incidents but day in, day out realities for Palestinians, whose lives and livelihoods are targeted by Israeli settlers, backed up by the Israeli state. To make way for the settlements, Palestinian homes and property are liable to demolition. Whole families—men, women and children—are forced from their homes and land, even in the midst of winter storms.
In Jerusalem, the situation is extremely tense, with a repeat of last year’s conflagration all too possible. Palestinians in Sheikh Jarrah and other areas of occupied East Jerusalem continue to face the horrendous threat of forced dispossession and eviction from their homes. Only the other day, the Salem family in Sheikh Jarrah were given a temporary reprieve from being forcibly evicted from their home in favour of Israeli settlers backed by the Israeli state. Political pressure needs to increase, and our solidarity needs to match up with the realities faced by such Palestinian families. It is not enough for our consulate in Jerusalem simply to bear witness as its neighbours literally across the road, the Salhiya family, were forcibly evicted from their home, which was then demolished.
We have all seen the scenes of Israeli police violence towards those protesting against the forced evictions and dispossessions. We have all seen the far right sit-ins and the incitement from far right politicians in Sheikh Jarrah designed to abuse, intimidate and ultimately force Palestinians from their homes. The “death to Arabs” slogans and chants from far-right Israelis, which we heard in abundance last year, are as much part of the lived reality of Palestinians as the threat of forced dispossession. Such is the level of systematic discrimination, is it any wonder that there is mounting consensus among Palestinians and the human rights community that it amounts to the crime of apartheid? Who are we, as British politicians, to dismiss and gaslight the lived experience of Palestinians who speak of apartheid and systematic discrimination?
Why are we shocked when international human rights organisation such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch come to the same or similar conclusions as many Palestinians long before, that their situation amounts to apartheid? What are the Government doing to end such widespread and systematic discrimination and oppression? The Government may dislike the terminology, but the level of discrimination cannot and must not be ignored.
We watch today as a European country faces war and occupation, and we stand with Ukraine in opposing Russian aggression. My heart goes out to the Ukrainian people. We rightly talk about international law, and I listened to the Minister for Asia and the Middle East speak only a few minutes ago about the vital importance of the sovereignty of states, but how must Palestinians feel when they hear that? They have endured 54 years of occupation, which in itself is an aggression.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am listening carefully to the hon. Lady’s speech. I respectfully say to her that conflating today’s invasion of Ukraine by Russia with the very difficult and sensitive situation we are supposed to be debating with regard to Israel and the people of Palestine is historically, factually and morally wrong. I think it does a huge disservice not just to the people of Ukraine but to the people of Palestine and the people of Israel who face a unique situation and set of challenges.
Julie Elliott
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. However, I was talking about upholding international law, which the Minister for Asia and the Middle East talked about a few minutes ago, and it is as relevant to Ukraine as it is to Palestine.
The Palestinians are looking to us to speak and act in the same terms. We sanctioned Russia over Crimea, and we are now likely to impose more sanctions, with which I wholeheartedly agree, yet Palestinians ask why we do nothing to end Israel’s occupation. Recognising Palestine is now the bare minimum of what we should be doing. In the light of what is happening on the ground, I make it clear that recognising Palestine must be the first of many steps to roll back the inequalities of Israeli occupation and the systematic discrimination that oppresses Palestine. This should include a complete ban on illegal Israeli settlements.
The international community has to hold Israel accountable, as it has held Palestinian groups accountable. If the settlements are illegal and the UK Government say they are illegal, the logical consequence is that we should not be trading with, or supporting in any way, enterprises that are in clear violation of international law and that the Government say are an obstacle to peace.
For any state, the strength of its civil society is crucial. We can also support Palestine by defending its civil society and human rights groups from systematic attacks by the occupying power. It is crucial that our Government support and encourage a healthy, prosperous and uninhibited Palestinian civil society that is free from interference by the occupying power, Israel, and from the Palestinian Authority and Hamas. If we are unable to fully pledge our support to Palestinian civil society, what message does this send about our attitude to human rights as a country? We rightly pledge our support for human rights defenders elsewhere, but throw those in Palestine to the wolves. As parliamentarians, many of us would have met and been briefed by organisations such as Al Haq, Defence for Children International – Palestine, and Addameer, three of the six Palestinian civil society and human rights organisations designated, without evidence, by Israel as terrorist organisations. They are one of our most valuable routes into knowing what is happening on the ground. We must support them as parliamentarians, and so must our Government, explicitly and publicly, and defend their right to do their vital work without any interference. In European capitals, we must hear from them, and we must amplify their voices and those of Palestinians living under occupation and under systematic discrimination and oppression.
Logic, the rule of law, fairness and history all tell us that Britain should have recognised a Palestinian state long ago. It is time to correct this and we can do that now. The alternative to a two-state solution is clear, and I shall cite none other than the Prime Minister on this. Five years ago, he said that
“you have to have a two-state solution or else you have a kind of apartheid system.”
Sadly, five years on, we are far closer to the latter than the former. I ask the Government to recognise the state of Palestine now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As the House can see, a great many people wish to speak this afternoon, so we will have to start with a time limit of five minutes. That will probably reduce later, but, with five minutes, I call Matthew Offord.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I had wanted to intervene on the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) to congratulate her on obtaining this debate. I was listening to what she had to say and I wanted to ask her a question, but unfortunately, as time ran out, I was unable to do that. However, I congratulate her on her words this afternoon. Although I may not agree with a lot of what she says, I am very pleased that she has secured this debate.
It is unfortunate that instead of promoting the resumption of direct peace talks without preconditions, the motion we are debating seeks to undermine the agreed framework for talks by premeditating the outcome of negotiations. The only route to a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians is through such talks, and I share the UK Government’s stated view that recognition of a Palestinian state should only come about at a time that best serves the objective of peace. Today’s motion neglects the reality that a two-state solution will be achieved only when both sides make the difficult compromises necessary to achieve it.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman not think that such negotiations have a greater chance of success if both of those communities enter as equals, with a common aim for peace, rather than entering when one can outshine and outvote the other?
Dr Offord
I absolutely do, and the hon. Lady is correct. The problem is that it is impossible to bring Hamas and the Palestinian Authority to the negotiating table. They refuse to negotiate without any preconditions. Until they do so, we will not have any peace in the state of Israel.
Some hon. Members have in these debates evoked the apartheid in South Africa, which is a distortion that we must call out and condemn. Senior Israeli Arabs themselves have rejected the apartheid smear, with the leader of the Islamist Ra’am party, Mansour Abbas, stating that he
“would not call it apartheid”
and pointing out that he leads an Israeli-Arab party that is a member of the Israeli coalition Government. Another Israeli Government official, Esawi Frej, responded to the Amnesty report by stating:
“Israel has many problems that must be solved, both within the Green Line and especially in the Occupied Territories, but Israel is not an apartheid state”.
It should go without saying that Israel is a multi-racial, multi-ethnic democracy, where Arab, Druze and other minorities are guaranteed equal rights. The Israeli occupation of the west bank has continued for more than 50 years, not because Israel wants to rule over the territory but because peace talks have thus far failed, despite countless efforts by Israelis and others to achieve peace by negotiations.
Instead of demonising Israel and downplaying the history of terrorism and extreme violence that Israel has faced and continues to face, let us not forget that the Palestinian leadership has rejected all peace proposals and failed to fulfil its commitments of promoting peace and renouncing violent incitement. The cycle of violence will be broken only when peace is built between Israelis and the Palestinians. I do not believe it would be constructive or beneficial to prematurely recognise a Palestinian state before the successful conclusion of peace talks.
Greater investment in peaceful co-existence projects is desperately needed. Peace between leaders will last only if the Israeli and Palestinian peoples trust and empathise with each other. As the US increases its support for peacebuilding, so too should the UK. We should join the US in the establishment of an international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, to invest in shared-society projects. That would demonstrate our commitment to peace. Will the Minister commit to that?
It is crucial to ensure that our aid promotes peace, so I urge the Minister to reconsider our strategy on aid to the UN Relief and Works Agency, which continues to use the official Palestinian Authority curriculum in its schools despite clear evidence of incitement and antisemitism.
I continue to hope that the Israeli coalition Government’s founding principles of compromise and reconciliation will be reflected in the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate after the superb opening speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). None the less, it is a great shame that we are here, once again, holding another debate on the UK’s recognition of Palestinian statehood, almost eight years after this House voted formally to adopt that position, because the British Government are yet to do the right thing and abide by that historic decision.
What is more dispiriting is the way in which the situation on the ground in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories has further deteriorated over the past eight years, meaning that the prospect of peace in the region looks more distant than ever. In May 2021 alone, during the violence sparked by the racist eviction of Palestinian families from the east Jerusalem neighbourhood of Sheikh Jarrah, the UN reported that 256 Palestinians were killed, of whom at least 129 were civilians, including 66 children, as were 10 Israelis, plus three foreign nationals, including two children.
The killing has not let up. Just this week, a 14-year-old Palestinian boy, Mohammed Shehadeh, was killed by Israeli forces gunfire at al-Khader, near Bethlehem. This followed the killing of 19-year-old Nehad Amin Barghouti, who was shot in the abdomen last week by Israeli troops in a village near Ramallah. Over the past year, the Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem recorded 77 Palestinian deaths at the hands of Israeli forces in the west bank, with half those killed not being implicated in any attacks.
The killings have come after the Israeli Government advanced their plans in recent months to build more than 3,000 new homes in illegal settlements across the occupied west bank. With each illegal home the Israelis construct, the dream of a viable Palestinian state is dealt another blow, as settlements are established intentionally to stop contiguous geographical connection between Palestinian communities living in the west bank and east Jerusalem.
The Palestinian people are subjected to yet more intolerable brutality and oppression, with Israeli forces standing idly by or even protecting settlers while they attack Palestinian civilians. B’Tselem has documented that there have been more than 450 incidents of settler violence against Palestinians over the past two years, with Israeli forces failing to intervene to stop the attacks in two thirds of cases.
The organisation has also recorded how settlers have been used as a tool of the state to expropriate 11 square miles of Palestinian farm and pasture land in the west bank over the past five years alone. Palestinian rural communities in the South Hebron hills are under sustained attack from settlers in illegal outposts such as Havat Ma’on and Avigayil, with the sole intent of pushing them off their land to make way for further Israeli domination and control.
Another Israeli human rights group, Yesh Din, summarising 15 years of monitoring investigations into settler violence, found that, of more than 1,200 investigation files, indictments were served in only 100 of those cases. There is no other way to look at this than as a state-sanctioned project of colonisation and ethnic cleansing.
As the Human Rights Watch report, published in April last year, concluded:
“the Israeli government has demonstrated an intent to maintain the domination of…Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the OPT. In the OPT, including East Jerusalem, that intent has been coupled with systematic oppression of Palestinians and inhumane acts committed against them. When these three elements occur together, they amount to the crime of apartheid.”
It is as simple as that. We must see a change. We must see the oppression of the Palestinian people met with material consequences and meaningful accountability. If this Government will not act, it is perfectly proper for civil society in this country to take the action that they determine. Like those who supported apartheid in South Africa, the malign voices who oppose this will come to learn that they are on the wrong side of history. As well as the recognition of the Palestinian state alongside Israel, we need actions and sanctions, and we need them now.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
After the next speaker, the time limit will go down to four minutes.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing this debate. She spoke very powerfully. There was a lot with which I did not agree. I fundamentally disagreed with the occupation narrative that she sought to outline, but there were parts of her speech that I did agree with, including when she talked about the challenges and poverty that Palestinians live with and the imposition created by the security measures. I can recognise that.
I chair the Conservative Friends of Israel here in the House of Commons. I have been to Israel numerous times and most of those times I have taken the opportunity to spend time on the west bank. I have met many Palestinians over the years, most regularly with the late Dr Saeb Erekat, who, until his death in November 2020, still held the position of chief negotiator for the Palestine Liberation Organisation. On each of those visits to the west bank, I came away having learnt and understood more about the Palestinian perspective and the situation that they face.
There is a real challenge there. I hope there is a cross-party desire in this House—I hope there is unity—on the aspiration of seeing a Palestinian state. That two-state solution is the official UK Government policy and the official policy of the Opposition. It is the mainstream peace agenda that the international community wants to support. But it is 22 years now since Bill Clinton tried to bring the different parties together at Camp David and it is almost 30 years since the Oslo accords were outlined that set the framework for peace.
The hon. Member for Sunderland Central framed her argument around the question of, “If not now, when?” She was speaking to that long-term yearning and the length of time that it is taking to see a Palestinian state. I recognise that, but I believe that it is premature to put recognition of statehood ahead of a peace process. There is still a peace process that the parties have to sit down and grind their way through. We know what the issues are. In fact, we have a very good idea of what the final outcome will look like. It has been known for decades now. It may involve some land swaps. It involves some compromises on some difficult issues. All that is contained in the Oslo accords, but it requires a commitment from both parties to sit down and work it out.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) outlined, it is complicated on the Palestinian side because who would the Israeli Government be talking to? Is it the Palestinian Authority, the old men in Ramallah, or is it the young extremists of Hamas in Gaza, who will claim to be the legitimate voice of the Palestinians? We are not talking about a simple situation.
Dr Offord
That sums up the crux of the problem. I pay tribute to those Opposition Members who are seeking a solution to the problem, but the big issue is the conflict between Fatah and Hamas, who do not agree with Israel’s right to exist. Until we can get past that and until they stop inciting hatred and violence, we cannot get to the peace table.
Stephen Crabb
My hon. Friend makes an important contribution. I will be very brief and wrap up my comments in a few moments, but I want to focus on what the nature of peace is. Peace is not just the absence of violence and hostility; it implies engagement, warmth and co-operation.
I believe I have had a glimpse of the future. One Opposition Member said earlier that peace in the region seems a long way off, but peace is happening in the region. I recently visited the United Arab Emirates with the cross-party UK Abraham Accords Group—I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There I met Arabs who spoke about the need for peace: not only a high-level agreement between Government leaders, but the peace that comes through people-to-people contact, the peace and prosperity that come through trading together and building those close links.
If the United Arab Emirates can do it, if Bahrain can do it and if Morocco and other nations in the region are on a journey, surely that is the future. As one Arab leader said to me recently, “We have spent 40 years saying exactly the same things about the region, repeating the same things over and over and doing the same things over and over, and it achieved nothing—nothing for our own peoples, nothing for the Palestinians and nothing for the people of Israel.”
There has to be a different approach, and I believe the Abraham accords set out that different approach. My appeal to the Palestinians would be to look at the opportunities for their own people that would come about through peace, co-operation, trade and people-to-people contact, and to pursue those. That surely has to be the future. To my colleagues on the Front Bench, I say there is a role for the UK Government in supporting that, and I hope they will lend every effort to peace in the wider region and to seeing how in the Israel-Palestine context we can learn the lessons of the Abraham accords.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I start by declaring an interest, in that I was a volunteer with Medical Aid for Palestinians in Gaza in 1991 and 1992, and after visiting in 2016 I helped them to set up a breast cancer project between Scottish specialists and local teams in Gaza and the west bank. I thank all the clinicians who take part in that on a regular basis.
In addition to almost 55 years of occupation, the people of Gaza have suffered from 15 years of intense blockade and repeated military attacks every few years, which have degraded their civil infrastructure. Unlike in my town, the tap water there is now undrinkable, raw sewage pollutes coastal fishing waters and, due to the destruction of the power plant in 2014, there is only intermittent electricity—including to hospitals. Not only the public health of Palestinians but the provision of healthcare is being undermined, with the destruction of clinics and hospitals through military attacks and demolitions and difficulty in obtaining medical supplies. Approximately one third of vital drugs constantly run close to zero stock.
Many modern therapies are simply not available in Gaza, yet it is difficult for patients to get permission to travel to east Jerusalem to access treatment. Gaza has no radiotherapy provision, which is important for preserving the breast in breast cancer patients; when I visited in 2016, all the women I met had undergone radical mastectomy because they could not access that treatment. However, it is even more vital in other cancers, such as lung cancer, where it is the main treatment. Overall, the World Health Organisation reports that 35% to 40% of patients who apply for permission to travel to Jerusalem are refused, delayed or get no response. All that contributes to the poor survival of Palestinian cancer patients.
On annual training visits prior to the pandemic, I have seen the impact of the occupation and fragmentation in the west bank, with communities separated from each other, their farmland and particularly their water sources. Palestinians face constant harassment and obstruction. Their homes are demolished while settlements are relentlessly expanded in what is de facto annexation and conquest by concrete.
The UK has a particular responsibility, as the 1917 Balfour declaration promised
“a national home for the Jewish people”
in Palestine, but that
“nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities”.
For over 70 years, the UK has recognised the state of Israel and honoured that promise to the Jewish people but broken it to the Palestinians.
After 55 years of occupation and 15 years of the Gaza blockade, and the ongoing annexation of the west bank, the two-state solution is simply becoming unviable unless there is a reversal of current Israeli policy, and there is no chance of that without external pressure. Government Ministers repeatedly stand in this Chamber and claim that the UK supports a two-state solution, but that is hollow if there is not recognition of both those states. That is a minimum. It must be combined with real action to ensure that no UK banks or companies profit from the occupation or illegal settlements.
I was working in Gaza at the start of the Madrid peace process. By late afternoon, I saw young Palestinian men giving olive branches to Israeli soldiers. That image of hope has crumbled to dust 30 years on. Immediate recognition is the minimum, and it is vital.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am afraid I do not share the view of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) that the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state would advance the cause of peace. The Palestinian Authority’s unilateral efforts to achieve statehood outside the agreed framework of negotiations directly contravenes the 1993 Oslo accords and undermines the peace process. Those who support such attempts are regrettably sending the Palestinian leadership the message that it does not need to make the necessary compromises for a lasting peace or to establish stability.
Promoting peaceful coexistence in the region should not be looked at as a one-sided effort. In the Palestinian Authority, removing hate-filled material inciting violence against Israel and Jews in official PA school textbooks would be a welcome start. Young, impressionable Palestinian children are being indoctrinated to hate their neighbours and told that killing Israelis is an honourable act. And that is only the hatred espoused by the Palestinian Authority. In Gaza, the Hamas terror group recruits child soldiers who are taught to practice sniper shooting and how to launch anti-tank missiles. Video footage of children expressing their hope to die as martyrs, marching with weapons and burning Israeli flags, has been widely published online. Both sides will need to make the necessary compromises, but let us not forget that Israel has a track record of removing settlements and making land swaps in the interests of peace. Land borders can be negotiated, but hatred cannot be unlearned. Until the Palestinian leadership shares a message of peace and reconciliation, including acknowledging the Jewish connection to the land of Israel, peace remains unlikely.
Mahmoud Abbas is now in the 18th year of a four-year term as Palestinian Authority president, so I ask the Minister what more can be done to encourage the Palestinian Authority to reschedule last year’s postponed election. Just as our friends in the UAE, Bahrain and elsewhere have understood that peace with Israel will lead to shared prosperity and security, so too should we help the Palestinian leadership to boldly follow suit. It is deeply regrettable that the Palestinian Authority has opposed these landmark peace agreements, and I hope the opportunity presented by these accords will be seized to advance Israeli-Palestinian peace. Instead of supporting efforts to bypass direct peace talks, I urge the Government to work with international partners to address the issues that I have raised and support the Palestinian Authority to take a more constructive and a more democratic approach to the region and to these issues.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am pleased we are having this debate today, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing it, because it is well past time that we had it. I agree with one part of what the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) said in his contribution, when he said that peace is not just the absence of violence. That is absolutely the case; there has to be a peace process that is respectful and recognition of the traditions and histories of all sides. Surely we learned that in Northern Ireland, and we have learned that in other places.
It is simply not tenable to continue with the narrative that somehow or other we can continue not recognising Palestine because the Palestinian leadership has not passed threshold X, Y or Z or jumped over this fence, that fence, that hurdle or the other, while all the time accepting the recognition of Israel. It gives a message to the Palestinian people that we do not care, that we are not very interested and that they will continue suffering under the occupation they are under.
We need to have a sense of reality about what an occupation means. It means soldiers driving past your house every day. It means checkpoints. It means a young person on a demonstration being taken into military custody. It means being in a prison in Israel. It means an inability to get the medical treatment that people need, because there is a checkpoint that will stop them going anywhere. Many Members in the House today have visited Israel and Palestine. I have visited many times, and I have watched the behaviour of soldiers at checkpoints and the humiliation of building workers waiting to go through a checkpoint to work, being told to wait for hours and being abused. They get that on their way to work and they get that on their way home. I can understand it when we are visitors—we can put up with it, because it is an hour or two’s delay—but when it is all someone’s life that they are being humiliated by occupying soldiers, people get angry as a result. We should just think about the reality of what occupation means.
Then there is the continuation not just of settlements, but of house demolitions, where Palestinian homes are demolished by the Israeli occupying forces to make way for some alleged security need. I remember very well how the late, wonderful Tom Hurndall was shot dead in Rafah when he was trying to save children’s lives as a house demolition went on. Those in Sheikh Jarrah, who have lived in those houses for 70 or 80 years, are now being removed by force. That is what the occupation actually means.
If we go up on to the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem and look out on what should be pristine beauty all the way down to the Dead sea, what do we see but settlement after settlement after settlement? Roads are constructed between the settlements that Palestinians cannot go on, which is why the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu described it as an apartheid state, where people cannot travel freely and easily on the same roads as Israeli settlers. Those settlers take the land, the water and the very lifeblood out of people’s lives. That is something we have to understand.
I have had the good fortune to meet human rights activists in Israel and Palestine, and I have spoken to many people in Gaza during some visits I have made there, and I have good friends in the mental health service and campaigns in Gaza. As the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) would attest, the number of people in Gaza who are suffering from functional mental health conditions and stress, because of the continuation of the occupation, means that we should understand their lives and those of the refugees and, I believe, support the immediate and unconditional recognition of the state of Palestine.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Today’s motion asks the UK Government to undermine their commitment to the peace process by predetermining the outcome of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Some may think that recognition is merely an empty gesture and that there is no harm in it whatever, but I believe that supporting this motion would give the green light to the intransigence of the Palestinian Authority and the terrorism of Hamas in Gaza by suggesting that the current policies of the Palestinian leadership befit a sovereign state, which they clearly do not.
A peaceful Palestinian state is in Israel’s best interests and is important for its long-term security, but we must be clear that the biggest obstacle to peace is Hamas, the stated aim of which is to wipe Israel and the Jewish people off the face of the earth. The UK Government have been clear that they will recognise a Palestinian state
“when it best serves the objective of peace”,
but that must not happen while Palestinian territories are controlled by terrorists and the Israeli people suffer appalling rocket attacks and suicide bombings.
We are all aware that Israel has offered, on multiple occasions, to withdraw from almost all the west bank, reaching a negotiated land swap deal with the Palestinians to cover the land along the green line that Israel would retain. No matter the offer on the table, however, the Palestinian leadership continues to reject all possible outcomes. Hon. Members will know that the green line is the 1949 armistice line and has never been internationally recognised as a border. Negotiations are required to agree the final borders for the two-state solution that we all hope to see.
Israel has shown that it is driven by the policy of land for peace. In 1979 with Egypt, and in 1994 with Jordan, it made land swaps and compromises in the interests of peace and its good-will gestures were reciprocated. It withdrew from Gaza in 2005, including uprooting settlements. I hope that all Members of the House share my view that the rise of the formidable Iran-backed Hamas terror group was one of the greatest setbacks to peace in the history of the middle east peace process.
When Israel withdrew from Palestinian territories in an effort to jump start the peace process, it was met with tens of thousands of rocket attacks, as well as suicide terror attacks and violent border incursions emanating from the Gaza strip. The only way to negotiate a lasting two-state solution is for the Israelis and Palestinians to return to direct peace talks. That is what we should be calling for. I urge the Minister to prioritise that and to leave the final status issues for the parties to determine themselves.
The principle of land swaps is well established in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations—even Yasser Arafat agreed to it—and the shape of a future and viable Palestinian state is largely understood by the parties. However, premature recognition of a Palestinian state before the conclusion of direct peace talks will not help the Palestinian people. It is only by making difficult compromises and resolving final status issues that peace can be achieved and a lasting two-state solution can finally be agreed.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) for securing this important debate. To have a two-state solution, we need two states. That is exactly the point of this debate. It is not a prerequisite for negotiation but a duty on the United Nations, which has ensured by a huge amount of votes that Palestine has been recognised as an observer member in its proceedings. Yet we are unable to follow the vote that was taken here in 2014 to recognise the state of Palestine, where we voted 274 to 12—a majority of 262—in favour of recognition.
In a debate in 2021, the right hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), the then Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, rejected all calls for recognition. He stated:
“The UK Government position is clear: the UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it best serves the object of peace.”—[Official Report, 14 June 2021; Vol. 697, c. 21WH.]
Peace is always there for us to recognise, but we can only do that when we are able to sit down together at the same table with the same status as each other. That is what is important, and that is what we are talking about here.
It is the duty of the United Nations to look at this issue. Conservative Members have talked about the issue of elections for the Palestinian Authority and what is going on in relation to how we expedite them, and that is also an obligation on the United Nations. Until we have stability in a place, we cannot have such elections taking place, and the United Nations needs to fulfil its peacekeeping role to provide the stability for that to happen.
Finally, I will make a point about the Abraham accords, which the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) mentioned. There is no threat from any Muslim country to Israel. Therefore, it is time now for us to recognise Palestine, to recognise our responsibility and to recognise what is important, and the most important thing we have to do today is to recognise that peace can be made only when we have two people of equal status sitting at the same table.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
In 2014, I voted to recognise the state of Palestine, and I would do so again today. However, let nobody be under any illusion: I certainly support the state of Israel and its right to exist. Every one of us in this House needs to remember that there are those who say, even in the United Kingdom, that they would wish to eliminate that state, which cannot ever be allowed to happen. We must remember that Jewish people in the UK, as one said to me recently, remember the holocaust every day, not just on Holocaust Memorial Day, and they fear a holocaust in the future. We must understand that the existence of Israel is absolutely to be insisted upon, but I would vote again today to recognise Palestine.
The issue of Israel and Palestine matters most profoundly in my constituency of Wycombe. On the last set of census data, about one in six of my voters are British Muslims. It says “Asians”, but I know that that means overwhelmingly Kashmiris and British Muslims. My electors feel very acutely the suffering of the Palestinian people, which has been set out in the House. I am afraid that on both sides there has been terrible suffering, hatred and violence, and we need somehow to move beyond and above it.
If I may say so, I know that some of my colleagues do not represent very diverse constituencies, so let me dispel an illusion about who cares about this issue. We are not talking about radical youths here, although they may well be included; we are talking about professional middle-aged people—indeed, people of all ages—who are thoughtful and well educated, and we are talking about Conservative councillors, who feel most acutely this issue of the suffering of the Palestinian people. So let us be under no illusions about who we are talking about who want the British Government to recognise Palestine.
It is a grave mistake, and one I have confessed to from this position before, to neglect this issue between periods of violence. When we do so, we send the message that we do not care about the issue or we have forgotten about it, which in some cases people have, and that of course only encourages violence. We must stay on top of this issue and the British Government must stay on top of this issue continually.
My final point is that, when we say we want a two-state solution, we must really mean it—we must mean it with all our hearts and we must get behind it—and that implies that we must recognise the state of Palestine. On behalf of the electors of Wycombe, who feel this issue most powerfully, I implore my right hon. Friend the Minister to recognise the state of Palestine, and to do it very soon and preferably at the moment that she can collectively agree it with her colleagues.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
The vote in the House in October 2014, which Members have referred to, was important, but as we know, it was not binding on the Government. The Government have consistently said that the UK will recognise a Palestinian state at the time of their own choosing, and the judgment will be on when it is best to further the objective of peace. The difficulty we find ourselves in is that, since 2014, the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians has in effect been moribund. Clearly, if a negotiated two-state solution is to happen—and I believe firmly that it must—a meaningful initiative will be needed to break the logjam. One such initiative is recognition of the state of Palestine. From time to time, the idea of the formal recognition of a Palestinian state has been raised by, and through, a number of international bodies. Indeed, some states have formally recognised Palestine. I now believe it is essential that the UK Government take the lead on this issue. If they genuinely believe that the only way forward is a two-state solution, and I believe they do, they must take the international lead in immediately recognising a Palestinian state.
Some people say it is a mere gesture to recognise a Palestinian state, but the importance of symbolism should never be underestimated. However, recognition must be much more than that. As Professor Yossi Mekelberg of the middle east and north Africa programme at Chatham House has argued, it is surely inappropriate for recognition to be seen as a prize waiting for the Palestinians at the end of negotiations. If that were allowed to happen, negotiators from Palestine would be in an inferior position, with one hand tied behind their back when the negotiations take place with the Israelis. If our aim is genuinely to see a two-state solution agreement that is acceptable to both sides, there must be a high degree of parity between the two negotiating parties. That is why I believe that the immediate recognition of a Palestinian state would give those peace negotiations the best chance of success.
At a time when international law is being so blatantly transgressed, recognising the state of Palestine would be an important signal to the international community. I believe that if this country had the vision and determination to recognise Palestine, the UK would not only enhance its reputation among the world’s democratic community, but it would give a huge boost to the possibility of meaningful negotiations, leading to a two-state solution.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Eight years ago, this House voted to recognise the state of Palestine. Tragically, in those eight years, we have seen more war, more conflict and more violence, taking us further away from peace in the region, and closer to the collapse of any chance of a two-state solution. In reality, eight years later, rather than marking the recognition of an independent state of Palestine, we are reading yet more reports about the persecution, oppression and injustice that Palestinians face at the hands of the Israeli Government, the latest of which comes from Amnesty International.
We have more reports that prove that Palestinian children are still being put in military detention as their parents are put on trial in unfair military courts; more reports of indiscriminate attacks, leaving Palestinians in constant fear of military raids on their home in the dead of night, or of airstrikes that demolish their homes, schools, and hospitals; more reports of villages bulldozed to make way for illegal settlements; and more reports that a continued siege has left Gaza in a state of abject poverty, as the largest open-air prison in the world. Let us be clear: these acts are grave injustices against humanity, they are in direct contravention of international law, and they are a clear threat to the lives and livelihoods of the Palestinians. They must be condemned in the strongest possible terms as incompatible with peace in the region.
The violence that took place last summer was shocking for the silence and lack of action that it elicited from the international community. Instead of demanding sanctions for violations of international law, an immediate overhaul of all arms used indiscriminately to kill civilians and commit war crimes, and the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine, the international community stood by and did nothing. The silence of the international community was deafening then and it is deafening now. They should hang their heads in shame.
There needs to be immediate recognition of the state of Palestine. That is not even a radical notion, because 138 countries across the globe have already done so. Let there also be no doubt that time is of the essence. If we do not recognise the state of Palestine now, soon there will be no Palestine left to recognise as illegal settlements reduce the two-state solution to a one-and-a-bit-state solution and undermine the viability of an independent state. I urge the Minister to recognise an independent state of Palestine immediately.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
This is indeed a timely debate. While our attention is rightly focused on the devastating events in Ukraine, an immediate crisis in one part of the world should not prevent us from addressing a long-running injustice elsewhere. As we wrestle with what we can do to defend the people of Ukraine, it would be a dereliction of duty to consign the people of Palestine to the “too difficult” pile.
As we speak about the need to uphold international law, respect legally recognised frontiers and protect territorial integrity, we should remember that those principles are universal—we cannot pick and choose where to apply them. Therefore, while we demand that our adversaries adhere to them, we should be ready to remind our friends that they should do so, too. I see no contradiction in being a friend to Israel and a friend of Palestine; that is to be a friend of humanity and a friend of peace.
The treatment of the Palestinians is a stain on the conscience of the world. They have every right to conclude that, for decades, they have been subjected to a relentless campaign of oppression, subjugation of their human rights and illegal occupation of their lands. The consequences of that history of injustice are felt day in, day out as the people of Palestine go about their lives. To take just one example—there are many—how can it be right that, in such a small geographic area, a woman giving birth in the occupied territories is nine times more likely to die than a woman in Israel?
For me, the suffering of human beings—families, young children, the old and the sick—should always be at the forefront of our minds. For many of those people, abstract principles like sovereignty and self-determination probably do not mean much, but that does not mean that they are not important. Do I believe that recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel would end their suffering overnight? No, of course not, but is it an essential and overdue step on the road to a peaceful settlement that would start to put these historic injustices right? Yes, it is.
By recognising the state of Palestine, we would be offering its people the hope of a better future; one in which they are entitled to the same rights and respect as their neighbours. It may be a symbolic act but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, and as Professor Yossi Mekelberg of Chatham House stated:
“The power of symbolism cannot…be underestimated…there is also overwhelming evidence that international recognition of Palestine would serve the causes of peace, justice and international law.”
If we believe, as we do, that there must be a negotiated, diplomatic settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that ensures a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state, we should take whatever steps we can to advance that process. Recognition of the state of Palestine would be a powerful demonstration of the right of both Palestinians and Israelis to enjoy security, dignity and human rights.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
My congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing the debate, because on trial today is the complete incoherence in the Government’s approach to Palestine. Let me go through the three basic logical points in the argument.
First, do we believe that we have a moral responsibility to recognise the state of Palestine? Yes, we do. When we held the mandate between 1923 and 1948, we acknowledged a sacred trust of civilisation to prepare Palestinians for an independent country, thereby recognising the right to self-determination.
Secondly, is there now a legal responsibility and imperative to crack on with recognition? Yes, there is. In November 2011, Lord Hague said that Palestine met the criteria for statehood. In 2014, the House voted for recognition by 274 votes to 12. In October 2014, the Foreign Office said again that there should be a two-state solution on 1967 boundaries with East Jerusalem as a shared capital.
Thirdly, we recognise the moral responsibility and we recognise the legal responsibility to crack on. Do we now think that peace and a two-state solution is in jeopardy? Yes, we do. There are now 650,000 settlers breaking up the occupied territories. The threat is explicitly recognised by the UN Security Council in resolution 2334, which states that the cost of settlements is now
“a flagrant violation under international law and a major obstacle”
to peace.
Despite that moral responsibility, despite the legal urgency and despite the threat to peace, what are the Government doing? They are refusing to recognise the state of Palestine. They are pursuing a free trade agreement with Israel. They are standing by while products such as those made by JCB are destroying homes in the occupied territories. Frankly, they are not investigating the whys and wherefores of some of our arms exports.
Like many here, I have stood in Palestine and seen how the route taken by Mary and Joseph to Bethlehem is now impossible to take, because it is broken up by walls. I have heard children talk about the post-traumatic stress disorder they now suffer. I have listened to shepherds whose lives have been destroyed because they have no legal right to build a home of their own. I have listened to farmers whose water has been stolen.
Like everybody here, I deplore the attacks on Israel. I deplore the viciousness and madness of the madmen of Hamas, but I have to say to the Minister that the two-state solution is now becoming a mirage and we have to intervene now in order to act. We have to act for peace and that is why we should recognise the state of Palestine today.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Like many others, I firmly believe in a lasting and just two-state solution to the long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine. I maintain that the two-state solution is the best means of ensuring the sovereignty and security of the Palestinian and Israeli people. However, the two-state solution is currently more imperilled than it has been for decades. The ongoing illegal annexation of Palestinian land by Israeli settlers, along with the evictions of Palestinians from east Jerusalem, is eroding the territorial integrity of the Palestinian state. This, I believe, is a deliberate attempt by the Israeli Government to diminish the possibility of a viable state of Palestine, rendering the two-state solution impossible. That is why it is imperative that the UK Government recognise the state of Palestine.
Some 138 of the 193 member states of the United Nations now recognise the state of Palestine, yet here in the UK, where the Government profess a commitment to a just and viable two-state solution, no such recognition is forthcoming. How can we be serious about a two-state solution if we will not even recognise the state of Palestine? Without such a commitment from our Government, any talk of a commitment to peace in the region is, to put it bluntly, a load of hot air.
The necessary first step in a two-state solution is a secure, legitimate and viable state of Palestine with unanimous global recognition. So long as countries such as the UK refuse that recognition, a two-state solution to the conflict is simply not possible. It really is that straightforward. I hope that we can hear a commitment from the Government today that recognition of the state of Palestine will be granted as soon as possible.
To that end, I call on the UK Government to use all their diplomatic, economic and other ties with the Israeli Government to press for the immediate halt to all illegal settlement and Palestinian land, to return all stolen land to the Palestinians, and to recognise the state of Palestine fully without further delay or hindrance. This is a question not just of sovereignty, but of justice and humanity. The human and civil rights of the Palestinian people, and their right to self-determination, must be recognised and respected by all parties if there is to be any hope of a two-state solution in our lifetime.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this debate—the hon. Members for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) and for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). It is particularly significant on a day when the post-war rules-based international order comes under strain as never before. All our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Ukraine as they face an unjustified war of aggression.
The conflict between Israel and Palestine remains a weeping sore on the face of the world. I repeatedly hear from constituents who want to see a just and lasting peace. Several have shared with me their first-hand experiences as medical practitioners, humanitarian responders, academics or as participants in the ecumenical accompaniment programme, and I regularly meet the local Amnesty International group. I also hear from other constituents who have friends, family and colleagues in Israel and who are rightly concerned that the state must be able to exercise its right to defend itself against aggression and terror, and that its citizens should be able to go about their daily lives without fear for their personal wellbeing and security. That is why a negotiated, peaceful solution is so important.
The global consensus remains the
“vision of two states, Israel and a sovereign, independent, democratic and viable Palestine, living side by side in peace and security”,
as stated in the 2003 UN road map. We must and can be clear that just as condemnation of certain actions by the Israeli Government is in no way questioning the right of the state of Israel to exist and defend itself, so too acceptance and recognition of the state of Palestine is in no way an endorsement of violence or terrorism perpetrated by certain Palestinian factions or militias.
Last month, I took part in a briefing organised by Yachad, a British Jewish movement that advocates for a political resolution to the conflict. We heard from Esawi Frej, the Israeli Minister of regional co-operation, who is only the second Arab Muslim Minister in the history of Israel. He recently suffered a stroke and I am sure that we all want to wish him a speedy recovery. When he spoke, he could not have been clearer that a two-state solution is his preference. That is not necessarily the language that we hear from some of his Government or ministerial colleagues at present, but that demonstrates the desire for peace and negotiation among many communities in Israel and Palestine. The belligerence and rhetoric of leaders on both sides are not necessarily as representative as they claim.
That is why the UK Government have to take their opportunity. They signed a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Israel last year that makes no mention of a two-state solution or even a road to peace, so will the road map that is to come out of that do so? Will the territorial application of a free trade agreement specifically exclude illegal settlements? How will the cut to the aid budget improve the UK Government’s ability to provide humanitarian support to Palestinians or peacebuilding and civil society? What criteria will the Government use to determine when the time is right to join the 139 member states of the United Nations, and, indeed, Scotland’s Government and Scotland’s Parliament, in recognising the state of Palestine?
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Today’s debate on the UK Government’s recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel is long overdue. I find it heartbreaking that after decades of violence, illegal occupation, the demolition of Palestinian homes and complete disregard for human rights, we are still debating the basics.
In October 2014, the House of Commons voted in favour of recognising the state of Palestine, to secure a two-state solution. The UK Government have since not recognised that statehood and even abstained in the UN General Assembly vote that granted Palestine non-member observer status. That woeful decision also undermines the sovereignty of Parliament.
The inaction has cost lives and entrenched the de facto annexation of Palestinian land, and it sends a loud and clear message that Palestine is not equal. Of the 193 member states of the United Nations, 138 have recognised the state of Palestine. The UK is not one of them. In response to a written question that I tabled, the Government stated that
“the UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it best serves the objective of peace”.
The verdict given by the international community and multiple human rights organisations clearly dictates that that time is now.
A two-state solution and equality cannot be discussed without talking about occupation, which is the root cause of so many of the issues. The settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are illegal under international law, and such actions entrench divisions and make peace harder to achieve. The shocking scenes at the holy al-Aqsa mosque last year resulted in the spill-over of violent conflict within Israel’s recognised international borders, while the continuing expansion of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land risks making the occupation irreversible.
UK recognition would be more than symbolic. It would be the first step to signifying the UK’s parity of esteem for two peoples: Israelis and Palestinians. If the UK Government continue this trajectory of inaction, there will not be a Palestine to recognise. The only way to achieve a new momentum is to put both nations on an equal footing, so that negotiations between occupier and occupied can turn into talks between two neighbouring sovereign nations. If the Minister is serious about a genuine two-state solution, will she wish now to recognise the state of Palestine?
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Let us try to agree on some themes. Have illegal settlements been built on Palestinian land, evicting Palestinians in the process? Yes. Are the people of Gaza penned in by Israeli occupation? Yes. Have unarmed Palestinian civilians been killed by Israeli forces? Yes. Have unarmed Israeli civilians been killed by Hamas rockets? Yes. Are all those things and many others wrong? Yes, they are, but they are the consequence of a failure to resolve the basic question: how can a safe and secure Israel live alongside an independent Palestinian state?
The painful truth is that there is no peace process to speak of. Those who yearn for Palestinian statehood are increasingly in despair, as we have heard in the debate. The prospect of the two-state solution for which many of us have campaigned for so long is receding into the distance. The truth is that despair breeds hopelessness. There will be no progress until the violence ends and Israelis and all the Palestinians sit down together to negotiate. Plenty of people will say, “It won’t happen.” I would just observe that that is what we used to say about a solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. We learned that that which today seems impossible can become possible tomorrow, but for it to take place we need new political leadership on the part of the Israelis and the Palestinians. Why do I say that? I do so because nobody can want peace more than the parties to the conflict themselves. Without that, it will not happen.
Finally, I think recognition of a Palestinian state, given the justified desperation of the Palestinian people, is the very least we can do. The more I have heard the arguments over the years as to why it should not happen, the less convincing they seem. To say that Palestinians should be granted their statehood only as a kind of favour at the end of the negotiations is the least convincing argument of all.
Hilary Benn
There is so little time.
It is the least convincing argument because it holds that Palestinians somehow do not have the right to statehood. That is wrong; they do.
Recognising a Palestinian state will not, on its own, solve the problem. It will not end the stalemate, which requires courageous political leadership, but it would offer a glimmer of hope and respect. That is why I voted eight years ago in this House in favour of the recognition of a Palestinian state, and why I shall do so again tonight.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
When the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones)—who I know wanted to be here today—and I went before the Backbench Business Committee about six months ago to bid for this debate, we had in mind its taking place on the anniversary of the vote in October. An advantage of its being a little overdue is that I am no longer a Back Bencher, so I have been able to hand it over to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott). She made a superb speech, a much more compelling and persuasive one than I could possibly have made, and has done real service to Palestine in the process.
Back in 2014, there was more hope. President Obama said in 2010 that he hoped to see the recognition of a Palestinian state within a year. Although William Hague coined the phrase “moment of our choosing”, or “when the time is right”, I think that he meant it as a statement of intent, but it has become a filibuster that is endlessly repeated by Ministers to enable them in fact to do nothing. We in the UK who have a responsibility, through the mandate and the Balfour declaration, have not recognised Palestine although 138 other countries have.
We have heard that this is a precondition and not a matter for negotiation. Of course Israel and Palestine will not sit down as equals, because one is a regional superpower while the other has been impoverished by occupation, but they should at least be given the status of states so that they can do that. But this is also tied heavily to the idea of occupation, and a recognition exposing what occupation is about. It is about displacement of a population, and it is about settlement and occupied land. Both those are war crimes. This is relatively rare, thank goodness. It happens in Crimea, it is happening in Ukraine and it happens in Western Sahara, but in Palestine it has continued since 1967 and we have done precious little about it.
The Government’s own “Human rights priority countries” report on Israel and the Occupied Palestine Territories, published three months ago, refers to settler violence, settlement growth, evictions and demolitions, child detention, an “apartheid” regime, a Gaza blockade and terrible incursions into Gaza and the massacre of civilians there, and the classing of respectable non-governmental organisations as terrorist organisations. The list goes on and on.
Statehood would benefit Palestine, but it would also benefit Israel to have a secure state alongside it, with the responsibilities of a state. When I spoke in the last debate on this subject, I quoted Naftali Bennett, who was then the Minister with responsibility for the economy, as saying that he never wanted to see a Palestinian state. Now he is the Prime Minister of Israel. We must do something to resolve this issue, because the situation is becoming steadily worse.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker,
“statehood for the Palestinians is not a gift to be given, but a right to be acknowledged”.—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 230.]
I first heard those words in 2012, at the time of the historic United Nations vote, and I heard them again today from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), whom I thank for securing the debate. We are a decade on from that vote, and there is still no visible light at the end of the tunnel for the Palestinians; if anything, the tunnel is becoming bleaker and darker. We know that for nearly seven years there have been no peace talks; we also know that since Senator Kerry’s initiative, there has been no serious attempt at negotiations.
The Conservative party’s stated claim is that it wants a negotiated solution through peace talks before it recognises Palestine. Let us call a spade a spade, and be honest with ourselves and the House: any recognition of Palestine would not cut across any peace negotiations because the fact remains that none exist, and there is no realistic prospect of any existing because successive Israeli Administrations lurch further to the right and continue to build illegal settlements at a rapid pace, thus changing the geographical reality on the ground and making the possibility of a viable Palestinian state increasingly unlikely.
I do not have an issue with a party that has a different view on foreign policy. What I do have an issue with is the party’s hypocrisy. It cannot say that it wants a two-state solution while recognising only one state. We often talk about the right of Israel to exist, but Palestine also has a right to exist. Not recognising the state of Palestine is denying Palestine’s right to exist. We cannot repeatedly reaffirm our commitment to Palestinian self-determination through United Nations resolutions and leave it unfulfilled.
Let me put this in simple terms. Indians come from India, Americans from America, the English from England, the Scottish from Scotland, the Welsh from Wales and the Irish from Ireland, so it is surely not a leap of faith to understand that Palestinians come from Palestine—a country, a state. In the light of that fact, I urge the Minister to stop using the phrase “occupied territories” and start using the phrase “Palestine”. These are not territories; they are a country, a state.
I began my speech by referring to the United Nations recognition of Palestine a decade ago. The then Foreign Secretary, William Hague—now Lord Hague—said then, “There will be a time when we will have to recognise the state of Palestine.” That time has come. The world is watching, and I promise the House that history will not judge us kindly for continuing to abdicate our responsibilities again and again, as we did, shamefully, at the United Nations, because if we do not do this now, there will be no Palestine left to recognise.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am really trying to get everyone in, so I have to reduce the time limit to two minutes.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
It is important to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), and by recognising that as the only Jewish nation, the state of Israel is of great significance to many Jewish people across the globe and we of course support its right to exist. However, I do not believe that the existence of any state should be predicated on denying another group of people their right to self-determination. All people have the right to live free from oppression and occupation. The recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel is a vital part of the policy that we need, and it should be driven by human rights, equality and international law.
We must recognise that since the vote in 2014, which many Members have referenced, the situation has become worse for the Palestinian people when it comes to their human rights. In the context of widespread human rights abuses, the UN Commissioner on Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, has raised particular concern about the recurring incidents of excessive use of force leading to the death and injury of Palestinian children. The International Criminal Court is holding an inquiry into abuses committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories since 2014, and the blockade of Gaza continues.
The UK really needs to be part of international pressure and we should immediately ensure that no UK funds are supplied and that no arms are bought or sold that can be used to violate the human rights of Palestinians. To that end, the recognition of the Palestinian state should not be seen as a prize at the end of peace negotiations. It should be regarded as a prerequisite for peace. Only when the two states have equal status and recognition can we have genuine hopes for peace. The Government cannot continue to claim that they are committed to a two-state solution while only recognising one state. I welcome today’s debate and this chance for Members to show our commitment to the immediate recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel. This has to be part of securing a just peace and an end to the ongoing blockade, the occupation and the settlements, which are all illegal under international law.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
The question before us today is not whether we support a Palestinian state within the framework of a two-state solution—Governments of both parties have rightly long backed that goal—but how we can achieve it. I want to begin by sounding a note of caution about unilateral actions. The history of this tragic conflict teaches us very clearly that the best route to sustainable progress lies through direct negotiation between the two sides. Compare, for instance, the results of Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 with the 1978 Camp David accords or the 1994 peace agreement between Israel and Jordan. While the peace treaty with Egypt that came about via the Camp David accords still stands, it has largely led to that border being quiet and free from hostilities. However, following the unilateral withdrawal in 2005, Israel got an internationally proscribed terrorist organisation on its border. We can therefore understand why Israel would be wary about future land concessions.
I want to talk today about the concrete steps that can be taken to advance the prospect of a lasting solution between Israel and the Palestinians. For us to recognise Palestinian statehood outside a wider peace process would make little or no impact in the real world. We need to take concrete steps that will advance and recognise both peoples’ right to self-determination, peace and security, and steps that will make a real difference to the lives of ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, rather than the kind of gestures that seek to demonise one side or the other. The territorial contiguity of a future Palestinian state must be preserved. Continued Israeli settlement building, especially that which occurs beyond the security barrier, represents an obstacle to a two-state solution, but we should acknowledge that while such settlement building is an obstacle to a viable Palestinian state, it is hardly an insurmountable one. Nine out of 10 Palestinians live outside the security barrier, while some 85% of Israelis who have settled beyond the 1967 lines live within that security barrier, including Israeli Jews residing in East Jerusalem. I am aware that I have run out of time.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I stand alongside many other Members of the House in calling for a two-state solution. This is not about supporting one group of people to the detriment of another; it is about achieving equal standing and parity for the benefit of both. I was privileged a few years ago to join the Council for Arab-British Understanding on one of its visits to Israel and Palestine. It is one thing to read the many briefings that Members receive on these issues, or to watch things play out in the news, but it is quite another to see it for yourself in person and come to terms with how these people are being forced to live. In Hebron I saw Palestinian workers making their way home, walking along a convoluted route. When we asked why they were taking that route, we were told that Palestinians were only allowed to travel down certain roads. Tired and hungry, having just put in a hard day’s work, they were not even allowed to take the short route home for arbitrary reasons.
I then visited Ramallah, a fascinating and bustling city where I was able to get a taste of what normality might look like if peace were made. I came home from the trip with two lasting thoughts that resonate with me years later. First, how terrible the conditions are in which Palestinians are forced to live under Israeli occupation. Even having seen it for myself, I cannot imagine having to live every day like that. Secondly, how the average Palestinian just wants to live a simple life free of persecution and harassment.
The Government have said that they will recognise a Palestinian state at the time of their choosing that is most conducive to the objective of peace. As the saying goes, it feels like tomorrow never comes. When will that time be? Will the Minister elaborate on what criteria must be met? Is there even a fully defined policy on how the decision will be made? The recognition of Palestine would be the beginning of a peace process. The longer the current status quo is maintained, the more unobtainable a two-state solution becomes. It is increasingly urgent and it cannot be put off for another day longer. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to wind up this debate. There have been a number of positive, constructive and thoughtful comments.
This is a bleak day for human rights and international law. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield—[Hon. Members: “Sunderland!”] Forgive me. It is Scotland’s near abroad, but I am not that precise in my geography. No disrespect intended. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing this debate.
On a note of consensus, let us all agree that human rights are universal and that international law applies everywhere. On a day when we rightly condemn Russian aggression against Ukraine, it is worth remembering that the rights and dignity of the Palestinians have been grievously infringed for decades.
The SNP supports a just peace in the middle east. Israel has a right to exist and a right to security within its borders, and it is an important partner of the UK and Scotland in many significant ways. Equally, the Palestinian people have a right to statehood, dignity and security, and they have been let down by the international community for decades. That failure is continued in UK Government policy today.
The SNP supports the recognition of Palestine as a state, for the simple reason: how can we have a two-state solution without two states? Statehood is not a bauble or a prize to be given to the Palestinian people at the end of the process; statehood is the entry ticket to the talks. There must be parity of esteem between the two parties, albeit there is not much parity of anything else between the Palestinians and the Israelis. It is open to the UK Government to give parity of esteem and dignity to the Palestinians in these talks.
But what talks? There is no peace process for precisely that reason. As the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, despair will be bred of violence, and that frustration can only build at the lack of progress because the rights of the Palestinian people and the prospect of a durable, viable Palestinian state are being infringed and undermined on a daily basis.
We believe that recognising Palestine as a state would be a symbolic move—of course it would—that gives impetus to talks that badly need impetus. I was struck by the comments of the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) on the weaknesses and failures of the Palestinian leadership. We are very cognisant of that, but we do not think it is a reason to delay; we think it is a reason to accelerate to give a symbolic boost to these talks.
We also recognise the reality on the ground. A two- state solution is possible only if both states are viable. Like many colleagues on both sides of the House, I have visited the region and have seen that, in many significant ways—be it watercourses, access to farmland, security barriers, security walls, checkpoints, settlements, archaeological sites and many other ways—the viability and contiguity of Palestinian territory is being undermined on a daily basis. We support the two-state solution, but the reality on the ground is that it is becoming a less and less realistic prospect.
Let me add a note of caution for those who are opposing Palestinian statehood or, even worse, are opposing it while pretending to just delay the process. The alternative is a one-state solution—one that I fear will never ever be able to be at peace with itself. Those of us who, however forlornly, support a two-state solution believe that recognition of the state of Palestine would give a badly needed impetus to that process. So I hope that the UK Government will change their course and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) on securing this important debate; we have had an excellent debate.
I begin by stating unambiguously that I am a friend and supporter of the state of Israel and also a friend and supporter of Palestinians. As such, I strongly wish to see progress towards the establishment of a viable, sovereign and flourishing Palestinian state. I strongly wish to see a safe, secure and thriving Israeli state alongside it. The Labour party and I firmly believe in a two-state solution as the best answer for an enduring peace. There is no inherent contradiction in that position. Underlying the Labour party’s commitment to a two-state solution is our unshakeable commitment to human rights and the rule of international law. We want a United Kingdom that puts human rights, social justice and ending global inequality at the heart of its work. Recognising the state of Palestine is a commitment that goes to the very heart of these matters and of Labour party values.
This House has already voted, in 2014, to recognise Palestine's statehood and now is the time for the British Government to confirm that recognition. There are several reasons why I believe that to be the case. First, the Palestinian people, along with all populations, deserve dignity and the right to self-determination, which is defined as a cardinal principle in modern international law. It is therefore legally and morally incumbent upon the UK Government to take the step of giving recognition, along with the 71.5% of UN member states that have already done so.
The second reason that the Government should enact the recognition relates to the issue of ensuring Israel’s long-term security. Speaking as a supporter of Israel who wishes it to be a safe and thriving country, I am deeply worried by the continued political stalemate. I believe that Israel’s long-term peace and security depend on the existence of a Palestinian state side by side with Israel. A recognition of Palestine is an inherent recognition of Israel too, within its sovereign borders. The UK Government’s endorsement of Palestinians’ aspirations would contribute to a peace process that is vital to safeguarding Israel and her citizens.
That brings me to the third reason the UK Government should recognise Palestine: it would be a pragmatic step towards helping to broker wider peace talks. The last time there were meaningful peace talks directly relating to Israel and Palestine was eight years ago. As a country with some global influence, the UK’s recognition of Palestine could help to restart the peace process. At the moment, that peace process is moribund, notwithstanding the welcome advent of the Abraham accords, which I will return to later.
Bambos Charalambous
I will not give way as we are short of time. The peace process needs both impetus and international support, and the UK Government should be showing leadership on this, rather than remaining silent.
The fourth reason that the UK Government should recognise Palestinian statehood is because of the way in which it could help to shape political realities on the ground. To be recognised as a state would require the Palestinian leadership to take on the obligations of behaving like a state. That is also clearly in Israel’s immediate and long-term interests.
We know that many Palestinians and Israelis want peace more than anything else, and we know that extremists on both sides do not speak for them. International recognition of a Palestinian state, including recognition by the UK, would be a step towards undermining the stranglehold of extremists. For all those reasons, the UK Government should see the immediate recognition of Palestinian statehood as both morally and practically important. The position of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has consistently been that British recognition of Palestine’s statehood will come when it best serves the objective of peace. For all the reasons I have stated, I would argue that that time is now.
On the wider political context, it is true, of course, that some progress has been made towards peace in the region with the Abraham accords. But we have to be realistic: this progress on its own is not enough to help the current political stalemate between Israel and Palestine. It is very welcome that Israel has been receiving its own greater recognition across the Arab world, but that positive step surely strengthens the argument that the same international recognition of Palestine is also important to establishing peace.
If the UK Government do not take active steps to encourage peace, the two-state solution will remain as elusive as ever. If we as a nation are serious about upholding the international rules-based order, we must be proactive about it. To remain silent on these issues is not an option. It is time for the Government to demonstrate that they are committed to active peacemaking rather than merely to conflict management—for example, by demonstrating support for the international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
The UK has historical and moral obligations to both the Israelis and the Palestinians. We have a duty to do all we can to unlock the stalemate. We have a duty to do all we can to foster peace, the rule of international law and the sanctity of human rights. Recognising Palestinian statehood would be a step towards achieving all those objectives.
The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)
May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) for securing this debate? I thank Members from all parties for their contributions.
The UK’s position on the middle east peace process is clear and well known: we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. We firmly believe that a just and lasting solution that delivers peace for both the Israelis and the Palestinians is long overdue—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. It is most discourteous to the Minister, who is responding to a very serious debate, for Members to come in at the end of the debate and talk among themselves. Please, stop it.
Amanda Milling
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We also believe the best way to make progress towards such a solution is through negotiations between both sides that take account of their legitimate concerns. To that end, a two-state solution is the only way to protect Israel’s Jewish and democratic character and realise Palestinian national aspirations. The resumption of two-way negotiations, with international support, is the best way to get to an agreement.
The UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it best serves the objective of peace. Bilateral recognition in itself cannot deliver peace or end the occupation. Without a negotiated settlement, the conflict and the problems that come with it will continue.
The UK works closely with international partners to strongly advocate for a two-state solution and encourage a return to meaningful negotiation between both parties. We welcome recent engagement between the Government in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That engagement includes discussions between the Ministries of Finance aimed at improving the economic conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Such direct engagement is vital, given the scale of the challenges. We consistently call for an immediate end to all actions that undermine the viability of the two-state solution.
The UK remains resolute in its commitment to Israel’s security. We have been clear that Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence in responding to attacks—
Amanda Milling
I will not, because I do not have enough time. I would love to otherwise.
In exercising that right, it is vital that all Israel’s actions are in line with international humanitarian law and every effort is made to avoid civilian casualties. The UK unequivocally condemns Hamas’s inflammatory action and indiscriminate attacks against Israel. We continue to call on Hamas and other terrorist groups to end their abhorrent rocket attacks, such as those seen in May 2021. The Government assess Hamas in its entirety to be concerned with terrorism. As of November, we have proscribed the organisation in full.
We remain committed to the objective of a sovereign, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side with a safe and secure Israel. That is why we are supporting vulnerable people through our development programmes in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and why we work to strengthen Palestinian institutions and to promote sustainable economic growth in the west bank. The UK has strong relations with the Palestinian Authority, who have made important progress on state building. That progress is why it is so important that the Palestinian Authority return to Gaza to ensure that improved governance is extended throughout the territory that will become a Palestinian state.
Economic progress can never be a substitute for a political settlement, but it is vital that, in the interim, Palestinians see tangible improvements in their daily lives. Economic growth in the Occupied Palestinian Territories remains vital in order to give hope to Palestinian people. We call on the Palestinian Authority and Israel to resume dialogue on economic issues, to reconvene the Joint Economic Committee and to address the financial crisis together.
Our development programmes work to preserve the prospect of a negotiated two-state solution and to improve the lives of Palestinians throughout Gaza and the west bank, including east Jerusalem. The UK is providing life-saving aid to Palestinian refugees in Gaza and across the region. In 2021, the UK provided more than £27 million to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the UN agency working with Palestinian refugees, including £4.9 million to its flash appeal after the Gaza conflict in May. UK aid to UNRWA is already helping the agency to provide education to more than 533,000 children a year and access to health services for 3.5 million Palestinian refugees.
On 17 December, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe and North America announced an additional £2 million to UNICEF to assist the most vulnerable people in Gaza, helping children to continue their education, to meet their basic needs and, hopefully, to fulfil their potential.
I am aware that I have to give a couple of minutes to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central to conclude the debate. To conclude. we have urged Israel and the Palestinian Authority to work together to meet their obligations under the Oslo accords.
Dr Offord
I am very grateful that the Minister was strong enough to give way, unlike the Opposition Front Bencher. Is she aware of the comment by the EU’s middle east peace envoy that the application by President Abbas for recognition at the UN was a confrontational act? Was he wrong?
Amanda Milling
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am incredibly conscious of time because I do have to give the hon. Member for Sunderland Central a couple of minutes. As I have said, our position is clear. We have urged Israel and the Palestinian Authority to work together to meet their obligations under the Oslo accords. We also call on all parties to abide by international humanitarian law to promote peace, stability and security. Peace will not be achieved by symbolic measures. It will be achieved only by real movement towards renewed dialogue between parties that leads to a viable Palestinian state, living in peace and security side by side with Israel. The UK stands ready to support this in every way we can.
Julie Elliott
I thank all colleagues, on all sides of the House, who have taken part in this very important debate. I accept that, today, there have been pressing issues elsewhere; that is why the Minister left the debate and has only been present for part of it. But I urge her to read the debate in Hansard and perhaps address in writing some of the issues that were raised. I do accept that it has been a difficult day.
I also would like to hear what the Government are saying about respecting international law. We have heard much today on the issue of international law and respecting it. Unfortunately, the Minister did not address that in her response. The issue remains that the Palestinian people have fulfilled what is needed to fulfil statehood to get recognition. The Government are saying, “At some point, when the time is right.” The time is right now. There has been broad consensus in this House for many years and the Government are simply not acting on it. We all want to see a movement to meaningful negotiations, leading to a settlement on a two-state solution, but the Government’s prevaricating on not recognising the state of Palestine is hindering that process, in my opinion. We need no more warm words; we need action. We have the ability as a country and the Government have the ability as our Government to recognise Palestine today. We do not have to wait—let us just act and not wait.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UK Government position on the recognition of the State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel.
Ukraine
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the Prime Minister’s statement, I point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I have just come from a meeting of G7 leaders joined by Secretary-General Stoltenberg of NATO; with permission, I will update the House on our response to President Putin’s onslaught against a free and sovereign European nation.
Shortly after 4 o’clock this morning I spoke to President Zelensky of Ukraine, as the first missiles struck his beautiful and innocent country and its brave people, and I assured him of the unwavering support of the United Kingdom. I can tell the House that at this stage, Ukrainians are offering a fierce defence of their families and their country. I know every hon. Member will share my admiration for their resolve.
Earlier today, President Putin delivered another televised address and offered the absurd pretext that he sought the
“demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine”.
In fact, he is hurling the might of his military machine against a free and peaceful neighbour, in breach of his own explicit pledge and every principle of civilised behaviour between states, spurning the best efforts of this country and our allies to avoid bloodshed. For that, Putin will stand condemned in the eyes of the world and of history. He will never be able to cleanse the blood of Ukraine from his hands.
Although the UK and our allies tried every avenue for diplomacy until the final hour, I am driven to conclude that Putin was always determined to attack his neighbour, no matter what we did. Now we see him for what he is: a blood-stained aggressor who believes in imperial conquest.
I am proud that Britain did everything within our power to help Ukraine prepare for this onslaught, and we will do our utmost to offer more help as our brave friends defend their homeland. Our Embassy took the precaution on 18 February of relocating from Kyiv to the city of Lviv in western Ukraine, where our ambassador Melinda Simmons continues to work with the Ukrainian authorities and to support British nationals.
Now we have a clear mission: diplomatically, politically, economically and eventually militarily, this hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure. At the G7 meeting this afternoon, we agreed to work in unity to maximise the economic price that Putin will pay for his aggression. This must include ending Europe’s collective dependence on Russian oil and gas that has served to empower Putin for too long, so I welcome again Chancellor Scholz’s excellent decision to halt the certification of Nord Stream 2.
Countries that together comprise about half the world economy are now engaged in maximising economic pressure on one that makes up a mere 2%. For our part, today the UK is announcing the largest and most severe package of economic sanctions that Russia has ever seen. With new financial measures we are taking new powers to target Russian finance. In addition to the banks we have already sanctioned this week, today, in concert with the United States, we are imposing a full asset freeze on VTB.
More broadly, these powers will enable us totally to exclude Russian banks from the UK financial system, which is of course by far the largest in Europe, stopping them from accessing sterling and clearing payments through the UK. With around half of Russia’s trade currently in US dollars and sterling, I am pleased to tell the House that the United States is taking similar measures.
These powers will also enable us to ban Russian state and private companies from raising funds in the UK, banning dealing with their securities and making loans to them. We will limit the amount of money that Russian nationals will be able to deposit in their UK bank accounts, and sanctions will also be applied to Belarus for its role in the assault on Ukraine.
Overall, we will be imposing asset freezes on more than 100 new entities and individuals, on top of the hundreds that we have already announced. This includes all the major manufacturers that support Putin’s war machine. Furthermore, we are also banning Aeroflot from the UK.
Next, on top of these financial measures and in full concert with the United States and the EU, we will introduce new trade restrictions and stringent export controls similar to those that they in the US are implementing. We will bring forward new legislation to ban the export of all dual-use items to Russia, including a range of high-end and critical technological equipment and components in sectors including electronics, telecommunications and aerospace. Legislation to implement this will be laid early next week. These trade sanctions will constrain Russia’s military-industrial and technological capabilities for years to come.
We are bringing forward measures on unexplained wealth orders from the economic crime Bill, to be introduced before the House rises for Easter, and we will set out further detail before Easter on the range of policies to be included in the full Bill in the next Session, including on reforms to Companies House and a register of overseas property ownership. We will set up a new dedicated kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency to target sanctions evasion and corrupt Russian assets hidden in the UK, and that means oligarchs in London will have nowhere to hide.
I know that this House will have great interest in the potential of cutting Russia out from SWIFT, and I can confirm, as I have always said, that nothing is off the table. But for all these measures to be successful, it is vital that we have the unity of our partners and unity in the G7 and other fora.
Russian investors are already delivering their verdict on the wisdom of Putin’s actions. So far today, Russian stocks are down by as much as 45%, wiping $250 billion from their value in the biggest one-day decline on record. Sberbank, Russia’s biggest lender, is down by as much as 45% and Gazprom down by as much as 39%, while the rouble has plummeted to record lows against the dollar. We will continue on a remorseless mission to squeeze Russia from the global economy piece by piece, day by day, and week by week.
We will of course use Britain’s position in every international forum to condemn the onslaught against Ukraine, and we will counter the Kremlin’s blizzard of lies and disinformation by telling the truth about Putin’s war of choice and war of aggression. We will work with our allies on the urgent need to protect other European countries that are not members of NATO and that could become targets of Putin’s playbook of subversion and aggression. We will resist any creeping temptation to accept what Putin is doing today as a fait accompli. There can be no creeping normalisation, not now, not in the months to come, not in the years ahead.
We must strengthen NATO’s defences still further. So today I called for a meeting of NATO leaders that will take place tomorrow, and I will be convening the countries that contribute to the joint expeditionary force, which is led by the United Kingdom and comprises both NATO and non-NATO members.
Last Saturday, I warned that this invasion would have global economic consequences, and this morning the oil price has risen strongly. The Government will do everything possible to safeguard our own people from the repercussions for the cost of living, and of course we stand ready to protect our country from any threats, including in cyberspace.
Above all, the House will realise the hard and heavy truth that we now live in a continent where an expansionist power, deploying one of the world’s most formidable military machines, is trying to redraw the map of Europe in blood and conquer an independent state by force of arms. It is vital for the safety of every nation that Putin’s squalid venture should ultimately fail, and be seen to fail. However long it takes, that will be the steadfast and unflinching goal of the United Kingdom, I hope of every Member of this House and of every one of our great allies, certain that together we have the power and the will to defend the cause of peace and justice, as we have always done.
I say to the people of Russia, whose President has just authorised an onslaught against a fellow Slavic people, that I cannot believe this horror is being done in your name or that you really want the pariah status that these actions will bring to the Putin regime. To our Ukrainian friends in this moment of agony, I say that we are with you and we are on your side. Your right to choose your own destiny is a right that the United Kingdom and our allies will always defend, and in that spirit I join you in saying “Slava Ukraini”. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
In this dark hour, our thoughts, our solidarity and our resolve are with the Ukrainian people. Invading troops march through their streets and missiles shell their cities. They have been cast into a war through no fault of their own, because Putin fears their freedom and because he knows that no people will choose to live under his bandit rule unless forced to do so at the barrel of a gun.
The consequences of Putin’s war of aggression will be horrendous and tragic for the people of Ukraine, but also for the Russian people, who have been plunged into chaos by a violent elite who have stolen their wealth, stolen their chance of democracy and stolen their future.
We must prepare ourselves for difficulties here. We will face economic pain as we free Europe from dependence on Russian gas and oil and clean our institutions of money stolen from the Russian people, but the British public have always been willing to make sacrifices to defend democracy on our continent, and we will again. The consequences of Putin’s actions will be felt throughout the world for years and, I fear, for decades to come.
Russia’s democratic neighbours and every other democracy that lives in the shadow of autocratic power are watching their worst nightmare unfold. All of us who believe in democracy over dictatorship, in the rule of law over the reign of terror and in freedom over the jackboot of tyranny must unite and take a stand. We must support the Ukrainian people in their fight and we must ensure that Putin fails.
Putin will eventually learn the same lesson that European tyrants learned in the last century: that the resolve of the world is harder than he imagines, that people’s desire for freedom burns brighter than he can ever extinguish, and that the light of liberty will prevail over his darkness. For that to happen, we must make a clean break with the failed approach to handling Putin, which after Georgia, after Crimea and after Donbas has fed his belief that the benefits of aggression outweigh the costs. We must finally show him that he is wrong. That means doing all that we can to help Ukraine to defend herself by providing weapons, equipment and financial assistance, as well as humanitarian support for the Ukrainian people. We must urgently reinforce and reassure our NATO allies in eastern Europe who now stand at the frontier of Putin’s aggression.
The hardest possible sanctions must be taken against the Putin regime. It must be isolated, its finances frozen and its ability to function crippled. That means excluding Russia from financial mechanisms such as SWIFT and banning trade in Russian sovereign debt. I welcome the set of sanctions outlined by the Prime Minister just now and pledge Opposition support for further measures.
There are changes that we must make here in the UK. For too long, our country has been a safe haven for the money that Putin and his fellow bandits stole from the Russian people. It must now change. Cracking open the shell companies in which stolen money is hidden will require legislation. The Prime Minister should bring it forward immediately, and Labour will support it, along with the other measures that he has just outlined. [Hon. Members: “Monday.”] Thank you, and we will support it.
This must be a turning point in history. We must look back and say that this terrible day was when Putin doomed himself—and his plan to reassert Russian force as a means of controlling eastern Europe—to defeat. We know how he operates so we know how to defeat him. He seeks division, so we must stand united. He hopes for inaction, so we must take a stand. He believes that we are too corrupted to do the right thing, so we must prove him wrong. I believe that we can and that in this dark hour, we can step towards the light.
The Prime Minister
I want to say how grateful I am to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the terms in which he has just spoken and for the robust support that he is offering to the Government and to the western alliance at a very difficult time. The whole House can be turning to some of the issues that he raised.
Briefly, I think the whole House can be proud of the role that the UK has played in pioneering military support—logistical support—to the Ukrainians and the role that we have played in bringing together a ferocious package of sanctions that we will now implement. We will bring our allies together to protect NATO and to show that President Putin will get a tougher western alliance as a result of his actions, not a weaker western alliance.
I think that events will show that the Russian President has profoundly miscalculated. He believes that he is doing this for his own political advantage. I believe the exact opposite will prove to be the case, because of the resistance that will be mounted against what he is doing, not just in Ukraine but around the world. We will support those Ukrainians. We will support them economically, diplomatically, politically and, yes, militarily as well, and I know that in due time we will succeed.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement this afternoon. This House and this country are united in our defence of democracy and our support for the Ukrainian people. Vladimir Putin has initiated war in mainland Europe. The response must be unequivocal and absolutely clear, so will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government are putting in place every possible economic sanction so that Russia feels absolutely the cold wind of isolation and the Russian people understand that Vladimir Putin has brought their state to a pariah state?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. She is absolutely right about what the Government are setting out to do, and I do indeed believe that that will be the result for Putin and his cronies.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Let me thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of the statement, and let me also welcome the very close contact he has kept with the Ukrainian President—importantly, overnight. I was grateful that I had the chance this afternoon to meet the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK and indeed Ukrainian MPs. Our thoughts and our support are very much with each and every one of them, as they are with all the people of Ukraine.
Although last night’s events have been prophesied and predicted for some time, the acts of Russian violence, aggression and tyranny are no less shocking. What we are witnessing is a full-scale invasion: it is an act of war. This is first and foremost an unprovoked attack on the peace and the innocence of Ukraine and of its people, but it is equally an attack on international law, an attack on our European democracy and an attack on the peace that our continent has so carefully built over the last 75 years.
President Putin, and President Putin alone, bears responsibility for these horrific acts, and it is he and his Kremlin cabal who must pay a massive price for their actions. It is important to say to the Russian people that we know that Putin is not acting in their name. He is a dictator, he is an imperialist, he is a tyrant and he is as much a threat to his own people as he is to all of us.
This is a moment for unity, and it is especially a moment for European unity. All of the economic sanctions that are now finally being implemented have one clear objective—the complete economic isolation of the Russian state. Can the Prime Minister confirm that this is the objective, and that he has agreed that with his international allies? That economic isolation must include sanctions on Putin and his network of oligarchs and agents, their expulsion from countries around the world, sanctions on his banks and their ability to borrow and function, and sanctions on his energy and mineral companies. As I said yesterday, it must finally mean clearing up the sewer of dirty Russian money that has been running through the City of London for years. I know all the complications involved, but can I ask the Prime Minister about the actions taken to suspend Russia from the SWIFT payment system—one of the steps that would hit the Putin regime the hardest?
As we rightly seek to punish Putin, we must redouble our support and solidarity for the Ukrainian people. Can the Prime Minister give further details on the humanitarian aid being deployed and the plans in place to offer refuge and sanctuary, where necessary, for those who might be displaced? What plans are in place to evacuate the families of UK citizens currently in Ukraine, given that commercial flights have now stopped?
Let us not fall for the Kremlin propaganda that it is prepared to soak up any sanctions. If we act now, and if the sanctions are targeted enough, swift enough and severe enough—if we impose nothing less than economic isolation—Putin and his cronies will suffer the consequences of their actions. So let us act together, stand together and, most of all, let us all stand with the people of Ukraine.
The Prime Minister
Again, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the wisdom and the statesmanship with which he has just spoken? On his points, we have put 1,000 troops on stand-by to help with the humanitarian exodus in the adjacent countries, and we have people in forward presence in the adjacent countries to help UK nationals come out. He is quite right that the way to make these sanctions work—as we discussed today in the G7, where there is a great deal of unity—is to do them together and at the same time, and that is what we are doing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Prime Minister has some very important meetings, and I will be running the statement to 6.30 pm. For those colleagues who do not get in, we are keeping a list, as we did from the other day, to try to ensure that all Members have a voice on this very important matter.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I pay huge tribute to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Government for introducing what sound like the toughest sanctions we have seen in years. May I ask him to look wider than simply the Russian people, and at all those who are enabling Putin’s economy—those who sit on boards of the businesses that finance him, whether they are former Chancellors of Germany, or former Prime Ministers of France? Will he look here, close to home, at those who enable and propagate the propaganda that is used by Putin to undermine his own people and free people everywhere? Will he update the Treason Act 1351, so that we can identify those people and call them what they are: traitors? When the Prime Minister speaks to people around the world, will he speak with the truth that he can in Russian through the BBC Russian service, and start to broadcast in languages other than Russian into Russia, so that all Russian peoples can know that their oppression does not need to exist and they do not need to side with the tyrant?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much. He is absolutely right to say that we have to look at those who abet the Putin regime. There are many, many of them, and that is why we are looking at all sorts of ways in which we can address threats to this state. We are, of course, ensuring that the messages from this House, which are so impressive in their unity, should be registered by the people of Russia, because we mean no ill towards them. They are, in many ways, as much the victims of this appalling regime as the people of Ukraine, and they need to know what is really going on.
Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister tell the House, if he can, what is going on with the Russian troops going through Chernobyl? That sent a chill through a lot of people’s thoughts when we heard about it.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady. I hesitate to give the House a running commentary on what seems a very fluid and dangerous situation, but to the best of my knowledge she is right in what she says.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
For the best part of 50 years, Britain gave sanctuary to the Governments in exile of the occupied Baltic states. If, as appears likely, Ukraine gets overwhelmed, will we offer to give sanctuary to a Government in exile, pending Ukraine’s future freedom?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend, and of course we will give all the support we can, logistical or otherwise, as Britain always has done, to Governments in exile. One of the points I made to President Zelensky this morning was that it might be necessary for him to find a safe place for him and his Cabinet to go.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
With President Putin responsible for this catastrophic human tragedy, the Liberal Democrats join all sides to stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine, and I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Today must be a wake-up call. The west has been too complacent over Putin’s threat for too long. We have taken for granted our fragile alliances, so crucial for the defence of freedom, emboldening Putin and this outrageous act of aggression. The west cannot be complacent any longer. Will the Government reverse their proposed troop cuts to the British Army, and offer far greater military support to our NATO allies in eastern Europe? Putin must face the most punitive of sanctions. The world must isolate Russia like the rogue state it is, including the state-backed oil giant Rosneft, which is 20% owned by BP. Will the Prime Minister commit to banning UK investment in Russian oil and gas companies, with immediate effect?
The Prime Minister
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about investment in Russian oil and gas, as I have said, we must move away from all our dependencies on Russian oil and gas, and that is the objective of the UK Government. We are lucky in this country in that only 3% of our gas comes from Russia. Other European countries are in a much more exposed position. On his point about supporting eastern Europeans, as he knows we have doubled the size of our commitment to Estonia. We have gone bigger in Poland, there are another 350 marines from 45 Commando, and we are in the skies above Romania. I do not believe there is another country in NATO that is currently doing more to strengthen NATO’s eastern defences.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
My constituency has strong historical connections with Ukraine, so I welcome this robust approach. My constituency has also seen significant property investments by Russian investors. May I urge my right hon. Friend to accelerate the introduction of a register of beneficial ownership of property?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right that we need to unpeel the façade of these shell companies so that we can see who owns the property concerned.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
It is because John Stuart Mill was right when he warned that
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing”
that the whole House will support the measures that the Prime Minister has announced. In his statement, he said that our mission is clear “diplomatically, politically, economically and, eventually, militarily.” What did he mean by militarily? Was he referring to providing further defensive weapons to enable Ukraine to defend itself?
The Prime Minister
Obviously I do not want to go into detail, because it is a sensitive and difficult business, but, yes, we have done so and continue to do so. I believe that I have the support of the House in intending to continue to do so.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his words and, if I understood correctly, his early commitment to an economic crime Bill and a kleptocracy cell. In relation to that, will there be a foreign lobbying Bill? Will there be amendments to LIBOR and the Data Protection Acts to stop unscrupulous law firms from offering intimidation services to oligarchs and kleptocrats? Will the NCA be properly funded, as the Intelligence and Security Committee report suggested, so that it can take on the kleptocrats, the autocrats and the oligarchs in this country?
The Prime Minister
As I said in my statement, we are setting up a new combating kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency to target the very individuals mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Let us be under no illusion: we are on the brink of a potentially enormous humanitarian crisis that could see massive loss of life and widespread suffering for the Ukrainian people, all because of the warped desire complex of the Russian President. The attack on Ukraine is also likely to cause mass displacement of people, potentially triggering a significant refugee crisis in Europe. What is the Prime Minister doing to support the Ukrainian people who stay and those who choose to flee?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member makes an important point, for which I am grateful, because the humanitarian impact threatens to be enormous. That is why I said what I did about supporting refugees as they come out of Ukraine. We must ensure that we do everything we can to stabilise the Ukrainian economy and support their Government. That is why on Tuesday I announced the $500 million extra package of development aid on top of the £100 million that we have already given. Other countries—our friends and allies—are working with us to do much more.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister agree that the international order as envisaged in the Atlantic charter of 1941 has been the most successful in the history of freedom and democracy and that, as one of the architects of that order, we have a special responsibility to defend it? While today’s sanctions are extremely welcome, this cannot just be about economic measures. We need a fundamental review of our military capability, including revisiting the integrated review, whose assumptions may now be out of date.
The Prime Minister
The integrated review begins with the assertion that the most important area for our national security is the Euro-Atlantic area, as I believe I said to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on Tuesday, and that remains fundamental. That is why we have continued with our investment in NATO, and we are the second biggest funder of NATO, as my right hon. Friend knows. He is right in what he says about what is at stake. This is about the whole idea of that wonderful thing that was so inspiring when some of us were young: a Europe whole and free. The fantastic revolution that happened in 1989 and 1990 when communism fell was a great moment for humanity. We must not allow it to slip through our fingers.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I would like to state, on behalf of the people of Norwich, our solidarity with the people of Ukraine. But warm words will not defend the Ukrainian people. I have been speaking to people who have been liaising with Ukrainian trade unionists, people who have been fighting privatisation and wage cuts, and they say one thing: that they will not run from their homes; they will defend their families. Those people need to be able to defend themselves. I support the Prime Minister’s assertion that we will be providing more defensive capabilities to that end, but let me ask one thing. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must have an end to this by a negotiated settlement, not by an escalation of military means?
The Prime Minister
I think the whole House and everybody in the world would want President Putin to have chosen the path of negotiation. He had that moment. That is why, if the hon. Gentleman remembers, we had that discussion in the House on Tuesday about that perilous moment. He had that opportunity. I am afraid he has missed it. He has chosen the path of overwhelming violence and destruction. I am afraid that puts us on a very, very different course and we have to accept that reality.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Everybody will wholeheartedly support the Prime Minister’s sanctions against, hopefully, all 140 Russian oligarchs who support Putin and against all the major banks. The Prime Minister described Russia as a pariah state. He is right, because it has broken international criminal law on a major scale. Can we implement our view of the pariah state by ensuring that everybody involved in that decision, if they leave Russia to go abroad, faces international criminal sanctions wherever they go?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend and that is exactly what we can now do thanks to the measures this House has passed.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
This morning we woke to the worst possible news. I make no apology in hoping for a diplomatic solution. However, my party and I condemn the escalating Russian aggression. This is a fluid and developing situation, but we are now in uncharted territory.
I can update the House. While there have been calls in this place for Alex Salmond to cease broadcasting on Russia Today, negotiations have obviously been happening in the background, and I can confirm that he has suspended broadcasting on Russia Today.
We must prepare for the worst. What strategy is the Prime Minister bringing forward to increase North sea oil and gas capacity, so that we can support ourselves and EU member states, and protect our people from a further increase in the cost of living?
The Prime Minister
I must say I disagree profoundly with what the hon. Gentleman has to say about negotiating now. I do not think that that option is open to us. We must do our best to support and protect the people of Ukraine, working with our international friends and allies to constrict what Vladimir Putin can do.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about Russia Today, I simply observe that the former leader of the Scottish National party—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman’s leader; I am so sorry. I understand the pleas he entered in defence and mitigation. They do not seem to cut much ice with me.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I strongly welcome the further set of sanctions announced by the Prime Minister this evening. We look forward to further steps being taken in the days ahead and to not being held back by perhaps some of the slower moving members of the alliance in Europe. Does he agree that if sanctions are really to bite on Putin and his gangster Government, it will inevitably mean cost and inconvenience to UK economic interests? However, that cost and inconvenience will be nothing compared with what the people of Ukraine are going through, and we stand with them this evening.
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am afraid my right hon. Friend is right. It will mean cost, it will mean inconvenience, it will mean difficulty for us in the UK, but that will be a price worth paying for defeating the objectives of Vladimir Putin and showing that aggression does not pay.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
To follow up on the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about the combating kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency, may I seek from the Prime Minister a view on whether additional powers and additional resources will be required for the NCA to do its work?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady very much for her question. Of course, the NCA has plenty of existing statute, but among its additional powers will be the ability to peel back the façade of ownership, which will be extremely valuable.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
While this terrible, appalling incident is, of course, directly the cause of Russia, it is appropriate that we also recognise that over the last 14 years, the UK, the EU and the US collectively have not been attentive to Russia in the way that we should have been. Can my right hon. Friend now say that, whatever happened in the past, moving forward we are not going to let Russia fall between our fingers again?
The Prime Minister
The lesson of 2014 is that the whole of the west failed to respond in the way that we should have done. I am afraid that it was quite wrong that, when a sovereign country was invaded and part of that country was occupied, we tried to manage the situation with various diplomatic processes, which, in the end, produced absolutely nothing except, finally, this catastrophic invasion today. We have learned a bitter lesson about how to deal with Vladimir Putin.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
I agree with the Prime Minister that it seems like the curtain has now come down on the era that began in 1989. We have lived in an era of change since then, and this now feels like a change of era. In this new era, the permissive environment that we created for the Kremlin’s quartermasters to live, invest and party in London, sometimes with the Prime Minister himself, must now come to an end—[Interruption.] So let me ask the Prime Minister this: will he undertake to ensure that every visa issued to a Russian dual national is now reviewed? Where proximity to President Putin is proven, that citizenship should be stripped away.
The Prime Minister
Yes, we are doing that, although I think it is worth the House remembering the point that I made the other day: not every Russian is a bad person.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
I welcome the package of sanctions that the Prime Minister has set out. Although I understand why it has not been possible to suspend Russia from the SWIFT payment system at this stage, I ask him: what work are we doing with our European allies to offer them reassurance, so that we can eventually get to a position where Russia can be suspended, because that is by far and away the biggest thing that will isolate the Russian economy?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is spot on—actually, the biggest thing would be if everybody stopped taking Russian hydrocarbons, but SWIFT is extremely important. It is a Belgian company, as I am sure the House knows. We are raising the issue and trying to make progress with our friends but, for obvious reasons, it has to be done in unison.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
This morning, I spoke to friends in Kyiv who were leaving the country with their family and their children. We have all seen the scenes from the capital of cars trying to get out. I send my deepest thanks to the embassy team there, who are doing all they can to support people.
May I ask the Prime Minister about two areas of support for Ukraine: economic support and continuing support for defensive capability? Will both those areas of support intensify? I see the Foreign Secretary telling me so, but can the Prime Minister assure the House that the Government will continue the deepest possible conversations with the Government in Ukraine to ensure that, no matter the assault that comes to them from Vladimir Putin, we will be supporting them in a deeply meaningful sense?
The Prime Minister
On the hon. Gentleman’s last point, the answer is certainly yes. For instance, the other day I was looking at two British minesweepers that are being refitted in Rosyth, as I am sure he knows, and are due to go to Ukraine. The question will be access; that is what it all depends on.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is crystal clear from this act of naked aggression that Putin does not seek Finlandisation on his borders; he seeks, at best, to recreate a Belarus in the south or, at worst, to dismember the sovereign state of Ukraine. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that means that we need to build on the outcome of our integrated defence review and think differently from how we thought in the past about eastern Europe? At home, with respect to his announcement about bringing forward economic crime measures, it seems that there is consensus in this House that could allow us to introduce emergency legislation to bring in those important measures, to really hit those people hard and hit them now.
The Prime Minister
That is clearly the will of the House and it is the will of the Government, which is why we will be bringing forward those important measures on Monday.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
My thoughts are with the Ukrainian people at this time. While I welcome the sanctions that the Prime Minister has announced today, can he update the House on whether he plans to sanction the major state-owned Russian banks such as Sberbank and Gazprombank and the non-state Alfa bank?
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The Ukrainian prisoner of war chapel at Lockerbie in my constituency is a focal point for the Ukrainian diaspora in Scotland; prayers are being said there for their fellow countrymen. Ukrainians in the UK, who are grateful for the military support that has already been forthcoming, have identified an immediate need for medical battlefield supplies, for warm clothing for troops and for camouflage gear. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that they will be forthcoming?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend raises a very important issue. We are working on exactly those supplies right now.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and very much welcome the sanctions that he has announced today, but can he give an assurance that the sanctions targeting individuals will also target relatives and connected parties? The right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) mentioned the economic crime Bill; there is also the review of the Official Secrets Act and a foreign registration Act. Why can we not bring them forward and do them now? They would get huge support and we have been waiting for some of them for nearly two years.
The Prime Minister
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we will certainly be making sure that we are able to sanction—and that we do sanction—relatives and other interested parties. There will be a rolling programme of intensifying sanctions.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Having been one of the officials who accompanied the then Defence Secretary to both Moscow and Kyiv in 1993, I am in no doubt that the signatures of the United States and the United Kingdom on the Budapest memorandum gave Ukraine the confidence to give up its nuclear deterrent. Will my right hon. Friend support the United States to whatever extent it is prepared to go, and stand alongside the United States in giving whatever military support it is prepared to give to Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to remind the House of the 1994 Budapest memorandum, which had exactly that effect and created exactly that obligation on us as one of the signatories.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister will be aware that Opposition Members are very keen on these sanctions, but does he share my worry that the record of driving out dictators and demagogues with such sanctions is not always that successful? Does he share my concern, from reading what Putin has been saying in the past few hours, that he is a man who might not stop at Ukraine, but might go into a NATO country? Are we playing that scenario? Many of us think that it might be the next step.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise that appalling possibility, and it is vital that we reaffirm, again, that under article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, we stand four-square behind every one of our NATO allies and will come to their defence.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
With Ukrainian men and women dying to fight against the Russians for their freedom today, those who are calling for negotiation at this point can only please that rambling wreck of a neo-Nazi sitting in the Kremlin, and they should be shunned.
Today the ambassador from Ukraine asked desperately whether NATO would look at a no-fly zone. I know it is a difficult choice, but could my right hon. Friend step to the Dispatch Box and make it clear that in this particular case, he rules nothing out?
The Prime Minister
I know that my right hon. Friend is a great military expert, and I understand the attractions of the no-fly zone. I remember the no-fly zone that was created in 1991, as I recall, in northern Iraq. However, the situation here is very different. We would face the risk of having to shoot down Russian planes, and that is something that I think the House would want to contemplate with caution.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I hope the Prime Minister can reassure me that locking out Russian state money will include our overseas territories and dependencies. I note that protests are taking place in a number of cities across Russia, and that celebrities in Russia have been speaking out. I do hope that we will be offering all the support we can to those people who are likely to be shunned by the fascist imperialist Putin regime.
The Prime Minister
Yes, and let me also say that one of the reasons I want to keep our fantastic British embassy staff in Moscow, even though the temptation is there simply to sunder diplomatic relations with Putin, is that I want them there to support groups such as the ones that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I have given evidence at four war crimes trials. It was with genocide and crimes against humanity that those people had been charged. May I ask my right hon. Friend and the House to agree with me that any Russian who kills a Ukrainian must remember that one day they may well be brought to court for crimes against humanity or genocide?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and not just any Russian combatant, but anyone who sends a Russian into battle to kill innocent Ukrainians.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
President Zelensky has called for the toughest possible sanctions. If they are to be the toughest possible sanctions, that must mean “immediate”. In his statement, the Prime Minister referred to economic measures “in the next Session”, including measures relating to Companies House and the register of overseas property ownership, but in his answer to the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), he said something about bringing this forward on Monday. Which is it to be, and if it is Monday, will it have the same effect as is required for that immediate action?
The Prime Minister
We will be bringing it forward on Monday, and I am grateful for the support of the Opposition. We want immediately to start cracking down on these individuals.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
The whole House will welcome the enhanced package of sanctions that the Prime Minister has announced today, but may I raise the question of football, much beloved of Russian hearts, and in particular issues of ownership, property and shareholdings, and the future participation of Russian clubs in international matches?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is completely right. The Russians attach a great deal of sentimental importance to football, and they hope to hold the UEFA championship final in St Petersburg. I cannot for the life of me see how that can currently go ahead.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Putin’s war on Ukraine is brutal, illegal and a calculated attack on peace and stability in Europe. Plaid Cymru fully supports the actions and sanctions announced today. Putin and his cronies with their personal fortunes must pay for their actions. On a visit to Ukraine, Plaid Cymru leaders spoke to Ukrainian soldiers, Government officials and organisations, admiring the Ukrainian people for their strength and resilience, but those people are now in harm’s way. With Poland organising medical assistance and Slovakia opening up its borders to refugees, will this Government mobilise and resource a global effort to support and aid people fleeing this horrific conflict?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her support and her resolve. I want to assure her that we are of course working with our international friends to prepare for a humanitarian crisis.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Earlier this afternoon, I had the opportunity to speak on a Zoom call to a number of Ukrainian MPs, who were all calling for additional support. One of their key concerns was that their communications networks might be shut down. Can I urge the Prime Minister to ensure that we are doing all we can to provide equipment such as satellite phones to ensure that they can still communicate, not just internally but with us here in the UK?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a threat to communications already. We are observing it in the contacts we are having with people in Ukraine. Satellite phones are certainly an option and we will be looking at that.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
We have rightly heard a lot about tougher trade sanctions today, but nothing about ridding our democracy of Russian state influence. Will the Prime Minister commit to investigating all political donations received from people with links to Putin, and will his Government finally bring forward measures to clean up the corrupt Russian money that for far too long has been laundered in the UK?
The Prime Minister
All political donations are properly registered and monitored. I can tell the hon. Lady that we are putting forward progressively over the last few days and weeks and today the biggest ever package to crack down on dirty Russian money, not just from Russia but from anywhere.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I welcome the sanctions today. My right hon. Friend has been crystal clear that all of Europe needs to end its dependence on Russian oil and gas. Can he tell us a little bit more about how he intends to see that that comes to pass?
The Prime Minister
The key thing is first to get people to recognise the scale of their dependency, as in any addiction, and that is what we are doing. The UK Government have been making that point to our friends the whole time, because it has got worse since 2014. What we are also doing is helping countries such as the Baltic states to go further and faster with renewable technology.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I think everyone knows that Ukraine is a major producer of grain. Unfortunately, because of these awful events, there are likely to be consequences for many countries, including our own. Can I ask the Prime Minister to look again at our food security proposals and ensure that we are secure and not reliant on others as much as we have been in the past?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Food security is an important consideration. One of the many things that our fantastic Ukrainian community has done in the last few years is to help us in that very sector.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that western Europe’s ongoing reliance on Russian oil and gas has been a major factor in emboldening President Putin in the mistaken belief that he can invade his peaceful neighbour with relative impunity? In the UK, should we not refocus our energy policy on maximising the use of our own natural resources and look again at fracking while we invest in low carbon alternatives?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is totally right when he talks about the excessive dependence on hydrocarbons. We are moving away from it in this country. I think he and I might agree that there is merit, during a transitional phase, in continuing with the use of hydrocarbons in this country rather than pointlessly importing them from abroad.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Putin’s imperial bloodlust will not stop at Ukraine. We are rightly focused on sanctions, military and humanitarian support and our commitment to Ukrainian freedom, but the Prime Minister knows that there has been a phenomenal increase in Russian submarine activity over the last 20 years. Our undersea cables carry more than 95% of western military, diplomatic, commercial, financial and personal communications, and the consequences of these cables being weaponised is terrifying. Can he assure me that countering this threat is part of our ongoing dialogue with allies?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a continual struggle beneath the surface of the sea between submarines that are out to sever cables and those of us who are trying to make sure those links are maintained.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked a question about war crimes, and I suspect those crimes are already being committed by Russian soldiers against their Slavic brothers and sisters. Will the Prime Minister join NATO heads of state in setting out, at an early stage, how war crimes will be prosecuted so that all Russian soldiers, field officers, generals and, of course, politicians are brutally aware of where they will end up in a few years’ time?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is why we are working on setting up a particular international war crimes tribunal for those involved in war crimes in the Ukraine theatre.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
As well as being incredibly ruthless, President Putin is incredibly rich, with one assessment saying that his personal wealth is up to $200 billion. Will the Prime Minister ensure that President Putin himself pays a heavy price by targeting his own cash and assets?
The Prime Minister
Yes, absolutely, and not just him but, as the House has heard over the last few days, as many of his immediate cronies and family as we can hit.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for all he has done. Just before the statement, I spoke to some of the Ukrainian protesters outside. One of them was holding back tears as she spoke about her mother being in a cellar as her house is surrounded by Russian tanks. Any hon. Member who asks for a negotiated settlement needs to speak to the protesters, because all they want is to live their lives as free and peaceful people. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the people of Ukraine that he will do everything he can to end the tyranny of Putin and to make sure they live as a peaceful, free people?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I certainly can confirm that. I believe that, through this invasion, President Putin has done more than anybody else to bring his regime to an end. In the end, he will pay a huge price for what he has done, and I know this House will want to make it so.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
I welcome and support the measures outlined by the Prime Minister today. Putin is a gangster and a despot who has been trying to undermine and subvert democracy across the world for years. One of the tools he uses is donations to political parties, including in this country. Will the Prime Minister commit today to ridding our democracy of Russian money?
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland triggered article 4 of the north Atlantic treaty today, and I heard that we will be joining those discussions. Can my right hon. Friend assure our NATO allies in eastern Europe, particularly the Baltic states that have significant Russian populations, that we stand firmly with them?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right. It is why one of the first things we did was to strengthen our presence in Estonia in the way I described, and why our Canadian friends are strengthening their presence in Latvia. We will make sure that we give the Baltic states, which seceded from the Soviet Union to become free and independent in that amazing moment, all the security they deserve.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
There is overwhelming evidence that Russian state actors have been involved in trying to disrupt and destabilise western democracies by using social media platforms such as Facebook. What are the Government doing to ensure such platforms are not used in these events?
The Prime Minister
As I said in an answer a couple of days ago, we have no evidence of disruption of UK elections or electoral events as a result of Russian activity, but the online harms Bill is there to provide such protections.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and indeed thank the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition for his supportive and moving words. But I also reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). Why has it come to this pass? How has the west in general and the UK in particular been so asleep at the switch for such a long time? I commend the defence and security review, but is it not now time to ask what the permanent and impartial machinery of our government does in failing to provide Ministers with consistent advice about the strategic threats that our country faces?
The Prime Minister
There are all sorts of reasons for the failure of the west to take sufficient account of the threat of Vladimir Putin since 2014, but the two biggest are oil and gas.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
With cyber-attacks and falsehoods, Russia is peddling lies today. Observers on the ground are crucial to relaying the truth. In recent weeks, the UK has withdrawn its team from the OSCE special monitoring mission because staff safety is key, but can the Prime Minister look again to support international efforts such as that to get to the facts and counter Russian disinformation?
The Prime Minister
I thank the monitoring mission teams. They are wonderful. I have met them and they do a fantastic job. I am sorry that they have had to be withdrawn, for the duty of care reasons that the hon. Gentleman rightly alludes to. We will keep that under constant review.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
The 1994 Budapest memorandum saw Ukraine give up its nuclear weapons in return for a security guarantee signed by not only Britain and the United States, but Russia. Does my right hon. Friend believe that Ukraine would have been invaded had it retained its nuclear weapons? What does that say about the value of a Russian signature on any international agreement?
The Prime Minister
It is clear that President Putin sets no stall by international law whatever and that is just one of the legal obligations that he has torn up.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We awoke this morning to images of innocent families cowering in tube stations. We know the Putin regime’s propensity for oppression and tyranny, particularly when it comes to minorities. Will the Prime Minister ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered in concert with not just other international partners, but third sector organisations?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course. The third sector plays an invaluable role.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his specifically ruling out the threat of creeping normalisation. This House should be in no doubt that Putin is well prepared. He has hundreds of billions of foreign currency reserves and a military that has been tested. Will the Prime Minister do everything he can to convert the current intent into frameworks that cement our intent over time, because Putin is betting on the fact that it will not be?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right because the plan that the G7 has agreed on, and our friends and partners have agreed on, is that Putin must fail—Putin must not succeed in this venture. We have to put in place all the steps we need to take, diplomatically, economically and, yes, militarily, in order to ensure that that is the case and that is what we are doing.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is right to have set out the most stringent possible set of sanctions against the Government of Russia. Can he outline for the House what the implications will be for co-operation at the international space station?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. We will have to see what further downstream effects there are on collaboration of all kinds. Hitherto, I have been broadly in favour of continuing artistic and scientific collaboration, but in the current circumstances it is hard to see how even those can continue as normal.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The mix of practice and principle is the test of democratic politics, exemplified at its best when this House comes together in common cause. The test of leadership is the mix of vision and will, and the Prime Minister is to be commended for his wilful, clear-sighted determination. Will he now reassure the House that he is in close touch with those countries close to Ukraine, where nerves will be frayed? Will he send them the urgent message that this House and this nation will always stand together and behind free nations?
The Prime Minister
As so often, my right hon. Friend is precisely right. That is why, together with my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Defence and the Foreign Secretary, we have been visiting Poland, Romania, the Balts—all those who are now feeling such deep unease at what is happening.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
As we speak, the Sovcomflot tanker NS Challenger is berthed at Sullom Voe in Shetland and taking on a load of crude oil for export. As the Prime Minister may know, Sovcomflot is a company owned and operated by the Russian Government. My constituents are asking me why they should be loading oil on to a Russian tanker while Russian troops are marching into Ukraine. I cannot think of any good answer to give them. Will the Prime Minister tell me whether anything that he has announced today will ensure that that will not happen again?
The Prime Minister
I will of course immediately investigate what is happening with the Sovcomflot oil tanker. The result of the measures that the House passed the other day is that we can now target any entity—any company—that has any relation with the Russian state. We have that power.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Tyrants and megalomaniacs invade countries because they think they can get away with it. The way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. I am sure the Prime Minister will acknowledge that the way the west responds to this aggression will have repercussions not just for Russia and Ukraine but for other bullies such as China. Will he be mindful of the need to show support to Russia’s smaller southerly neighbours, especially Georgia and Armenia, which feel particularly vulnerable at this time?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my hon. Friend is right, because the read-across—the knock-on—is obvious for Georgia and Armenia. What Putin proposes to create is a new sphere of influence—a new Yalta—in which those countries come behind his new iron curtain.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)
As a Member of this House with Ukrainian heritage, this issue particularly troubles me. I thank the Prime Minister for the tone of his statement and for not only the resolute and swift action he proposes to tackle Russia but the resolute and swift support that he is offering to the people of Ukraine. During his statement, the Prime Minister highlighted the cost of living and the rise in fuel prices. Could he touch on what further action the Government will take to address those issues?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is quite right, because people throughout the country will be thinking about the effect on us all of the increase in the price of oil and gas as a result of a war in Ukraine. We will continue to do everything we can to help people to abate the cost and to support people through councils and all the funds we are providing, such as for the reduction in council tax, but the best thing we can do is to ensure people are in good, well-paying jobs, and in that we are certainly succeeding. In the medium and long term, we have to have more self-reliance in this country on our own energy supplies. That is what this Government are also committed to building.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
One of the most important economic sanctions we can take against Russia is to freeze its sovereign debt. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Bill proposed on Monday on economic crime will include powers to do so?
The Prime Minister
We are taking the most powerful measures against Russia and the Russian economy that have ever been taken—probably the most powerful ever taken by any country—and Russia will no longer be able to raise any sovereign debt on UK markets.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
What support will we be providing to Ukrainian citizens who are settled in the UK and wish to reunite with family members who still reside in Ukraine? Many have watched their cities rapidly get caught up in this conflict and are keen to know what more we can do to support them to reunite with their families.
The Prime Minister
We will make sure that we support Ukrainian nationals who need to come to this country to meet their relatives—of course we will do that.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
I am proud that the Prime Minister and this country are leading the international support for our friends in Ukraine. Domestically, will the Prime Minister be providing more support for our NHS, other public sector organisations and businesses that will now be the subject of Russian cyber-attacks?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to point to that risk. It is foresighted of him. We are investing massively in cyber-protection—I think we are putting in another £2.6 billion. In the past few years, we have tackled more than 3,000 cyber-attacks It is a risk, but a risk, I am afraid, that we must run in the cause of freedom.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
I offer my wholehearted support for much tougher sanctions against President Putin and his dreadful regime.
As mentioned earlier, there are many historic Ukrainian communities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and indeed I would like to commend the work of the Reading Ukrainian Centre. What additional support can the Government give to these very valuable community groups and centres around the country that offer such support to families, friends and relatives both in the UK and in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
Perhaps the most important thing that we can do for the Ukrainian community in this country is thank them and recognise everything that they have done for us in the past decades. They have been an amazing addition to the UK, to the UK economy and to our cultural and artistic life.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The House is united in its condemnation, but I suggest to the Prime Minister that the lessons to be addressed from this affair started with Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008, and not in 2014. Many of us across the House have been warning about Russia and yet the response has been weak. Does the Prime Minister accept that, as we enter the battle for democracy globally, we must understand that the sooner that we square up to the playground bully the better and that must we adequately support our hard and soft power to do that?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. I know that, by soft power, he is thinking also of the British Council, which can have such a wonderful beneficial effect across Russia. Indeed, I have seen its work across Russia. He is right about standing up to the playground bully. We should have done it ages ago. I think the scales have fallen from the eyes of many of our friends and partners.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
In an earlier response, the Prime Minister suggested that this country would welcome people who were reuniting with family here. I have a constituent who is Ukrainian but a British citizen. She is trying to bring her mother from Ukraine, but has been turned down because she is over 18. Her mother is on her own and has no family, so naturally she is frightened. Will we see a change in the Home Office to enable British citizens who are Ukrainian to bring their vulnerable family here?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady very much. I think I read out a helpline number in the House on Tuesday. I do not have it with me. There is a number both in Lviv and in this country, but if she could do me the favour of sending me the details, I will take them up.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend and his Ministers for the firm stance they are taking. None of us knows what Mr Putin’s longer-term aims are. If Ukraine falls, and I fear that it might, his covetous eye might land on the Baltic states and other vulnerable countries. Can my right hon. Friend reassure NATO members that if one Russian boot lands on NATO soil, military force will be met by military force?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and what is so encouraging is that the whole House understands the vital importance of that article 5 guarantee that we make to every one of the 30 members of NATO.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Prime Minister quite rightly pitches this as a battle between the party of war and those who support international law. There is only one lawful Government in Ukraine—the Government of President Zelensky. If they are forced to move or possibly forced into exile in the short run or the longer run, will the Prime Minister state clearly that we will ensure they can be a functional and effective Government, wherever they operate from?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. That is why in our discussions with President Zelensky we are seeing what we can do to give them the practical support they need to continue.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The City of London is a global asset whose enduring success rests not on dirty money, but on a commitment to excellence and on adherence to the rule of law. It is right that we now use that as a way to show global leadership. Can I encourage my right hon. Friend to sanction all the remaining Russian banks, to sanction the executives associated with them—I notice that many are resigning today—to publish a further list of individuals, resident in this country or otherwise, to be sanctioned and to redouble his excellent efforts to suspend Russia from SWIFT, as the single most effective immediate step the west could take to put pressure on Vladimir Putin?
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend particularly for his important testimonial to the City of London, whose work should not be sullied by association with ill-gotten Russian money. The programme he sets out for sanctions is exactly the right one and the one that the Government are following.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Mr Speaker,
“Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.”
Will the Prime Minister reiterate that our quarrel is not with the Russian people, but with their leader Vladimir Putin, who has committed a very grave error?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is so right, and I know that is what the House thinks. We admire the Russian people. Our links to the Russian people go back to the time when we stood shoulder to shoulder with them to fight fascism. Russia’s contribution to culture, to art, to literature and to music is unparalleled. It is an extraordinary country, and nothing we do or say should obscure that.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Winston Churchill created the Council of Europe as a bastion against fascism and communism. Since the fall of communism, Russia has set great importance on its membership, as a fig leaf of respectability. Every time our Conservative group has tried to get it expelled, we have been foiled by Russian gold. Will the Prime Minister now instruct his ambassador on the Council of Europe to move for the immediate expulsion of Russia from the Council, so that there is no place for gangsters in the halls of civilised nations?
The Prime Minister
Eloquently put, and my right hon. Friend is dead right. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who is on the Council of Europe, made that point the other day, and I certainly agree with it.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
So many Russians see this attack on Ukraine as they would see an attack of their father on their mother, because there are such intimate family relationships between the two groups. Today, thousands of Russians are protesting in cities—against their domestic law—about this awful war. Will the Prime Minister provide them with his support? Will he amplify that support to help reduce any support there is for this ridiculous war? Will he also provide sanctuary and safe haven for refugees, including troops, outside Ukraine so that they can re-engage and we can win this war at home and abroad?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a series of extremely important observations. Yes, it is vital that we get the message across to the whole of Russia about what is really going on. They are being lied to day after day, and his point about supporting troops who need temporary exile, as it were, is a good one.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for yet again coming to the House to keep us informed and for his leadership in this crisis. He was right to provide military aid to Ukraine. The Ukrainian ambassador asked for our support on a no-fly zone today. In his answer earlier, I think the Prime Minister was keeping that option open—is that correct?
The Prime Minister
I think it is pretty clear to the House that we are trying to keep all our options open on this front. Some of them, frankly, may be more practicable that others. We must also have a dose of realism about what we can do on the military front, but we will keep all things under review.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
Many of the residents in my constituency come from a number of the countries on the eastern flank and still have relatives living there. Obviously, like us, they will be deeply concerned about the humanitarian impact of the crisis. So what steps are the Government taking to prepare for the humanitarian issue? Will the 1,000 troops on standby to help with humanitarian assistance now be deployed?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. What we are seeing now, tragically, as I am sure the House knows, is people moving west out of Kyiv, with columns of traffic, and people already moving into south-eastern Poland. There is going to be an influx. As I said to the Prime Minister of Poland as well, we are there to help.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement today and for his strong package of sanctions. I want to ask him about preventing sexual violence in conflict. In November last year, we issued a strong statement that said that the use of sexual violence as a weapon in conflict is a red line akin to the use of chemical weapons. Will he reaffirm that commitment today, and will he send a strong message to Russia that the international community will not tolerate the use of sexual violence in conflict?
The Prime Minister
Yes; I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she has done on that issue. It is something that the UK Government have campaigned on for a long time and have indeed raised, very rightly, in international consciousness. I think it should be treated as a war crime like any other, and people who perpetrate sexual violence in conflict can expect to be tried in those tribunals.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
In seeking to redraw the boundaries of Europe through bloodshed, Putin has attacked not only Ukraine but all of us, and we stand with Ukraine in standing for the rule of law. I welcome the sanctions that the Prime Minister has announced, but I was confused by his response on Russian disinformation, which he seemed to imply would be addressed by the online safety Bill. That is many, many months away. Russian disinformation is organised; their bots are state-sponsored. What steps will he take to address that?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises a good point. What we are doing is a massive, positive strat comms campaign in Russian and in Ukrainian to make sure that people get the truth and hear the truth.
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
As we have noticed this afternoon, virtually everyone in this House has supported the efforts towards resistance over the past few months and in these days. I imagine the House will also support the very different sort of warfare under occupation over the coming months and possibly years. But the House will also have noticed the marvellous way the Prime Minister has spoken directly to the Russian people today. I hope that he will bear in mind that at the moment public opinion in Russia is rather different, and that does underline the importance of accurate information.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is quite right. He is a distinguished former soldier and he knows that truth is the first casualty. We have to make sure that we are telling people exactly what is going on. To the best of my knowledge, at the moment the Ukrainians are resisting much more strongly than some people had thought that they would. Who knows how long they can keep going? Let us hope that they can and let us encourage them to do so, but let us get the message out as well. That is our job.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is absolutely right: we equivocated shamefully after Crimea; we were spineless. We must not be spineless now, because what will inevitably happen is that either the Baltic states, one of the members of NATO, or perhaps Sweden or Finland will feel the wrath of Putin next, and that will mean British action. Do we not need to try to set in train now a process whereby Putin himself ends up in the dock in a court? Norman Birkett, who was the alternate British judge at Nuremberg, said at Nuremberg that to
“initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
Putin must be brought to a court of law and end his days in prison, must he not?
The Prime Minister
One of the most fascinating things about what Putin is doing is how close an analogy there is between his actions and those of Slobodan Milošević. We have exactly the same nonsense being peddled about the mystical union between Kyiv and Moscow as we did about Kosovo and Belgrade, and exactly the same aggression, and remember that Slobodan Milošević died on trial.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I welcome the package of sanctions set out by the Prime Minister and the fact that he has confirmed that more will come. If they are to be successful in punishing President Putin for what he has done to date and to deter him from going further and attacking our NATO partners, they must be sustained, and if they are to be sustained, we must be honest with the British people that there will be a cost for them and that we will have to pay an economic cost, but that it is a cost we must pay, and it pales into insignificance compared with the cost to the people of Ukraine.
The Prime Minister
Yes, and not only is that true, but the opportunity and the reward for success and being strong are huge, because if this should end with the rejection of aggression and the rejection of the Putin regime’s view of the world, that will be a massive, massive benefit, including economically, to the whole world.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Up until May 2021, Valentyna Yakovleva was my constituent. She resided in Scotland for 20 years with her daughter and her family, but due to an initial error in application, she eventually exhausted appeals and was deported with two covid jags last year. Now that 71-year-old is sheltering in a subway. In response to the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who is no longer in her place, I reiterate: does the Prime Minister agree that as we face a likely refugee crisis, the UK must be doing all it can to extract individuals who have immediate family relatives in the UK? I urge for support for this case.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady very much for drawing the case to my attention. If she sends me the details, I would be happy to ensure it is properly taken up by the Home Office.
Mr Speaker
I just say for those who did not get in that we have a list for next time, because this will definitely not be the end on this topic.
Long Covid
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
We were told this week by the Prime Minister that the worst of covid was over and that we are moving from responding to covid as a crisis to it being something we will be living with for the long term. I think we all hope that the Government’s assessment is right and that after two long years of sacrifice, the worst is over.
This Adjournment debate, granted before last week’s recess, is also timely, because missing from the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday was something very important: how we deal with long covid. In fact, the Prime Minister did not comment on long covid at all. He talked about omicron being a less severe variant, and he said that covid should now be treated like the flu, but that overlooks the fact that the debilitating symptoms of long covid are not impacted by the severity of someone’s initial covid symptoms. Someone can have very mild covid symptoms initially, but be left with an endless illness stopping them from carrying out the most basic activities. That is one of the reasons why my party wants everyone to continue to have access to free testing—the fight against covid is not over just because we want to appease Back Benchers.
It is not really possible to describe long covid, but doctors now think that it is caused by somebody having an ongoing immune response to covid, long after the virus has left their body. What that looks like differs from person to person. There are 150 possible symptoms, with each person having a unique combination. The most commonly reported symptom is fatigue, then shortness of breath, loss of smell, difficulty concentrating and aching muscles. Symptoms can also include vertigo, fever, vomiting and diarrhoea to name just a few.
Long covid is also relapsing-remitting, which means that symptoms can come and go with little warning. In short, it is complicated, but what we do know is that it is affecting a vast amount of people. According to the Office for National Statistics, in the four weeks before 2 January, 1.3 million people across the UK had it. Considering that the spread of omicron did not peak until 30 December, the actual number of people suffering today is likely to be higher.
Tackling long covid is a challenge that we must take on, as much as tackling covid itself. When I applied for this debate, I caused a little confusion for some: “Why does a Scottish MP want to talk about a health condition when the care of her constituents is under the remit of the Scottish Government?” In some ways, they are right. It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to the hard work of my friend the Member of the Scottish Parliament for Edinburgh West, who has been leading the way on getting health and social care support for long covid sufferers in Scotland. I know that his calls for proper care pathways, specialist clinics and support from trained district nurses will hugely benefit my constituents and others.
Treatment is only half the battle, however. The focus of this debate is how long covid affects someone’s ability to work and what support they need as a result. If we are now living with covid, we are also living with long covid. We have learned a lot about the disease in the past two years. There was little understanding for people who caught covid in the early days, and no understanding that their symptoms could last, but they have lasted. For that first cohort of sufferers, they have lasted for nearly two years. At first, it might have been understandable to think that they just needed to wait it out for their health to return to normal, but it would be completely disingenuous to say that now. Their symptoms are the reality of their daily life.
I have already mentioned that more than 150 symptoms are associated with long covid. The medical profession is still just starting to grapple with it and most people do not understand it much at all. Sadly, that lack of understanding is causing a stigma, as it often does, which is all too well known by sufferers of other diseases such as ME. Like long covid, fatigue is a common symptom of ME that also comes and goes.
When preparing for this debate, I spoke to representatives from Action for ME who have extensive experience with the problems facing those who describe fatigue as their primary symptom. They told me that people with ME face a significant stigma and face being told that their illness does not exist or that they should learn to just push through. They also told me that the same narrative and the same problems are being reported for the hundreds of thousands of people who have severe fatigue as a result of long covid. Indeed, Action for ME has had to close its helpline and waiting list because such a surge of people have contacted it. I cannot believe that that is unrelated to long covid.
Thousands of people are left suffering from an illness that may well make it hard for them to work, but their colleagues and employers do not necessarily believe that there is anything wrong with them. How can they explain an absence or ask for support in the face of being told that they are fabricating their debilitating symptoms? A better definition, guidance for employers and a Government-led campaign to boost awareness and understanding would go a long way towards changing attitudes to long covid.
The problem is exacerbated for people who do not have a formal diagnosis of long covid to fall back on. The Government’s working definition of long covid is a condition where symptoms cannot be diagnosed as being from anything else but the after-effect of a covid infection, but not all sufferers of long covid have had a positive covid test result. For the past 18 months, covid tests have become a part of daily life for most of us, but those who got covid in the first months of the pandemic were ill without ever being tested because the tests simply did not exist. That is a huge problem in a system where support—from employers or the Department for Work and Pensions—requires proof.
There is a future problem too that I have already referred to and that perhaps the Government would like to pre-empt. On Monday, the Prime Minister announced that free testing will end in just five weeks’ time, which means that more people will have covid, and might then have long covid, without a formal diagnosis. It would be a small but vital change to ensure that the diagnosis does not rely on someone having a positive test result on their NHS record.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Would antibody testing achieve the aim the hon. Member intends, rather than antigen testing, which is what we are currently doing?
Wendy Chamberlain
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I would accept either testing, but I am asking that proof of a positive test does not need to be a requirement for a diagnosis of long covid. Of course, it would be better for many reasons to just keep testing everyone, but failing this, I ask the Minister to speak to his colleagues in the Department of Health about how long covid can be diagnosed without a test result, and to commit to making sure it is not required for recognition of the disease by his own Department.
I am sure that, in his remarks, the Minister will tell me that there is no evidence of a problem of long covid and keeping people in work, but that is because the information is not being collected. As I have said, 1.3 million people have long covid, and of those almost two thirds report an impact on their ability to carry out their daily lives. It is logical to assume that this includes employment—getting up, commuting, concentrating and completing a full day of work—and I would urge the Minister urgently to collect the data needed to find out the extent to which people with long covid are struggling at work.
I also urge the Minister urgently to provide guidance to employers as to how they can support employees with long covid. At the very least, affected staff need understanding, but beyond this, employers need to know what reasonable adjustments are appropriate, how to support staff who are on long-term sick leave and how to adjust their business practices to function in the face of increased absences. I have some experience in that I worked for a time in human resources—I have some experience with dealing with issues that arise as a result of long-term health conditions—and I have great sympathy for those in human resources who are tackling this problem now on behalf of their employers.
This problem may be larger for some employers than others, particularly given the number of key workers who caught covid by working on the frontline during the first waves of the pandemic, and I have been written to by many constituents in this position. To mention just one, a constituent of mine was working as a healthcare support worker in the first wave of the pandemic when she caught covid from a patient and, as a result of long covid, she has been unable to return to work. Her employer, the local council, wants to help, but it does not know what is best to do. There will be thousands of employees in the same position all around the country, and employers need guidance from the DWP about the condition, and what support they can and should be expected to give. In this regard, I am told that it would be helpful if long covid was classified as an occupational disease. I therefore ask the Minister to use his time today to advise whether that is under consideration, and then to bring forward such guidance as a matter of urgency.
I am sure the Minister will agree with me in hoping that, with the right support and guidance, most people experiencing long covid will be able to stay in their jobs—to keep working, to keep earning, to continue in their careers—but, sadly, that will not be the case for everybody. There will be those who cannot work as much as they used to or who cannot work at all, and that is where our social security system steps up. As the Minister knows, it is already official Government guidance that for
“anyone with a disability or long-term health condition, including long Covid, there is a strong financial safety net”,
and it goes on to list available support as statutory sick pay, universal credit and personal independence payments.
However, as is so often the case with benefits, it is not that easy. Applying for benefits is complicated, as there are a lot of forms, a lot of boxes to tick and a lot of assessments. When someone has a debilitating condition such as long covid or one of the other relapsing-remitting diseases I have already mentioned, they may not be able to sit and complete a 30-page form in one go, or even in the course of a week or two. Research by the MS Society has shown that a third of people with MS thought four weeks was not enough time to complete the forms, but the majority of applicants did not know that they could request a two-week extension.
One solution is simply to extend the time allowed to complete the forms. There is no incentive for claimants to take excessive time because they want to get the support that they need. Meanwhile, DWP resources are used up requiring people to request extensions. Setting the time to return the forms at eight weeks would be a simple and cheap solution. If the Minister disagrees and prefers a system that does not work for disabled people and also costs his Department money, will he at least commit to including clear information on the PIP application form on how people go about applying for an extension?
While we are thinking about the forms, does the Minister agree with me that the forms ought to be designed to be usable by the people completing them? People with relapsing-remitting conditions, of which long covid is just one, do not find those forms usable. There is no space on the forms properly to explain the impact of having fluctuating symptoms. They do not work for people with long covid, and these forms must be fit for purpose. I strongly encourage the Minister to consult with disabled people on this.
Long covid is a novel condition, and the DWP, like all of us, is having to learn and adapt, but as DWP staff see more and more individuals with long covid, it is vital that they receive the appropriate guidance and training. Universal credit requires claimants who can do so to look for work. In fact, more recently it required claimants quite quickly to look for just any work at all. Are work coaches trained in what sort of requirements are appropriate for someone with a relapsing remitting disease, where they fatigue quickly or have brain fog or any of the other hundred-odd symptoms of long covid? I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what guidance is in place and what support is offered, but I fear there is little.
The same is true for personal independence assessments. A PIP assessment is supposed to determine what additional support someone needs as a result of their disability or illness, but again that is an impossible test for anybody with a fluctuating condition. They could be functioning one day, or even ok, but the next day they are unable to get out of bed. One assessment—just one assessment on one day—determines whether they get support or not, and that system does not work. Of course, the system is failing not only long covid sufferers, but those with ME, multiple sclerosis and chronic pain, to name a few. There is a simple solution that I ask the Minister to adopt, which is to allow more weight to be given to medical evidence and the information provided by doctors and experts on someone’s condition, or by those people who see claimants on their good days and on their bad days. It is an obvious solution.
There are other ways that the assessment process could be reformed better to support all disabled people, including those with long covid: using specialist assessors, ending the five-week waiting period and increasing payments in line with inflation are vital for the health and wellbeing of all disabled people. I await the publication of the Government’s White Paper this spring, and wonder whether the Minister is able to provide an update on that this evening.
However, those with long covid cannot wait until then for their condition to be properly recognised by the DWP and their employers. The pandemic has been the biggest mass-disabling event since the first world war, and long covid is not going away. We have seen covid rip through classrooms over the past few months. Long covid does not just affect people of working age, and children who suffer from it are going to miss education and training. It does not matter if, like me, someone views social security as a public service and a safety net, or if they see the DWP as a means to get people into work. From either perspective, the Government must do more to support those with long covid to stay in work, get into work, and get the support they need if they cannot work.
We need information about the impact of long covid on employment, and a formal recognition of long covid as a debilitating condition, or an occupational health disease that affects someone’s ability to work. We need proper guidance and training for employers and DWP staff, and an assessment process that works for people with fluctuating symptoms. The Prime Minister told us on Monday that it was time to get our confidence back, but those words are cold comfort to those suffering from the debilitating impacts of long covid. They need practical support and they need it now, and I urge the Minister to heed them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Russian invasion of Ukraine colours everything we talk about today, and I wish to put on record my support for what has been said by all political parties. I am sure I speak for all colleagues on both Front and Back Benches when I say that we stand with the people of a sovereign and independent Ukraine. We are a legitimate democracy, which means that we can debate things. We can have a discussion in a way that other countries, such as Russia, cannot do. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate on an important issue. As she knows, the Minister for Disabled People, Work and Health, who would normally respond to this debate, cannot be with us tonight because of personal reasons. She apologises for that, and I am here to respond to the best of my ability on all matters on behalf of the Government.
The Government recognise the impact of long covid on individuals and their families. We are committed to working across the Government to ensure that appropriate provision and support is available to those suffering from the condition of covid. The hon. Lady is right to say that we have been through the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu of 1919, and all Governments around the world are playing catch-up in an attempt to understand, appreciate and deal with the consequences of this terrible disease. It is also a chance for us in this House to put on record our thanks to the pharmaceutical companies, everyone behind the vaccine taskforce, the NHS, the public and private sectors, and the volunteers behind the vaccine roll-out.
We cannot discuss covid without raising the specific issue that it is in everybody’s interests to get the jab. I have done everything possible, including videos with my dog, Zola, to encourage vaccine take-up, and it is very much in our interests to have a continuation of that take-up. Sadly, however, a significant proportion of the population have still not had the jab, and we urge them to go forward and do that.
Mr Steve Baker
One thing I notice when I look at the vaccination map brilliantly provided by the Government is that the areas of Wycombe with the highest ethnic minority populations are the least vaccinated. Will the Minister take this opportunity, if he can, to tell us a bit more about what the Government are doing to help those people?
Guy Opperman
A great deal is being done; I will write to my hon. Friend and set it out in copious detail. The most important thing is that thought leaders, whether voted for or not—they range from Members of Parliament to religious leaders and community leaders—make the case in their communities that people need to get the jab, because the way out of this and back to normal life and living with covid is clearly to embrace the vaccine. There is much more that I could touch on, but that is the main point.
Specific guidance was set out in the detailed “COVID-19 Response: Living with COVID-19” document put forward by the Prime Minister. The hon. Lady said that there was no reference in the Prime Minister’s statement to long covid. That is not the case for the document—I refer her in particular to paragraphs 87 and 118—but this is clearly a work in progress. I will come to the specifics in a bit more detail. We remain committed to ensuring that everybody can access the health and support that they need. We are doing what we can to ensure that care pathways are available and clearly signposted so that people who need extra help receive it.
The hon. Lady rightly mentioned that she is a Scottish MP and that this is a devolved system. I will therefore briefly touch on the health approach before turning to benefits. The Department of Health and Social Care has invested over £50 million in dedicated research to improve the diagnosis and treatment of long covid. In addition, NHS England and NHS Improvement have invested £224 million to provide care for people with long covid, including £90 million in 2022-23. There are 90 long covid assessment services across England, including 14 specialist paediatric hubs that have been established to support adults, children and young people with long covid and to direct them into appropriate care pathways.
The Government recognise that while England has adopted a clinic-based service model, no one single approach is likely to fit all areas and circumstances, and it is right and proper that each part of the UK can adopt a service model for long covid that most effectively responds to its patients’ needs. That recognises that—this goes to the hon. Lady’s point—everyone experiences long covid differently and that health services are organised differently depending on where they are located.
In Scotland, I understand, NHS boards are developing pathways between primary and secondary care according to local services and the needs of their respective populations, with a focus on providing care and support that is as close to home as possible. In Northern Ireland, assessment services have been established featuring multidisciplinary assessment and support in primary and secondary care settings. Similarly, in Wales, a recovery programme has been established whereby the majority of people accessing services will do so directly via their GP practice and, following assessment, people may be supported by a range of healthcare professionals depending on their individual needs.
I turn to benefit entitlement. It is vital that the existing benefit system provides inclusive, accessible and sustainable support to all people with health conditions that impact on their ability to work and participate fully in society. That includes, obviously, people with long covid. However, the benefit system is set up to consider the impact that a health condition has on an individual’s ability to work and carry out day-to-day activities. In the case of long covid, there would be an assessment of a person’s needs in the same way as for other conditions, by understanding its impact on their day-to-day activities.
Claimants can apply for benefits on the basis of their symptoms and the impact that those symptoms are having on them. The hon. Lady rightly outlined that there are a multitude of different symptoms, which goes to my point that the NHS in the UK and particularly in England—I cannot speak in detail for the Scottish NHS—is making great efforts to better understand diagnosis and treatment. Clearly, however, the main symptoms would be pain, fatigue, breathlessness and some things that are akin in many ways to ME and other illnesses. Clearly, how those symptoms fluctuate is particularly relevant to long covid and the ability to function on an ongoing basis.
Assessments for health and disability benefits take those matters into consideration. Our healthcare professionals are trained to explore and evaluate those factors. Overall, there are three ways in which we assess a claimant’s needs. First, irrespective of a person’s income or whether they are in or out of work, we can assess mobility or care needs through the disability living allowance, the personal independence payment and the attendance allowance. For the current financial year 2021-22, PIP alone will provide around 2 million people of working age with £12.2 billion of support.
Secondly, we can also look at a person’s capability for work to understand if, owing to the impacts of a health condition, they might have difficulty finding and keeping a job. We assess that through the work capability assessment, which provides access to the employment and support allowance and the additional health-related element of universal credit. Anybody who is unable to work can claim those benefits. New-style ESA provides support to those with sufficient national insurance contributions, and universal credit provides support for those without contributions. Overall, in 2021—I accept that it is an ongoing process—we are supporting over three-quarters of a million people on the universal credit health journey and spend over £17 billion a year on working-age benefits or incapacity.
That brings me to the third type of need that we must address, which is financial need, whereby the system of universal credit looks at a household’s situation in and out of work, and provides support according to that household’s financial needs. For those out of work, it is also the main gateway to access Jobcentre Plus support to help them get back into work.
The hon. Lady referred to industrial injuries. I cannot speak to the specifics for Scotland, but the Department for Work and Pensions is responsible for the industrial injuries scheme, which compensates for injuries arising from an industrial accident or a disease contracted as a result of a person’s occupation. The Industrial Injuries Advisory Council advises the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions regarding industrial injuries disablement benefit, and is considering available scientific and epidemiological evidence on long covid. IIAC does not specifically apply in Scotland. It is important to add that any changes to the scheme can be recommended only where there is sufficiently robust evidence. However, it is reviewing the available evidence on an ongoing basis to inform on whether long covid can and should be prescribed as an occupational disease for the purposes of industrial injuries disablement benefit. The House will be updated as that work progresses.
In addition, work is being done on occupational health support. The hon. Lady will be aware that in July 2021 we published the response to the “Health is Everyone’s Business” consultation—if she is not, she should look at it—which specifically sets out the measures the Government are taking to help employers better navigate the work and health system. They include improved access to occupational health, particularly for employees of smaller employers and self-employed people who are least likely to have access; testing a new occupational health financial incentive; and stimulating the development of innovative quality services while addressing workforce capacity constraints.
In addition, there is clearly a situation in respect of data on long covid. I am aware of the figures from the Office for National Statistics which the hon. Lady cites, but they are not necessarily a reflection of what the NHS is seeing. The nature of that particular report would disagree with, for example, the NHS England activity data. I will read out some of the figures, as they are published. Information is published on activity and demographic characteristics of patients referred to a post-covid assessment clinic in England. For the period 22 November 2021 to 19 December 2021, there were 5,539 referrals to NHS post-covid assessment services, 458 fewer than in previous weeks. Of those, 4,946 were accepted as clinically appropriate for assessment. There were 4,750 initial specialist appointments assessments, which were completed together with 8,695 follow-up appointments. Those figures are the highest reported since publication of that data commenced.
A whole host of further long covid research is being done through the National Institute for Health Research and UK Research and Innovation, which invested some £50 million in research to better understand long covid and to treat it. My strong advice to the hon. Lady is that she sits down with Health Department colleagues from Scotland and this country with a view to getting the details on that. I cannot give more information about that tonight given the limited time that I have.
Clearly, however, a lot of work is being done. There is £8.4 million being spent on the post-hospitalisation covid-19 study at the University of Leicester, and £18 million of funding has been given to four research studies to better understand and address the long-term effects of covid-19 on physical and mental health. The studies will examine the causes, consequences and treatment of what is known as long covid. Similarly, a further £19 million has been given to 15 research studies to accelerate the development of new ways to diagnose and treat long covid as well as to consider how to configure services to provide the absolute best healthcare. It is clear that this is a work in progress. This is a journey. It is important that the hon. Lady raises these points and we debate them, and that we all understand that the journey is not complete.
In conclusion, the Government recognise that long covid can have a significant impact on individuals and their families. We are committed to working across Government to ensure that people suffering from this terrible condition can access the appropriate provision and support. The initial £50 million investment in research to improve the diagnosis and treatment will help us to understand the condition and its impact more fully. That, alongside investment in expanding care and assessment facilities for patients, shows that the Government recognise the condition and are acting.
In addition, the Department for Work and Pensions provides a great deal of financial support in the ways that I have outlined, which enables those affected by the pandemic to access the help that they need. We will carefully monitor and consider the advice of the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council regarding long covid. We remain committed to this support. We continue to review our approach and to ensure that there is ongoing support, and I thank the hon. Lady for the points that she has raised tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Early Legal Advice Pilot Scheme Order 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (James Cartlidge)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Early Legal Advice Pilot Scheme Order 2022.
It is a pleasure to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, as I did on the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, where we worked with great efficiency.
This statutory instrument establishes the early legal advice pilot scheme that will be conducted in Middlesbrough and Manchester for a time-limited period. The instrument amends part 1 of schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, known as LASPO, to bring civil legal services for certain housing, debt and welfare benefits matters into scope of the legal aid scheme for the purposes of the pilot scheme. It also makes consequential amendments to secondary legislation for the purposes of the pilot scheme.
This draft order is to be made using the powers conferred by LASPO. In summary, this instrument lays the necessary foundations to operationalise the pilot scheme. It also signifies an important step in delivering a key commitment made in the Ministry of Justice’s legal support action plan, which was published in 2019. Through the pilot scheme, we will test the impact of early legal advice on the resolution of legal problems, seeking to quantify benefits to individuals, their support networks, the Government and, ultimately, the taxpayer.
Civil legal aid is available to an individual if their issue is listed in part 1 of schedule 1 of LASPO. If the type of case is listed in part 1 of schedule 1, it is considered to be in scope of legal aid. Additionally, legal aid may be available on an exceptional basis where there would be a breach, or risk of a breach, of the individual’s rights under the European convention on human rights, or of any retained enforceable EU rights. This is known as exceptional case funding, or ECF.
Eligibility for legal aid, both for in-scope matters and for ECF, is subject to statutory means and merits assessments. The means test sets out that if an individual’s capital or disposable income is above a certain threshold, they would generally not be eligible for legal aid. There are different merits tests depending on the type of case, but for most cases, the merits test provides for a cost-benefit test and a prospects of success test. If those tests are not met, funding would not be granted.
Under the current arrangements, legal aid for social welfare law matters such as debt, housing and welfare benefits is limited to the most urgent circumstances—for instance, in the event of an individual losing their home through eviction or repossession. This is to ensure that legal aid is targeted at those who need it most. However, during the post-implementation review of LASPO, we heard from respondents that the LASPO reforms, which came into effect in 2013, might have caused increased financial costs to individuals, their support networks and, overall, the Government.
Respondents explained that individuals experiencing social welfare legal problems, especially those related to housing, were now unable to resolve their problems at an early opportunity and therefore likely to experience problem clustering and problem escalation that required costly intervention. Frequently cited examples included increased use of court services as individuals were issued with possession proceedings; greater reliance on welfare benefits and of temporary and permanent accommodation provided by their local authority following eviction; and of course increased use of health services for stress and anxiety.
Although there is much anecdotal evidence to support the view that early legal advice could produce benefits to individuals and to local and central Government, there is limited empirical evidence. In particular, there is limited evidence relating to the financial impact of early intervention through the legal aid scheme. We therefore seek to bring these matters in scope, and to use the pilot scheme as an opportunity to understand whether early legal advice can lead to early problem resolution and, in turn, cost savings to the public purse. Ultimately, the order seeks to bring certain social welfare law matters in scope of legal aid so that we can gather empirical evidence and establish a strong evidence base on this question.
I turn to the details of the pilot and how it will operate. It will be conducted in two areas, Manchester and Middlesbrough, and will be time limited: it will run from 1 April 2022 until 31 March 2024. Under the order, individuals will be eligible for the pilot scheme if they live, or habitually reside, in the area of Manchester City Council or Middlesbrough Council and are selected to participate by a person appointed by the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor will publish guidance that will explain who this person will be—they are likely to be some form of independent evaluator—and how they must select participants. Participants will receive a maximum of three hours of advice and assistance on housing, debt, and welfare benefit matters.
On the scope of the amendment, since 2019, my officials have not only considered the evidence provided in the LASPO post-implementation review, but have worked closely with legal aid providers and other Departments to devise the pilot scheme and finalise the terms of the amendment. Civil legal services for matters covered by the pilot are currently not in scope of legal aid. This amendment to part 1 of schedule 1 of LASPO brings those matters into scope for legal aid, subject to exclusions outlined in the order; participants cannot receive advocacy or more than three hours of advice, for example.
The amendment covers a maximum of three hours of civil legal services relating to advice and assistance on housing, debt and welfare benefits. Participants can receive advice and assistance irrespective of whether their matters fall into one or all of those categories. No individual will be entitled to more than three hours of legal advice, however. Additionally, unlike most in-scope and ECF cases, the service will be provided without individuals needing to pass a means or merits test. The only criteria for eligibility will be that they meet the geographical requirements and are selected for inclusion in the pilot scheme by the person appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
The order also makes technical amendments to the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013, the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013, and the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013. Those regulations set out the means and merits tests that individuals are expected to meet to receive legal aid. The amendments to the means regulations and the merits regulations remove the requirement for participants to fulfil the merits and means test. The amendments to the remuneration regulations introduce a new fee that is to be paid to providers who undertake work as part of the pilot scheme. As well as covering remuneration for the legal advice provided to pilot participants, that bespoke fee includes a 25% uplift to reflect the additional reporting legal aid providers will be asked to complete for the purposes of evaluation, as that is something that we would not ordinarily ask them to do for other in-scope or ECF work.
To conclude, the draft order lays the necessary foundations to ensure that the Ministry of Justice can pilot an ambitious early legal advice scheme that enables individuals to access timely legal and expert advice on debt, housing and welfare benefit matters. Moreover, the pilot will provide the evidence required to show whether such a service would provide meaningful benefits to individuals, and to local and central Government.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. Let me say from that start that the Labour party will not oppose the draft order.
The provision of early legal advice is essential to ensure that legal issues are dealt with effectively before they escalate into more complex and costly problems. I appreciate that housing and welfare benefit issues often go hand in hand. I am glad that the scheme will allow providers to advise on housing problems alongside any welfare benefit issues that may contribute to rent arrears.
The broader the scope of legal aid, the more opportunity there is for providers to take a holistic and, ultimately, more successful approach to legal problems. Having spoken with the Law Society and the Greater Manchester Law Centre, however, I am concerned about the capacity of legal aid providers to meet the increased demands that the scheme will create, especially as those areas of law have not been in scope of legal aid for a decade. There are only two welfare benefit legal aid providers in Manchester city, and only two housing and debt legal aid providers in Middlesbrough, one of which also advises on welfare benefit law, meaning that all the new cases in Middlesbrough that arise from the pilot scheme will have to be handled by those two firms.
The issue of capacity is unlikely to be resolved by the proposed fees because most cases will require more work than a three-hour time limit will allow, meaning that in a majority of cases, providers will operate at a loss and will be discouraged from providing early legal advice. That will make it very difficult for the pilot scheme to collect accurate data about the effectiveness of early legal advice. I therefore encourage the Minister to lift the three-hour time limit or increase the proposed fixed-fee arrangements.
The pilot scheme is a welcome step in the right direction, but I hope the Minister will consider the concerns that local legal aid providers and I have raised. The Labour party supports the draft statutory instrument.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
As the former Minister responsible for LASPO, I thought I should give a view. When we were looking at the legislation initially, the view was taken that the provision in the voluntary sector was often better than that being provided by the legal sector. In addition, there was the point about the holistic approach just made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton: lawyers would not necessarily look at things from a holistic point of view, and people in the voluntary sector often took a more rounded view. Therefore, the decision was made to take these issues out of scope.
Times have moved on. It might be that the voluntary sector does not have the provision that it once did—I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on that—so I think it is wise to have this pilot, because it will enable the Minister to assess the situation and see whether he has got this right; he is doing this in the right way. I am interested to hear his views.
James Cartlidge
I am grateful for the contributions of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon. Some good points were made.
I heard the Opposition spokesman’s point about capacity. On the numbers, as I understand it, we are talking about some 1,600 people in two cohorts—a control group of about 800 persons, and the 800 people who will receive the advice—so it is not an enormous number. We are confident that our contractual providers have the capacity.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the fee should be higher. I emphasise that this is a significant increase—a 25% increase. The fee for the three hours of work is £200.70, which compares with about £150, although of course the increase reflects some additional work from the monitoring. For us, the key thing is the data—we want to get data out of the pilot, so that we can build an empirical case and assess whether we should go further. That is important to stress.
On the providers, there is another important point to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon has great legal experience from his professional background and, as he said, was a Minister in the Department at a crucial time for LASPO. I very much respect his expertise. He is right about the voluntary sector. In Manchester, one of the contracting providers is the citizens advice bureau, so it would have that holistic service; in Middlesbrough, there is one provider, and of course there will be additional resource for them from the extra fees; this is actually an opportunity for them. However, we are always happy to liaise with providers should they have specific concerns.
Afzal Khan
Will the Minister elaborate, for clarification, on the methodology? He talked about the 800 participants and the 800 people in the control group. How will those be separated, to ensure more clarity for people coming forward?
James Cartlidge
That is a perfectly good question. The selection of the participants will be undertaken independently of Government, likely by an independent evaluator appointed to the project. We are tendering for the evaluator, and that process will conclude on 2 March. We intend to use a proxy indicator of potential legal need, such as council tax arrears or social rent arrears, to identify a cohort of people who are likely to experience social welfare matters that could be resolved through early advice and assistance. As I said, they would divide into a control group who would not receive that advice and assistance, and a group who would, so that we can build up data.
On the providers, as I was saying, there is one in Middlesbrough and eight in Manchester. They all have housing contracts and therefore the capacity to provide this type of advice. That is an important point to stress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon said that it is wise to pilot, and I agree with him. We want to look at what works; that is the crucial thing for the Ministry of Justice.
The draft instrument is an important part of the Government’s work to deliver legal aid services that are based on evidence of what works, and that provide direct benefits to individuals and their social networks, to local and central Government, and, ultimately, to the taxpayer. I hope that colleagues will agree that the statutory instrument is necessary. I commend it to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before I call Marion Fellows to move the motion, I wish to make a short statement about the sub judice resolution. I have been advised that the Government have applied to appeal the findings of the High Court in relation to the lawfulness of the UK disability survey. These proceedings are therefore live before the courts under the terms of the House’s sub judice resolution. However, Mr Speaker has exercised discretion to allow reference to the issues concerned, given their national importance. Nevertheless, Members should remember that these matters are still before the courts, and they are encouraged not to discuss the legal proceedings in any detail whatever. I would also like to remind Members of the advice on covid.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for the opportunity to raise these matters. Around the world, 1 billion people live with a disability. According to World Vision 20% of the world’s poorest live with a disability, and according to the UN around 80% of disabled people live in developing countries. Here in the UK, nearly half of disabled people—49%—live in poverty, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. In spite of that, disabled people’s rights at home and abroad have been consistently ignored and deprioritised by the UK Government.
The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, or the UNCRPD, was adopted by the UN General Assembly in December 2006 and ratified in the UK in 2009. It introduced obligations to
“ensure and promote the full realisation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”
for all disabled people, including taking into account
“the protection and promotion of the human rights of persons with disabilities”
when making and assessing policy. Following a parliamentary inquiry on disability and development in 2014, the UK committed to become a global leader on this neglected and under-prioritised area in its bilateral development review. However, eight years and a global pandemic later, we have seen glacial progress in the policy area of disability rights in the UK.
Last week, the second global disability summit was hosted by the International Disability Alliance, the Government of Norway and the Government of Ghana. The aim of the summit was to mobilise efforts for the implementation of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, the principles of “leave no one behind” and building back better, and more inclusive programming with regards to covid-19. Although I was glad to see the UK Government making 18 commitments at last week’s summit, they will not meet the real needs of disabled people or allow us to do our duty as global citizens to protect the human rights of disabled people at home and abroad. Sadly, this was a missed opportunity once again, and the UK Government’s commitment fell way short of what is needed. Ahead of last week’s summit, the Scottish National party called on the UK Government to enshrine the UNCRPD in law. That was another missed opportunity to protect disabled people’s rights at home and abroad and to advance the rights of everyone.
The UN committee overseeing the UNCRPD not only called on the UK to incorporate the convention into legislation and allow domestic remedies for breaches in 2017, but has investigated the UK over “grave and systematic violations” of the convention in 2016. Although the UK Government recently published their progress in response to the recommendations late last year, the socioeconomic landscape for disabled people has changed beyond recognition since 2016, when the recommendations were made. Examples include coercion of disabled people or their carers to sign “do not resuscitate” orders, and failure to include disabled people in Government plans for financial and social support during the pandemic. Thus, disabled people’s rights remain a great cause for concern.
The Oxford University disability law and policy project and the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights report, “An Affront to Dignity, Inclusion and Equality”, published on 2 July 2020, referred to a
“failure of the government to implement properly its legal duties with respect to the rights of people with disabilities.”
The report stated:
“The government’s policymaking in response to the pandemic has failed to fulfil its own Public Sector Equality Duty under the Equality Act 2010 with respect to disabled people and its obligations under the United Nations Convention”.
Despite the progress that the UK Government claim to have made, disability organisations have expressed concerns to me and others that disabled people’s rights as set out in the convention are not being protected by the Government. One carer working with the Disabled Children’s Partnership shared her story:
“My name is Sarah, and I live in Devon with my daughter, who has an acquired brain injury...There is horrendous resentment towards disabled people in our society, and carers are massively undervalued. As one of the richest countries in the world with an apparent commitment to human rights, you would have thought the UK could respect disabled children and their families—but we are treated horrifically. We need to change attitudes, change services, and fight the injustices that affect disabled children and families”.
Another carer, Joanna, told me:
“The system is broken....It doesn’t get us the services we have a right to to live a good quality of life, and makes us spend a fortune. It needs reform”.
The national disability strategy, published last summer, committed to being “mindful” of the UNCRPD in its implementation—but being mindful of disabled people’s rights is just not enough. In Scotland, as part of taking forward the 30 progressive, bold and ambitious recommendations of the national taskforce for human rights leadership for a new human rights framework for Scotland, a new human rights Bill will be introduced to the Scottish Parliament during this parliamentary Session. The Bill will incorporate four international human rights treaties, including the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It will be a significant and historical milestone in the Scottish human rights journey. It will give effect to a wide range of internationally recognised human rights—belonging to everyone in Scotland—as far as possible within devolved competence, and it will strengthen domestic legal protections by making them enforceable in Scots law. It will also demonstrate global human rights leadership, placing Scotland at the forefront of human rights legislation and, most importantly, practice. The inclusion of those rights will empower people, enabling them to claim and enforce their rights in multiple ways domestically, including in a Scottish court. Incorporation of the CRPD will give greater impetus to public bodies to remove barriers and support disabled people to participate fully in society, such as by being able to access information and services and living independently with dignity.
The Scottish Government have created a comprehensive delivery plan to help Scotland meet the requirements of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. “A Fairer Scotland for Disabled People” was the Scottish Government’s delivery plan for that. It covered 2016 to 2021 and aimed to make equality of opportunity, access to services and independent living a reality for all disabled people in Scotland. Flowery phrases are all well and good, but setting challenging targets is the correct way to push forward on the rights of disabled people. That sometimes leads to not achieving all targets, but overall it leads to improvements in the lives of disabled people. The Scottish Government have committed to publishing a new disability equality plan, which will be published this year. Will the Minister follow the Scottish Government’s lead, commit to enshrining the UNCRPD in law and champion disability rights at home and on the global stage?
The UK Government have exhibited a continual pattern of deprioritising disability inclusion in their policy and decision-making processes. One of the key recommendations following the 2017 investigation by the UN committee into the UK’s implementation of the convention was to involve disabled people and disabled people’s organisations in planning and implementing all laws and policies affecting disabled people. The UK Government said that because the convention was ratified, all UK Government Departments “need” to consider it when developing policies that affect disabled people. However, UKIM, the UK independent mechanism for monitoring progress on the UNCRPD report, said in October 2018 that it
“remains seriously concerned about the continued failure of the UK Government to conduct an assessment of the cumulative impact on disabled people of multiple policy and law reforms in relation to living standards and social security.”
That was exemplified by the national disability strategy published in summer last year, which beyond being, frankly, a lot of bluff and bluster with no meaningful action, failed to consult disabled people in an adequate manner. Disabled people need more than warm words and a surface-level appearance of engagement with the disabled community. Will the Minister commit to properly engaging with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations in planning and implementing all laws and policies that affect disabled people at home and abroad?
Just last month, the High Court ruled that the UK Government’s attempt to involve disabled people and disabled people’s organisations in the consultation that shaped the strategy was both unlawful and inadequate. The chief executive officer of Disability Rights UK, speaking about the strategy, said that it was
“disappointingly thin on immediate actions, medium-term plans and the details of longer term investment”
and that there were
“scant plans and timescales on how to bring about vastly needed improvements to benefits, housing, social care, jobs, education, transport, and equitable access to wider society.”
Some of those issues are devolved, but I am not just talking about people in Scotland: I want people across the UK, especially those with disabilities, to have what is their right. I refer to what I said earlier about challenging targets and how the Scottish Government try to improve the lives of disabled people. On 3 February 2022, the Department for Work and Pensions was refused an opportunity to appeal against the High Court’s ruling. Notwithstanding what you have already said, Mr Stringer, will the Minister confirm whether the Department intends to apply for permission to appeal that decision to the Court of Appeal?
The organisation Sightsavers has raised concerns about the vagueness of the commitments made at the global disability summit last week and about a continual lack of transparency on the implementation of disability inclusion policy by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. For example, it has expressed concern about the UK Government’s commitments to move from equality awareness to equality transformation, which encourages collaborative work to empower women and girls, people with disabilities, and other socially marginalised people. The commitments made at that summit risk being little more than aspirational language with no measurable objectives and few or no financial commitments or plans to report results. While the Scottish Government welcome the UK Government’s commitment to fund the Global Action on Disability network, the FCDO has not made any other financial pledges in its commitments. Without tangible reporting on the results, they hold very little weight in upholding the UNCRPD and protecting disability rights on the global stage, so will the Minister join me in asking the FCDO to make the monitoring framework and action plan that will accompany the disability, inclusion and rights strategy available publicly?
Globally, disabled people are disproportionately impacted by poverty, natural disasters, healthcare barriers and covid-19, but they are still excluded from many aid programmes, which do not take disabled people’s needs into account. Unfortunately, we do not compare completely favourably in a global context, as here in the UK, poverty is consistently higher for disabled people. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, there is a gap of around 12 percentage points in poverty rates between disabled and non-disabled people.
The UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Professor Philip Alston, highlighted in a 2018 statement concerns about changes to legal aid since 2012, which he said had
“overwhelmingly affected the poor and people with disabilities”,
meaning that they were
“effectively deprived of their human right to a remedy.”
In November 2020, the UK Government announced that they intended to spend 0.5% of gross national income on official development assistance in 2021, down from 0.7% in the seven years from 2013. An unpublished impact assessment of the reductions, written in March 2021, reportedly concluded that this would result in a significant reduction in the number and size of programmes targeted at women, girls and disabled people.
World Vision found that less than 0.5% of all international aid targets disability inclusion. Aid was equivalent to less than $1 per person with disabilities in developing economies. The five most disability inclusion-focused donors target just 3% of their aid to this purpose. The SNP was front and centre of the attacks on the Government’s shameful decision to cut aid by over £4 billion this year and by £2.2 billion last year. The unpublished impact assessment I referred to found that this would result in a significant reduction in the number and size of programmes targeted at disabled people. Only six of the 1,161 aid programmes funded by the UK Government had disability inclusion as their primary objective in 2018.
The new disability inclusion strategy launched by the FCDO last week said that it will work to
“accelerate implementation of the UNCRPD”
globally by supporting Governments to fulfil their responsibilities under the convention through legislation and development and through improving local accountability mechanisms.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for obtaining this debate; she is making an excellent opening speech. Would she agree that the UK Government must lead by example by implementing the convention here in the UK before they can preach to anybody on the world stage?
Marion Fellows
I totally agree with the hon. Member. That is one of the reasons I wanted this debate. I want the Government to commit. The FCDO’s new disability inclusion strategy said that it will work to accelerate the implementation of the UNCRPD globally. Well, as the hon. Member said, the Government cannot preach to others about what they have not done themselves. The strategy lacks any solid financial or measurable commitments to protect disability rights on the global stage.
Will the Minister join me in asking the FCDO to commit to tripling the number of aid projects that have disability inclusion as their primary objective by 2023, prioritising grassroots disability aid projects and ensuring that disabled people are not further excluded from global aid? Further, will she join me in asking the FCDO to commit to including disability in the eligibility criteria for applying for refugee status in the UK, in recognition of the disproportionate disadvantages disabled people face globally?
The UNCRPD seeks to ensure and promote the full realisation of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all disabled people. Being “mindful” of human rights is not enough; the incorporation of the convention into domestic law will provide the legal enforcement and protection required. It is time for the UK Government to follow the UN committee’s recommendations, match Scotland’s ambition and enshrine the UNCRPD in law, to champion disability rights on the global stage and here in the UK.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
This is a 90-minute debate and I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at around 2.30 pm, so you can do the arithmetic yourself.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this debate, which is both important and very timely. I absolutely agree with the central tenets of her excellent speech, and I particularly agree with her on one point: how can we possibly preach internationally when we cannot get our own house in order?
However, I want to look at some of the positives. In the current context of global mayhem—I think that is probably the best way to refer to what is going on in the world at the moment—it is always good to see areas, and policy areas in particular, where countries can unite and show a joint commitment, although, as the hon. Member said, for the UK to be preaching internationally is not particularly seemly; let me put it that way.
The hon. Member mentioned the investigation that the UN’s Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities undertook back in 2016, which happened because of the concern about the breaches that the UK Government were believed to be making, contrary to the articles in the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. As she rightly said, the committee found that the Government’s policies had led to “grave or systematic violations” of the rights of disabled people. I gave evidence to the committee back in 2016, but I will pay tribute to the hundreds of disabled people and disabled people’s organisations that really drove the committee’s inquiry.
The committee’s report emphasised the impact of changes to housing benefit entitlement, eligibility criteria for personal independence payment and social care, and the closure of the independent living fund. It showed that the austerity policies brought in by the Government in 2010 to reduce public spending, such as the destructive bedroom tax and the damaging cuts to the social security and social care budgets, are infringing the rights of disabled people. Despite the rhetoric from successive Administrations, we have seen sick and disabled people being failed consistently. And the response to the UN’s findings? The Government dismissed them out of hand.
In 2017, the committee held a session in Geneva to examine further the Government’s failures to protect and promote disability rights. During that session, once again we saw the UK Government obfuscate and dodge key questions from the committee that covered all articles in the convention. The UK was repeatedly told by the committee that it was not a global leader on disability rights, and the chair stated that cuts to social protection, which was how the committee referred to social security in the UK, were a “human catastrophe” that was being visited on disabled people.
The UK’s human rights watchdog stated that the examination by the UN had seen a “disconnect” between the UK Government’s replies and
“lived experiences of disabled people”.
In conclusion, the rapporteur stated that the committee was
“deeply concerned about the lack of recognition of the findings and recommendations of the conducted inquiry”.
The committee’s “concluding observations” report called on the Government to
“initiate a process to implement and follow-up the recommendations issued by the Committee”
in its inquiry report. Unfortunately, that never happened. Instead, as the hon. Member has already mentioned, we see an ongoing onslaught against disabled people, or at the very least action without any consideration of the impact on them, which is against the CRPD and against our own equality laws.
Just this week, we have seen the lifting of covid restrictions. Few people know that disabled people were more likely to die of covid than any other group—60% of covid deaths were of disabled people. There is an additional burden when we adjust for underlying conditions. There is still an extra risk that someone will die just because they are disabled. As the restrictions are lifted today, what assessment has there been of the impact on disabled people? Are they and their families being provided with free testing? What additional support is being provided if they still have to self-isolate?
Yesterday we had a debate in this very room about how children are being subjected to sexual exploitation and abuse. We heard about how those targeted were predominantly children and young people with disabilities and learning difficulties being groomed online. Everyone present at that debate—including the Minister—was rightly outraged. Where there are system failures in local institutions, councils and the police, they should be exposed and held to account. But what about the Government’s culpability? What assessment did they undertake of the risks to safeguarding, with council and police budgets cut to the bone?
A few weeks ago, the Government were yet again found to have unlawfully discriminated against disabled people in two cases. In view of your initial statement, Mr Stringer, I will not stretch that point, but I need to make people aware that the first case was to do with the consultation on the national disability strategy. I appreciate that the Government intend to appeal in that case, but the second case upheld an appeal that the Government had decided to pursue against two severely disabled men who had been transitioned on to universal credit after having been on employment and support allowance, with additional support in disability premiums. They had lost all those premiums, and the High Court upheld that that was a discriminatory act against them. The Government decided to appeal that decision, but it was upheld against them. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw was absolutely right when she said that if the Judicial Review and Courts Bill is enacted, the first case that I mentioned—the one on which you, Mr Stringer, have said we must not go into detail—would not have even happened. That is what this Government are doing.
Yesterday I heard from a constituent about the only station in my Oldham East and Saddleworth constituency, which has appalling access issues. You probably know it, Mr Stringer. It has a bridge; if someone has mobility issues, there is no way they can get over it. They can go to Manchester, but they cannot come back. It has been decided that the disability toilet will be closed too, which is absolutely outrageous. We have been trying for years to get the Government to recognise that they are not enabling proper access for disabled people to go to work, which is what the Government say they want all disabled people to do.
It is the attack on disabled people through the social security system over the last decade that I want to close on. A few weeks ago, the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2022 was laid before the House. It announced a 3.1% uplift in social security support from April, including for disabled people. We know that inflation is currently running at 5.5% and is estimated to increase to more than 7% in the spring, which is, in effect, a real-terms cut in support to social security claimants.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has identified a cut in support to disabled households of £6,500 since 2010 as a result of cuts to social security and public services. Accordingly, half of the households living in poverty have a disabled person living in them. I recently asked the Work and Pensions Secretary what assessment had been made of the impact of the 3.1% uprating on disabled people, but one had not been undertaken. Again, that is contrary to our equality laws, and it just shows the lack of commitment to disabled people at home and abroad.
Yesterday, the Work and Pensions Committee took evidence on pensioners living in poverty. I am sure you will not be surprised, Mr Stringer, that disabled people are disproportionately represented in that group as well. There are sanctions targeted at disabled people, woeful health assessments—I could go on. Separate from the covid deaths, we have no idea of the scale of the deaths of disabled people, because this Government are not making that transparent. It is an absolute disgrace that our public policies contribute to the deaths of our most vulnerable citizens.
I have been calling for an independent inquiry into this for a number of years and I will not stop until that happens. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw for bringing this debate forward, because this Government’s treatment of disabled people is an outrage.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I appreciate being called to speak early in the debate, Mr Stringer. I am nearly always at the end of the queue. I am not worried about that, by the way—I always think that getting to speak is more important than when I am called. The good book says that the first shall be last and the last shall be first; today, I have been elevated to one of the first, so I am very pleased.
When the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) asked me, as I am sure she did everyone, “Would you come down and speak?” I did not have to be asked twice, because this subject is of particular interest to me. I will mention a couple of things that I think will resonate with other Members present. I thank the hon. Lady for her tireless work on behalf of those with disabilities—I want to put that on the record. It is often said in this House, but she truly is a disabilities champion. I have heard the word “champion” used so many times in the Chamber that I think it has lost its importance, but when I say it today, I mean it. I want her to know that.
The hon. Lady has perfectly underlined that we have obligations to those with disabilities. I share her frustration and that of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is a good friend as well. I say this respectfully to the Minister and the Government, but I have seen how the Government pick and choose how they interpret those obligations. In Northern Ireland, they chose to interpret the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women as a legal obligation; they circumvented the Northern Ireland Assembly and, in so doing, circumvented the principle of devolution. That is not what this debate is about, but I just want to put that on the record.
At the same time, the Government have refused to uphold the protections to prevent unborn babies from being terminated for a disability as repairable as a cleft lip. Under their interpretation, having Down’s syndrome is reason enough not to live. I find that absolutely unbelievable and reprehensible. I believe we are witnessing something that is morally wrong, and I do not think I will ever be able to understand or accept that rationale. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw has outlined many further failings of this Government pertaining to our obligations to disabled people.
I want a society where disabled people have the same rights and opportunities as we have and where they are treated equally. That is the society I want to live in. Maybe I dream too much, or maybe, through this debate, we have an opportunity to express the hope that every one of us can have the same opportunities in life.
I want to give some examples to illustrate the issues raised by the hon. Lady, although they are absolutely frustrating. I have a full-time member of staff in my office who is dedicated solely to filling out forms for those who are unwell. Unfortunately, she is never out of work. Her name is Yvonne; she is an important member of staff. All my staff are important, of course, but Yvonne has a very important role to play. I wish I could bring her here to explain in her own down-to-earth way the living nightmare that some of our disabled people endure to get their disability benefits.
One of my constituents, Sharon, was born with a severe mental impairment. I know the young lady and her now elderly parents, who have cared for her for 50 years. Due to the distressed mental impairment she has, she used to simply watch the TV and walk up and down the living room. However, she is now 50, and her mobility has decreased. After 50 years of being on her feet, pacing up and down the hall, she needs hip replacements. There is something seriously wrong when a Government Department questions whether such an operation is necessary when it is very obvious that it is. In this case, there was a successful conclusion, but only after a fight. Everything I do for disabled people is a fight, and there are always so many obstructions put in front of us.
Consultants have questioned Sharon’s ability to go through rehab after the operation and do not feel it will be successful. She cannot deal with the pain of walking and mentally cannot deal with sitting down for prolonged periods, because that is how her condition affects her. Her disability living allowance, as it was then called, was up for renewal. After that was explained, a house call was set up and Sharon was asked to do a number of physical exercises that she was physically and mentally unable to do. Her parents told me that she screamed for hours afterwards due to the upset that it caused her. Is that fulfilling our obligation? No, with great respect, I do not think it is. Her medical records clearly indicated her difficulties, yet the form-filling and the check-box exercise put her and her elderly parents through an awful time getting her benefits, which should never have been in question.
My brother Keith was injured in a motorbike accident some 18 years ago. It left him unable to do multiple tasks. Every one of us in this room is blessed. We can walk down to the room below; we can chat and walk, have a drink and eat a biscuit, use a mobile phone—we can multitask. He can only do one thing at a time, let alone fill in all the questionnaires that our mother and I have to go through as his court appointees. We are appointed by the court because he does not have the ability to look after his financial affairs. That is a fact of life; it is what happens. But then a Department comes along with so many exercises for someone to go through that they feel downtrodden and burdened almost before they even start. They are asked, “Can you stand on one leg?” Keith cannot stand on one leg; he would fall over. People such as Sharon, the young lady I mentioned, are asked to do things that they cannot physically do, which should be clear from their notes.
That is the story of just one of my constituents, many of whom suffer from mental health issues. They are put through the mill when a cursory glance at their medical records would show everything that needs to be shown. I welcome efforts to get those who are able to work back to work; I want them to do that, and they want to get back to work too, if possible. But tormenting—I use that word on purpose—people who are unable to is simply not acceptable. It is time that our definition of “disabled” gave more protection than the disability discrimination Act offers at this stage.
I represented a constituent with ulcerative colitis who worked for the civil service. She had her DDA form in, but she was still medically retired at the age of 27. She is a lovely young girl; I have known her since she was a wee tote, as we would say back home, and I know her parents very well. The civil service could not find a flexible way of working around her disability, so I went to appeal with her as her DLA said she was able to care for herself. Really? Had they not comprehended the seriousness of the issue? One Department said, “You’re fine” and another said, “You’ll never work again,” and the doctor was saying, “Give her antidepressants to deal with the upset and effect of it all.” I question whether those Departments work hand in hand.
I know that others want to speak, so let me conclude with this. How dreadfully sad it is that the Government’s own employees do not have the flexibility to allow them to stay in work when they so desperately want to do so, especially now that staff can easily and effectively work from home.
I commend the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, the other hon. Members who have spoken and those who will contribute later. I am confident that the Members here today, as well as others who are not present, have compassion for the people we are here to help—those with disabilities and those who cannot cope with the troubles of life in the way that we can. We are privileged to be Members of Parliament and to be able to help others, and to get paid to do it. One of my great pleasures is helping people who are disabled and those who have real problems on the journey of life that they tread, and today’s debate gives us an opportunity to do that.
Something must be done about the way that our disabled people are viewed and treated—not by those speaking in the debate and not by the Minister, but we really need central Government and the civil service to have a better grasp. The change needs to start in this place and work its way down. All the disabled people we are speaking on behalf of today should have the benefit of a Government with compassion and a system that understands them, and should get the help they need when they need it.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I normally speak before the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), so it is an honour to follow him this afternoon. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for drawing attention to this important topic. I want to commend her and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) for ensuring that this issue is always at the forefront of their campaigning, and for giving a voice to many constituents across our respective constituencies. In these two Members of Parliament we see fantastic champions for disabled people.
As we know, the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities was a landmark treaty, signed in 2007. It places a positive obligation on Governments to promote the full equality of disabled people under the law. It is fantastic that over 200 countries recognise the convention. However, I want to take a moment to reflect on what it says about the place of disabled people in society, both here and abroad, that we even need to state that disabled people are fully equal citizens. Surely that is so obvious that it should not need to be said, but too often we see disabled people and accessibility treated as an afterthought. Often it is not conscious discrimination, but a reflection of how much society is built around those who are not disabled.
I confess that I was not fully aware of the scale of the issue until a wheelchair user joined my team. Walking around with him, even in this place, I have seen at first hand the small everyday things that he is disadvantaged by: a dropped kerb on the side of the road that is not matched by the one on the other side, public venues that do not have a disabled toilet, and light switches that are placed far too high for him to reach. I could go on, but my point is that disabled people simply should not have to put up with workaround solutions to simple everyday activities, such as turning on lights. These are things that, if we are honest, most of us in this room take for granted.
Sadly, I have heard from several constituents in Vauxhall who have invisible disabilities, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or dyspraxia, who are afraid to speak out and ask for the support they need in the workplace for fear of being judged. These experiences are replicated for millions of people up and down the country who do not have their access needs met. It will not change until we start to take the UN convention’s words seriously and proactively consider accessibility in the planning, design and organisation of everything we do—it must be front and centre. By fixing problems with a sticking-plaster here and there, we will never truly live up to our UN obligations.
Any of us could become disabled at any time, so prioritising access future-proofs all of us and enables the valued perspectives of disabled people to be heard. Will the Minister please ensure that accessibility is no longer treated as an afterthought, and work on a cross-party basis to deliver the transformative change that disabled people need and deserve?
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your stewardship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this important debate and on her continued campaigning and championing of such an important issue.
The UN convention on the rights of disabled people—I will say disabled people because I subscribe to the social model of disability, so I will refer to it in that context going forward—is timely because it follows the global disability summit, which was the second of its kind. Many of us will remember that the first summit was hosted by the UK, and I made a number of comments back then about the Government leading by example. Disappointingly, we have progressed in years but there is still no change from the Government.
The convention was established in 2006, and it was the last Labour Government who ratified it. Twelve years on, there has been no implementation of it by this Government. As other hon. Members have asked: why is that?
The pillars of the convention are to ensure health, education, employment, access to justice and information, personal security and, most importantly, independent living for disabled people. It is the benchmark, the blueprint, the gold standard of all policy making to ensure that disabled people can live independently and that we have equal rights: it is about equality. If we say that we are serious about equality, the convention must absolutely be the blueprint for it.
Unfortunately, during more than a decade of austerity we have seen cuts to social security, to social care and to every public service. As I continue to say, that has created a hostile environment for disabled people. Almost half of people in poverty in this country are disabled or live with a person who is disabled. I think we all know, as we proceed further through a cost of living crisis, that that is only going to get worse. The convention is clear on support for disabled children, but there is a gaping funding gap of more than £2 billion in support for those disabled children. Their families report that they are struggling to support them without adequate support.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) mentioned, the independent living fund—the clue is in the title—was cut and scrapped, and was not replaced with a proper independent living fund or support to enable disabled people to live independently. What is the Minister doing to support people in social care? Although the funding that was announced last year is welcome, we all know that it certainly is not enough, because more than 18,000 people’s access to care and support has been affected by the cut.
We all know about the social security cuts; we were all here for the debate about them that I led a few weeks ago. The cuts to employment and support allowance, which remove the work-related activity component, and the changes to PIP have made things incredibly difficult for ill and disabled people. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth highlighted, we need an independent public inquiry into the deaths caused by the cuts. As we all know, far too many people have lost their lives—let that sink in—as a result of cuts to their social security, which is the very thing that is supposed to be a safety net enabling us to live. Sadly, that is happening on this Government’s watch.
I appreciate that the Minister is not the Minister for Disabled People, but ultimately, she is the one who is here and she is responsible, so I really hope that when she responds, she will address some of these issues.
As a result of the cuts to all those services and support, the UK became the first nation state to be investigated for human rights violations against disabled people. That highlights that everything we had been lobbying and campaigning for before I even entered this place was true. I commend the thousands of disabled people who really fought for that investigation to take place. What did the UN committee conclude? Members have already said it, but we cannot say it enough: in 2016, the UK Government were guilty of “grave or systematic violations” of the rights of disabled people. I want the Minister and everyone here to let that sink in. They are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. How can that be right?
What is more worrying is that since the UN commissioner looked at independent living, social security, the right to work and so on, the Government have been required to provide annual updates to the UN committee, but in last year’s update they failed yet again to address the main challenges. Why? Why will the Government not carry out a cumulative impact assessment on all those areas, including independent living, poverty and inclusion in our communities and in employment? I and many other Members from across the House have called for that, but there has been no progress. The years of inaction raise the question: are the Government taking that UN inquiry seriously?
We know the impact that the pandemic has had on disabled people; the numbers do not lie. Six out of 10 covid-related deaths were of people who had underlying health conditions or were disabled. That is a scandal. At the start of the pandemic the Government failed to provide proper signed interpretation; they were found to be liable for that in the courts—we know that happened. We also know that the £20 uplift to universal credit was not applied to those on legacy social security, 2 million of whom were ill and disabled people.
The pandemic has really shone a light on how badly this Government are treating disabled people. This week, when the Prime Minister declared the end of all restrictions, there was still no plan on how we are going to protect the most vulnerable, some of who are disabled. Where is this plan and where is the equality impact assessment? Ultimately the Government do have an obligation to do that.
Other Members have spoken about the issues around consulting disabled people and their organisations. I will not go into detail on the national disability strategy, because the Government are planning to appeal the High Court decision ruling it unlawful. Let us be clear: that is just another decision in a long line of court rulings where the Government were found to be acting unlawfully against disabled people. The Labour party has been clear in its support for disabled people, and we will continue to hold this Government to account for their treatment of disabled people. As I said at the start, we ratified the UN convention; it is time for the Government to implement it. I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government are still choosing not to, and when they will implement it. Does she agree with all of us that the convention should be implemented? That would be a good start.
We disabled people make up a large proportion of the UK population. We face a cost of living crisis. There are so many challenges confronting all of us in society, but we must give a thought to those who are so vulnerable, many of whom are disabled. I ask the Minister, please, to consider that when she responds.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I think it is a really important debate, and I am very pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) secured the time today and delivered an excellent speech, which covered many important issues. I know that she, like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is very focused on this issue, and I have no doubt that she will continue to be. I hope that the important questions that she put to the Minister are answered, because I have no doubt that she will keep asking them; they really matter. The other speeches today have underlined why that is the case: the impact of inaction on the lives of disabled here and across the world is profound. The additional vulnerabilities that often come with a disability make that doubly concerning as we—hopefully—emerge from the covid pandemic.
We have heard from hon. Members about the important voices of disability organisations. I will take a moment to refer to one of those located in my constituency. East Renfrewshire Disability Action group do a powerful job advocating at home, but also for people further afield, on disability issues. We heard a familiar tale about access issues; I know that East Renfrewshire Disability Action group would find that tale very familiar. The power of the work that goes on, day in and day out, is a testament to those groups. It should also give us pause for thought as to why groups of disabled people are having to do the heavy lifting that should be done in Parliament. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) spoke very powerfully about why that matters.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) were key, because she spoke about big and small things, and why both matter. She spoke very clearly about why disabled people should not have to put up with the lack of focus in this place. It speaks ill of us all—and of our priorities—that that undoubtedly is the case. I commend her for pointing out the importance of recognising invisible disabilities in the context of this conversation.
As we all know, and as I am sure the Minister would recognise, the inequalities that people with disabilities face in everyday life have been exacerbated during the pandemic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, in the UK half of people with a disability live in poverty. Progress in moving that on in recent years has been very slow, and I fear that covid has arrested it entirely. My hon. Friend also noted that although the SNP welcomes the UK Government’s 18 commitments at this year’s global disability summit, the FCDO has not gone far enough in that regard. The commitments do not meet the needs of disabled people.
That takes us to the vexed issue that we have heard about from a number of hon. Members—the UK Government’s failure to agree to enshrine in law the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which the Scottish Government will do. The hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) outlined very well that the UK Government cannot preach to others when they are not even taking that very straightforward action themselves. We need to think about all of that in the context of the new reality that covid has wrought.
Around 1 billion people in the world are living with a disability. Some 80% of them are in developing countries, and there are higher levels of disability among women, the poor and the elderly. We can read that through to lots of other vulnerabilities that really exacerbate the situation. We have noted the reason why that really matters for policy making, but having listened to the debate so far, my concern is that the UK Government’s “being mindful” approach is not bold enough, is not ambitious enough, and will not deal with the inequalities that people face daily. The hon. Member for Battersea hit the nail on the head when she talked about that in the context of equality, which is what this is all about: it is about the lack of equality for disabled people, which leads to what is often almost a hostile environment for people to try to navigate. That clearly should not be the case, but it is the situation that people face here in the UK and globally. We have a responsibility here to acknowledge that, and to act. As we heard from the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth, the additional vulnerability is not factored into the UK Government’s decision making. That means that we are in a somewhat difficult situation in trying to pin down some of the challenges that people have, which is extraordinary, because we do not have the data to allow us to do so.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw eloquently set out, the Scottish Government have a number of concerns in relation to the UK Government’s decision not to enshrine the UNCRPD in law. Their commitments do not contain enough detail about measurable objectives; the language is rather vague, to say the least, so it is difficult for us to see how the UK Government will be able to provide tangible results. As I said, such things are not measurable or quantifiable, so I hope the Minister can say something about my hon. Friend’s questions on that.
We have called for progress on a number of things, and it would also be good to hear from the Minister on the number of aid projects that have disability inclusion as their primary objective, and on the UK’s support for grassroots disability aid projects. We should ensure that there are proactive steps to prevent further exclusion of disabled people from global aid, and we must look at disability in the context of the eligibility criteria for applying refugee status. Those are only some of the issues on which the UK Government need to make progress. Of course, there is also the issue of the percentage spend on official development assistance, which is something that underpins all that and is a cause for significant concern. The reality is that many aid projects are not specifically aimed at disability inclusion, so disabled people are often left behind in aid spending.
Whether we are looking here or farther afield, the bottom line is that poverty is consistently higher for disabled people, and that impacts on life chances and choices. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, there is a gap of around 12% in poverty rates between disabled and non-disabled people.
The hon. Member for Strangford was very powerful in setting out why, on the domestic front particularly, we need to see progress to improve the life chances and life choices for disabled people, and to ensure that basic dignity is available for them. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth spoke very powerfully about the failures of the UK social security system in terms of disability. I do not intend to repeat all that she said, but I hope that the Minister has some responses to her points, because those issues make such a difference to people’s daily lives.
I would, however, like to speak about the missing employment Bill, which I would dearly love to see appearing. I have been saying that for a long time, so I am not sure that I hold out a huge amount of hope. However, it is important—and increasingly so, as we move out of the pandemic—that we have the opportunity to look again at things like flexible working, which can make such a difference to people’s ability to secure and sustain employment. That kind of issue, which really has a profound effect on the lives of disabled people, is an illustration of why all the elements of policy need to be considered by the UK Government when they are looking at disability and how best to move things forward.
I will conclude by asking that the Minister responds to the key questions that have been put. I am reinforcing that this issue really matters, because the impact on people’s lives cannot be understated. Disabled people need far more than our warm words and positive sentiments. We must ensure that we are taking action that goes right below the surface to improve the lives of people here and across the world. The best way to start doing that is for the UK Government to step up, enshrine the convention in law, and take some of the clear, positive steps set out today.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank everyone who has contributed today. I highlight in particular the work of the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), and congratulate colleagues from across the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and, indeed, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), on their contributions. I am grateful to them for raising such important issues.
I also pay tribute both to disabled people and to the organisations that represent them. In particular, I thank those who carry out important work in the constituency of Reading East, which I have the privilege of representing, both in the town of Reading and in the neighbouring town of Woodley.
It is important that the decisions we take in this House are led by disabled people and experts, and informed by experience. As we have heard, in 2009 the UK pledged to follow the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, on the basis that it protects and promotes the human rights of disabled people, including by eliminating disability discrimination, enabling disabled people to live independently in the community, ensuring an inclusive education system and that disabled people are protected from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse. I am glad that that there is agreement across the House on that, and we are right to seek to take it forward. I believe that we must go much further in our efforts to uphold human rights and equality for disabled people, and that is why the UN convention on the rights of disabled people should now be incorporated into British law.
I should also add that I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record on improving the lives of people with disabilities, whether in cutting NHS waiting times, introducing free bus travel—a subject very dear to my heart, as those who know me well may remember—and introducing the Equality Act 2010. We know that well-designed policies, implemented and resourced well, and delivered properly, can transform the lives of disabled people.
I also pay tribute to the individual efforts of many Ministers and Government staff and Back Benchers during the years of the coalition and Conservative Governments. However—and I would like the Minister to reflect on this—there is so much more we should be doing.
Figures published last month show that 1 million more disabled people are trapped in hardship than were a decade before. Data from the Department for Work and Pensions reveal that 3.8 million disabled people live in poverty. We have heard eloquently from colleagues today about the pressure that that puts on disabled people and their families. I am sure that that is a trend that colleagues across the House would like to reverse.
As the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw said, it is worth considering that a recent report by the Oxford University disability law and policy project and the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights found that there has been a
“failure of the government to implement properly its legal duties with respect to the rights of people with disabilities.”
That is set against the backdrop of a significant lack of appropriate support for disabled people during the pandemic. Almost 2 million ill and disabled people did not receive any additional support, despite the fact that disabled people on average face additional costs of £583 per month. In addition, as was said earlier, while universal credit was temporarily increased by £20 a week—we supported that decision and indeed campaigned for it to continue—it is important to note that other social security support such as the employment and support allowance and the jobseeker’s allowance were not increased. The pandemic has hit everyone in our community, but it is wrong that it should have a particularly hard impact on disabled people. I am afraid that that lack of support is part of a wider picture of the Government failing to give disabled people the support that they need.
I appreciate the point you made earlier, Mr Stringer, about the sub judice nature of some of the issues with the national strategy for disabled people, so I will try to stick to the ruling that you rightly made, but I will say that there were two years of delay before the strategy was published in July 2021. Even when it did arrive, it appeared not to be the bold strategy that so many people had looked forward to, but more a series of unrelated announcements, with only £4 million of extra money pledged for disabled people, which amounts to just under £30 for each disabled person in the UK, a relatively modest amount. Disabled people and the organisations representing them said that they felt excluded from the process and had not been consulted when the strategy was drawn up.
That is all deeply disappointing. The Government could and should do so much better. I ask the Minister to look at that again in much greater detail with her colleagues—I appreciate that it is not her area of responsibility—and, collectively, to change their approach fundamentally, to give disabled people the support that they so clearly need.
Eliminating disability discrimination, enabling disabled people to live independently in the community, ensuring an inclusive education system and that disabled people are protected from all forms of exploitation, violence and abuse must be a priority for all of us. The Government should now incorporate the UN convention into UK law. That important legal change will have real effect in the everyday lives of disabled people.
It has been a privilege to speak today and to contribute to this important debate. Once again, I thank colleagues from across the House who have also contributed, and I thank disabled people and the organisations that represent them. I hope that the Minister will take on board the points made by colleagues from across the House and respond by letting us know how the Government plan to address these very serious issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) on securing this debate on the importance of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. It is a pleasure to respond, and I thank all hon. Members for their insightful contributions. I am here on behalf of the Minister for Disabled People, who is disappointed that she cannot be here today, due to a medical appointment.
The principles in the UN convention are at the heart of the Government’s approach. We remain fully committed to the treaty, which we ratified in 2009, as has been mentioned, and to our obligations under it. No one wants to see any of their constituents held back from fulfilling their potential. I reassure all hon. Members that the UK Government and the devolved Administrations share the common goal to improve the lives of disabled people in the UK.
Mims Davies
I will just make some progress, if I may. I would also like to share with the House that for nearly 30 years, my father lived with an acquired brain injury due to a criminal incident at work. It turned us into a family who cared, and I applaud all unpaid and family carers for all they do with the utmost love and care.
First, I will speak to the action we are taking as a Government to improve the lives of disabled people. In July 2021, we published the national disability strategy. Of course, we have sought permission to appeal and cannot comment further on any legal proceedings, but it is really important to highlight the five essential elements of that strategy, which complement those of the UN convention and underpin how we will continue to implement it in the UK. Those elements are to ensure fairness and equality; to consider disability from the outset; to support independent living; to work to increase participation by disabled people in all aspects of society; and to recognise that complex challenges will very often require joined-up local solutions.
Debbie Abrahams
I extend my best wishes to the Minister’s father. What she has said about what he went through was very moving, and reminds us that eight out of 10 disabilities are acquired—that most disabled people have lived lives without disability. The Minister started by saying that we want disabled people to fulfil their potential. Do the Government believe that there is a social model of disability, in that society puts up barriers that prevent disabled people from living their lives? It is not up to disabled people to enable themselves; it is also about society, via the Government, ensuring that those barriers are not there.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Just before the Minister responds, I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short and to the point. We have had plenty of time in this debate, but I hope hon. Members will bear that in mind.
Mims Davies
Thank you, Mr Stringer, and I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. It was quite ironic that during his working life, my father was the first person to put in supported disabled crossings for people with blindness, and became blind later in life due to his acquired injury. It is very important for all of us in policy making to understand that people are not necessarily born with a disability or a health condition.
The hon. Lady mentioned her train station. We have similar access issues in East Grinstead in my constituency, and we are trying to improve them. The Department for Transport also has an access programme under way, so she may want to look at that.
Marsha De Cordova
I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), and commend the Minister for sharing her father’s story. Is the Minister aware, however, that we were supposed to meet our obligation to deliver an accessible transport service by 2020, but we failed to meet that target? The Access for All fund was very welcome, but we are not doing very well when it comes to making our stations more accessible.
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady makes an important point: I have not even mentioned my Wivelsfield station, so the reality is that we still have work to do. I know that my hon. Friend the Rail Minister, the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), is very committed to that.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, who opened the debate so eloquently, asked about committing to spending on aid projects, and I will address that later in my speech. I am trying to cover various points, so I hope hon. Members will bear with me while I make progress.
Alongside the Government’s national disability strategy, we have published the health and disability Green Paper and the Government’s response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation on minimising the risk of ill health and related job loss. Those publications demonstrate that we are taking a holistic approach to improving the lives of individuals living with disability. I think it is important for anybody listening and engaging with this debate to notice and to know that progress is being made. Of course, there is always more to do.
Significant progress has been outlined in the national disability strategy. At the DWP, we have piloted the adjustments passport, which supports disabled people’s transition into employment. The passport is personalised to the individual and captures in-work support needs, enabling the employer to have an informed conversation with the passport holder—we have just heard about flexible working. In addition, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has launched an online advice hub offering accessible information and advice on employment rights for disabled people.
BEIS has also completed a consultation on making flexible working—we have seen hybrid working too—the default in Great Britain unless employers have good reasons not to offer it, and it is reviewing the responses. I think that consultation is crucial and necessary. The pandemic has given us an opportunity to bust the myth of presenteeism and show that, moving forward, many sectors can be flexible and work in a hybrid way and can absolutely be inclusive of people who are disabled or living with a health condition. That will make opportunities so much more accessible for our constituents, which is what we all want.
I want to turn to the comments made by the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth on the pandemic. Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have worked hard to ensure that disabled people have access to employment support, disability benefits, financial support, food, medicines and vaccines, as well as accessible communications and guidance. I, like other Members, had constituents asking for all of that and more, and I am glad that we have been able to respond.
Of course, the NHS is offering new antibody and antiviral treatments for people with covid-19 who are at greater risk of becoming seriously ill, such as those who are immunosuppressed or face other risks. There is separate guidance and there will be additional boosters coming forward as well, which many of our constituents may be eligible for. It is important that we let people know, whoever they are and whatever is going on in their lives, that when it comes to the challenges of living well out of the covid-19 pandemic, we recognise that we must understand the impact on those with a disability or health condition. We are absolutely committed to that.
The Prime Minister made clear in launching the national strategy that we fully recognise the need not only to deliver on our near-term commitments but to go further. I can assure the House that we are doing so. As an example, in the autumn 2021 spending review, we provided an extra £1 billion via the Department for Education to support children and young people with more complex needs, including those with a disability. That will bring the total high-needs budget next year to over £9 billion.
It has been mentioned that work is an important part of disabled people’s lives. It is absolutely right that we in the DWP place the emphasis on supporting people into work where possible. Of course, we know how valuable that is. It is more than just a pay packet; it is camaraderie, friendship, and a reason to get up and get going. It makes such a difference to be part of a team and to achieve what we are able to achieve. I am passionate that, whoever someone is, wherever they are and whatever barriers to progression they may face, if they are able to work, they should be well supported to fulfil their potential by the Government, the community and jobcentres.
Jim Shannon
On that point, it is also important that employers understand their responsibility to ensure that their employee is respected in every way and has the opportunities that every other employee has.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that really important point. I recently had some engagement with the construction industry about really good, inclusive work practices, reaching out and being more equal. For example, 50% of the population—females—is under-represented in the sector.
Many employers often do the same recruitment and end up with the same people. They want to be more inclusive; they want the different voices and experiences that we have found so important this afternoon, but unfortunately we end up recruiting the same people because recruitment processes are not open and wide enough. We need to do more.
Jim Shannon
I wanted to put that on the record because the Minister is right. A recent headline said:
“Swindon man with Down’s syndrome gets scaffolding apprenticeship”.
There is an example of what can happen if you put your mind to it.
Mims Davies
I have found this through our 160-plus youth hubs at DWP. Many people have neurodiversity. Young people have been very anxious and nervous. It has been really great to give people that “can-do” experience; it makes such a difference, in terms of being inclusive. People with a disability or a health condition are absolutely perfect for some jobs, and it will be right for them to be in that workplace. Let us challenge employers. Let us not just talk about it, but push for action. I am proud that DWP has led the way in supporting disabled people by recognising what they need in order to get into employment. We are there to help.
Kirsten Oswald
The Minister has spoken enthusiastically about employment, and I agree about the value of ensuring that everyone can secure the employment opportunities that they absolutely deserve. Can she shed any light on the employment Bill mentioned earlier, which would assist us?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady. If the Bill fell in my portfolio and that of my Department, I could shed many lights on it, but I am afraid it sits with BEIS. I am sure that it will take note of the hon. Lady’s query.
On levelling up opportunities, the work and health programme offers intensive personalised employment support, and we are working with the NHS to improve access to psychological therapy services across England. There are also measures under the access to work scheme, which provides employees with grants of up to £62,900 a year for workplace adaptations, such as special equipment, support workers and help to get to and from work. Last financial year, almost 36,000 people with disabilities and health conditions received tailored and flexible support to do their job under access to work. Not enough people know that that is out there, and I am pleased to make the point today.
Disability Confident is another really important part of the package. We talked about employers seeing the value of having a mixed group of people in their workplace. It is a voluntary, business-led scheme, designed to give employers the knowledge, skills and free resources they need to recruit and retain disabled people, and to help them to develop their skills. As of 30 September, over 20,000 employers were actively engaged with the scheme, which covers more than 11 million employees. It is right that we push harder on this, and we will do that through our national employer partnership.
Marsha De Cordova
The Minister talks about the Disability Confident scheme. More than 4 million disabled people of working age want to work. While she may applaud the 35,000 figure, it is not enough. An employer can be a Disability Confident employer and not employ a single disabled person. What quality assurance and monitoring is there to ensure that the scheme will provide for disabled people? At the moment, I am not confident in it.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. If I may, I will let the Minister for disabled people, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), pick up on that issue and write to her.
I turn to international engagement—the hon. Lady who introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw, would be upset if I did not. It is right to emphasise that the UK has a proud record of furthering the rights of disabled people. We have not got it all right, but we are using our overseas development work to go further, and we always have to do more. The UK is a leading global voice on disability inclusion; it hosted the first ever global disability summit, which was mentioned.
Mims Davies
I need to make progress. I may try to come back to the hon. Lady.
In the same year, we also launched the disability inclusion strategy, setting out our priorities for social protection, economic development, education and humanitarian action. On our commitments to progress on disability inclusion in the FCDO’s diplomacy, policy and programming—
Mims Davies
I am speaking, if I may. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw will be pleased to know that we are publishing on gov.uk all the details of the ways in which we absolutely are being more inclusive in our aid programme. I hope that is something she will ask for. On our support for global disability rights, we have committed to spending £10 billion in 2021-22, making the UK’s official development assistance, as I mentioned, disability-inclusive. I am very pleased to see that coming forward. We are absolutely committed to implementing the convention through our strong policies. [Hon. Members: “Will the Minister give way?”] I have given way enough, thank you.
On the treaties that were mentioned, the Government are absolutely sure that the substantive provisions are already largely reflected in our existing domestic policies and legislation right across the UK. We note the recommendations, but the Government’s approach is to put in place a combination of policies and legislation to give effect to the UN human rights treaties that we have already ratified.
I need to give the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw some time to respond, so I will try to do that, after making a final point. I would like to underline fully this Government’s commitment to the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, and to transforming the lives and opportunities of disabled people, both in the UK and internationally. We are unwavering, and I hope that the announcements last week will sit right with those listening today. We will continue with the wide-ranging commitments made in the national disability strategy. We will consider how we can build on that and go further, making sure that disabled people’s lives are better every day, and we will do that in the context of a central goal: to level up, and to create a society that is more positive, more engaging, and fairer for all, where everybody can get on and progress.
Marion Fellows
I congratulate the Minister on her robust defence of what I will not refer to as the indefensible, though that is there in my thoughts. She has done a grand job—she has a job, and she has done it—but unfortunately she has not convinced anybody on this side of the Chamber with her arguments.
One of my main asks was: does the Minister agree that the Government should enshrine the UNCRPD in law? If that was done, then lots of other things would follow from it. Warm thoughts and good intentions from the Government are great, and I am really pleased that the Government have them, but we really need hard law to make all these things possible. The Minister referred to the employment Bill—where is it?—and access to work, which is the subject of another debate that I will apply for. Hon. Members have reflected on the effects of austerity, too.
I will raise one other issue: the Government’s silo mentality. The Minister had a hard job, because there was discussion of FCDO and DWP—and she also managed to bring in BEIS. Again, I go back to the importance of enshrining the UNCRPD in law, because then Departments would almost be forced to work together.
Something the Minister said struck me. She said that people should be treated fairly and equally. We heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), among others, about how people applying for PIP and other DWP benefits are assessed. Could the Government please start treating disabled people with dignity, fairness and respect? That would go a long way towards making things different for disabled people, here and further afield.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Christians and Religious Minorities: India
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before we begin, I remind Members to observe social distancing and wear masks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this has considered the matter of the persecution of Christians and religious minorities in India.
It has been a while since we had a debate on this issue, although a few days ago we were fortunate enough to have a debate on India-UK trade negotiations, introduced by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I commented on the issue of the persecution of Christians and other ethnic groups in India during that debate, ever mindful that this debate was coming up. I am pleased to see the hon. Gentleman here; in fact, I am pleased to see everyone here. I wanted to mention that debate, because perhaps it was a warm-up for this debate. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. Looking around this hall, I see that most of the people here are members of it. Indeed, some are officers of the APPG.
I am always an optimist, and always have been; I live my life along those lines. I always look to better things. This debate looks to better things in India, ever mindful that we have a special relationship. It is my hope that things in life will get better. I prefer the glass half full to the glass half empty, and think we should try to build the world a better future. That is at the crux of this debate. With prayer and perseverance, crises may resolve, relationships will heal, and collectively we inch towards a better world. I believe we can achieve that if we all have the same motivation, and try to achieve the same goal.
I am pleased to see the Minister for Levelling Up Communities in her place—I look forward to her response—and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) on the Opposition Front Bench. I am also glad to see my good friend from the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson)—there is not a debate that she is at that I am not at alongside her, and vice versa. I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who has just joined the all-party parliamentary group, here to support the debate. I thank the Library for the background information it has given us.
Freedom of religion or belief is always my hope, but looking back on the past year in India, it cannot be said to have been there for Christians and other religious or belief minorities. Back in 2016, in his address to the United States Congress, India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, said that
“For my Government, the Constitution is its real holy book. And in that holy book, freedom of faith, speech and franchise, and equality of all citizens, regardless of background, are enshrined as fundamental rights.”
To be fair to President Modi, he has the motivation to do that, but the reality is very different. Some of the examples I will refer to are evidence of where that is not happening. That is what the debate is about. President Modi also said, referring to some extremely violent clashes, that a new law would have
“ no effect on citizens of India, including Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Jains, Christians and Buddhists.”
Well, if only. In fact, it has an effect on all the religious minorities. They no longer have the freedom they once had. They can no longer follow their beliefs and express their religious views. Today’s debate offers time to stop and reflect on the situation regarding freedom of religion or belief in India and the problems that persist today.
In January 2021, this same topic was discussed by this House. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Harrow East and everyone else here was present for that debate. Some might wonder why we are raising the subject again. Well, I will tell the House: we are raising it quite simply because, looking back at developments in India over the last 12 months, we find a string of human rights abuses and the suffering of Christians. More than ever, Her Majesty’s Government need to take additional steps to encourage full and rigorous defence of freedom of religion or belief for all. The steps they have taken so far are clearly not enough. Christians and other minorities continue to be failed by efforts in this regard.
In the previous debate, I commented on the lack of representation of Christians and other groups in the political sphere, but looking through the Library background briefing, I see it shows that at least one of India’s states is taking steps to ensure that there is political representation of all groups.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Many minority communities have played prominent roles in Indian politics and public life since the country’s foundation in 1948, and that continues today.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Lady is right that there are examples in the past, but in many Indian states, representation for minority groups is not in place. Previously, there was a free country where freedom to practise one’s religion was in place, as President Modi said in 2016, but today, in 2022, the same cannot be said. I note that the right hon. Lady is a sponsor of the annual Open Doors event. I gently remind her that in the past year, India has seen grave violations of freedom or belief. A report by the United Christian Forum highlighted that 2021 was one of the worst years for attacks on Christians in India, with ongoing impunity for the perpetrators of violence. In 2013, Open Doors’ world watch list ranked India 31st of the 50 countries where Christians face the highest levels of persecution; and last month, in its latest list, India was ranked 10th. In short, there can be little doubt that the situation is getting worse at an alarmingly fast rate.
The research sounds the alarm on the escalation of freedom or belief violations in India—not just against Christians, but against those of other faiths and beliefs. In many cases, freedom of religion or belief is a litmus test for the full realisation of other human rights. When citizens cannot freely exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief, it is depressingly inevitable that other human rights are being compromised.
At the heart of all freedom of religion or belief is the ability freely to change one’s religion or belief, free from fear. In other words, a Hindu should be able to become Muslim or Christian. Unfortunately, that is practically impossible in about a third of India’s states. There is some flexibility in some states, but there are certainly states where there is no flexibility at all. A third of India’s 28 states prohibit or limit religious conversion to protect the dominant religion, Hinduism, from perceived threats from religious minorities. That is entirely unnecessary; it stems from prejudice against non-Hindu religions and support for Hindutva, an ideology that does not count Indians who are Christian or from other religious minorities as true Indians because they have allegiances that lie outside India. They might believe in something other than Hinduism, but their allegiance to the Indian state is not in doubt. The Indian Government must look at where they are on that, discuss those issues, and make sure that there is opportunity for all.
Speaking of opportunity, the background information given to us for this debate says:
“Christians and Muslims…do not qualify for the officially reserved jobs or school placements available”
to Hindus,
“putting these groups at a significant economic and social disadvantage.”
These things need to be fair. If a country’s constitution mentions freedom and equality, the country should ensure those things, not draw away from them.
This is not an easy debate. I am well aware of our countries’ close relationship and I welcome it. Indeed, the other day, the hon. Member for Harrow East and I mentioned how important that closeness was, particularly when it comes to trade between the UK and India.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the close relationship between India and the UK. Does he agree that that relationship puts the UK in a unique position to be a positive force for change, and to encourage and pressure India to respect religious minorities?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I hope, as I think we all do, that we can achieve that through this debate. That is why I look forward to the Minister’s response. She is always fair and always gives a calculated response. We are conveying our feelings and thoughts to her, and ultimately, I am sure, to India, so that it takes the opportunity to address these issues.
It is not my wish to alienate a close ally, but these caveats must not prevent us from speaking up when we see the mistreatment of minorities and mistreatment on grounds of religion or belief. Indeed, it is the close relationship between the UK and India that necessitates our raising the alarm, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran says. The UK is the third biggest investor in India, and in 2020, India became the second largest investor in the UK, so trade is clearly an important issue. To be frank, people including my constituents—and me; I am no different—care where their taxpayers’ money goes. Customers increasingly care about corporate responsibility and social impact; our country should not think that it is above such standards. We are not. The majority of people think that if the United Kingdom were to trade with a country that violates and abuses the human rights of its citizens, the UK would be somewhat complicit in that abuse.
In various debates this week, most of them to do with Russia, we have highlighted human rights abuses and persecution. We have also talked about China and where it has done wrong. In the main Chamber and Westminster Hall, and through our Government officials and the steps that the Government are taking, we are highlighting these issues, and today, we are doing the same. One thing is clear: our nation cares about human rights abuses in India. A majority of people think that the amount of foreign aid that the UK provides to a country should be tied to its performance on certain human rights standards. It is undeniable that one human right currently being violated in India is freedom of religion or belief. A range of religious and belief minorities, not the least of whom are Christians, are suffering infringements of this right. I will go through some of these violations.
Attacks against Christians have been refuelled in recent years and months by the impact of online disinformation and hate speech. How easy it is to hide behind a screen and destroy people, or fill people’s head with things that turn them against others. On 6 December last year, a mob armed with stones and iron rods attacked St Joseph’s school in Ganj Basoda, days after a video was circulated on social media that falsely claimed that the school was forcibly converting Hindus to Christianity. The video was not filmed at the school; it was not even filmed near the school, and none of the students were present, yet the misinformation was peddled through that video. The language and disinformation in the video were deliberately provocative and sought to target the local Christian minority community.
The video succeeded in its aim, which was the attack organised for the following day. When the school’s principal was warned of the imminent attack, he immediately requested police protection, but—alarmingly—no such protection was provided. That is a terrible stain on the police. Although the police assured him that the protests would be peaceful and that they would send officers to guard the school, on the day itself the police failed to show up; they arrived only after the crowd had dispersed, having already caused distress and destruction. As this tragic event shows all too well, online misinformation and hate speech accelerate violent attacks, and the relevant authorities often do not do enough to prevent the brutality. There is no doubt that online misinformation can lead to violence, which happens on a frighteningly regular basis, and indeed today.
Another example of the horror that Christians face can be found in countless reports issued over the last year. Ours is a country of freedom of religion and belief, free from persecution and intimidation, and we know that Christmas is a very important date in the calendar for Christians—indeed, for many people, but especially Christians. In the run-up to Christmas in India, many churches in Karnataka state were forced to cancel their Christmas celebrations following threats from radical groups. More than 150 churches did not open over Christmas due to the fear of attacks, and many other churches opted to limit their Christmas celebrations. Their caution was not without cause. On 24 and 25 December, Christmas eve and Christmas day, dozens of churches were attacked across the states of Assam, Haryana, Karnataka and Uttar Pradesh. Services were stopped short, Bibles were set on fire, a statue of Jesus was torn down and the crowds shouted, “Death to missionaries!” Is that what their religion tells them—“Death to missionaries”? It is not what my religion or my beliefs tell me, and it should not be what any other religion or belief tells anyone else either.
Father Anand, a priest at one of the targeted churches and therefore on the frontline, said that the protests were indicative of the increased attacks that Christians in India have been facing in recent months. He said:
“This is a symbol of what is happening because these people have impunity, and it creates tension…Every Sunday is a day of terror and trauma for Christians, especially those belonging to those small churches”,
which feel under threat. I go to church every Sunday, Mr Stringer, as I suspect others in this place do. We are free to do so and we enjoy it in peace, but for those Christians in India every Sunday is a day of terror and trauma. Let the devastation of that phrase just sink in; think about what that means. When we go to church on Sunday, we do so in peace, and we thank God for it. If we had to go through a crowd to get to church, and if we came out to be stoned or potentially face attacks against our property or damage to our cars, it would put things into perspective.
Christians are not the only ones who suffer. In recent years, there have been several high-profile murders of well-known rationalist leaders. I am not sure my Ulster Scots accent will aptly render this gentleman’s name, but in 2015, Malleshappa Madivalappa Kalburgi, a 77-year-old scholar and university professor, was killed after receiving death threats following criticism of idol worship during a seminar. In 2013, Narendra Dabholkar, president of the Federation of Indian Rationalist Associations, a member organisation of Humanists International, was murdered in Maharashtra state. Despite both cases being high profile, to this day there has been inaction and a failure to prosecute suspects for either crime.
Muslims suffer challenges and attacks too. At a conference of the right-wing Hindu Mahasabha political party on 31 December, delegates were encouraged to attack Muslims with the words,
“If 100 of us become soldiers and are prepared to kill 2 million”
Muslims
“then we will win. We will protect India, and make it a Hindu nation.”
That is not what should be said by any religion, and it certainly should not be said by the Hindu political party. My God tells me that he is a God of love. He is also a God of judgment, but he is a God of love. I suspect that everybody else’s religion tells them something similar, so why turn it into a campaign? Despite immediate international condemnation, Pooja Shakun Pandey, who made the remarks, was only arrested weeks later after sustained pressure from the international community.
The double vulnerability faced by female Muslims was also highlighted this year when Karnataka state introduced a ban on Muslim schoolgirls wearing a headscarf. Malala Yousafzai has since responded by saying that the move is forcing Muslim girls
“to choose between studies and the hijab.”
The choice between an education and one’s religion should never be a dichotomy that anyone, let alone a child, should ever have to face. In addition to the attacks, Muslims have faced increased discrimination during the covid-19 pandemic. In 2020, Indian Government Ministers accused the Muslim Tablighi Jamaat minority of spreading covid-19. It was an absolute fallacy, but people were geed up and fired up by it, and they took action against Muslims.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. I would like to speak briefly on behalf of my constituents in Bolton North East. I have one of the largest Indian Gujarati Muslim communities in the United Kingdom—it numbers somewhere around 14,000. What are the hon. Gentleman’s views on how important it is that, as we increasingly develop our bilateral relationship with India, we bring all the opportunities and things that could be better to the table in those sorts of discussions?
Jim Shannon
That is one of the objective of today’s debate, and we hope that we can reach a better understanding. The views that I had when I was 20 are very different from the views that I have now, in my 60s. I see things very differently today from when I was younger. I feel responsible for the words that I use, which is why I try to be very careful with my terminology and what I say. As the hon. Gentleman says, it is important that we pick our words and try to understand someone else’s point of view. We may not agree with it, but we should certainly understand it and appreciate that they have a point of view. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest there is a duty on us all to do so, and I make that point on behalf of Muslims, because it is important.
As I mentioned earlier, freedom of religion or belief is a gateway right and a strong indicator of the future trajectory of the human rights landscape in a country. Often religious or belief minorities are the first groups to be targeted before other rights are eroded. Sadly, we are now seeing warning signs that attacks on fundamental human rights are targeted not only on religion or belief minorities, but on journalists and critics of the Government. Human rights apply to religious minorities and ethnic groups, but they also apply to journalists who are critical of President Modi and who often find themselves being denounced as anti-Indian. Earlier I said that they are not anti-Indian, but they want to have freedom. They are as proudly pro-Indian as any other citizens. Two UN special rapporteurs recently highlighted the treatment of journalist Rana Ayyub, who is a victim of intensifying attacks and threats made online by far-right Hindu nationalist groups due to her critical reporting on Prime Minister Modi and issues affecting the Muslim community—the very people to whom the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) referred a few moments ago.
What is happening in India cannot be overlooked and deserves greater attention from the international community and Her Majesty’s Government. There is broad consensus among academics and civil society that there are increased attacks against India’s religious and belief minorities. The evidential base is there and cannot be ignored. When a country’s constitution calls for freedom for all religious and ethnic groups, it has to mean more than just words. There has to be action as well.
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, Amnesty International, Genocide Watch, the London School of Economics, the Institute for Development Studies, Humanists International, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Hindus for Human Rights and Open Doors—the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) is a great promoter of that organisation, and we never miss the event that she hosts every year—all agree that the situation for religious and belief minorities in India is dire. The hon. Member for Bolton North East, whose accent gives him away, knows that we use that word often and regularly, because it describes the issues very well.
This is the question we are asking: when will our Government gently remind President Modi and his Government that they have to do more to address the issues? Important though trade is, that is a key question in the debate and from me to the Minister, to my Minister in my Government. Earlier this week, in the debate led by the hon. Member for Harrow East, I encouraged the Government to raise the human rights violations as a new trade deal is negotiated with India. Since the 1990s, it has been the norm to include human rights provisions in international trade deals, and such provisions have the overwhelming support of the British public when they are asked if the UK should take into consideration human rights standards in a country with which we are negotiating and signing a trade deal.
As a country, we must use our new trade agreements to pursue broader international objectives and defend human rights across the world, in particular the right of freedom of religion or belief—I believe passionately in that, as the chair of the APPG. I believe in standing up for those with Christian beliefs, those who have other beliefs and those who have no belief, on the grounds that that is the right thing to do. That is what the debate is about today. This is just one of many things on which more can and must be done.
To conclude, India shares a very close relationship with the UK—we all know that well, and the Minister knows it in particular. My hope is that the debate is not seen to be disrespecting that relationship. Always, my hope and prayer is to strive to improve it, as I believe we can. Just as we are judged by the company we keep, so too are states by the allies and trade partners they keep. In the interests of accountability and of ensuring full freedom of religion or belief for all, the Government of this country—my Government and my Minister—must strive to hold all allies and friends to higher standards when it comes to freedom of religion or belief. No longer can we turn a blind eye—that cannot be the default.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Four Back Benchers have applied to speak and are standing. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 4 o’clock. I will not put a time limit on, but hon. Members can do the arithmetic.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
Freedom of religion is a fundamental right that must be defended and should be a high priority in our foreign policy. I have spoken out many times on the plight of Christians facing discrimination and oppression around the world, but it is vital that we base debates on such crucial issues on the facts. I am concerned that India is not getting a fair hearing in this Parliament.
Diversity, inclusion and respect for minority faiths has been a core principle of the state of India since its inception. In any country, there will be wrongdoers and extremists who commit crimes and incite hatred against minorities. Think of the vile abuse shouted from the so-called “convoy for Palestine” on the Finchley Road—just one of a record number of disgraceful antisemitic incidents recorded in this country last year alone. What is important is to look at is how a state responds to such criminal and unacceptable activities.
It is clear that India’s respect for the rule of law, its independent judiciary, its Human Rights Commission, its vibrant free press and its thriving democracy ensure that the greatest efforts are made to protect minorities from attack and from unfair treatment. Equality before the law and religious freedom are constitutionally protected in India. Not only that, the right of minorities to promote their identities and cultures is also constitutionally protected.
Institutions such as the National Commission for Minorities and the Ministry of Minority Affairs work actively to safeguard the rights of minority faiths. There are extensive government assistance programmes dedicated to minorities, including the Nai Roshni project to support leadership development among women. India’s phenomenal economic success in recent years is bringing millions of people of all faiths out of poverty across India.
Any person in India who has been attacked or treated unfairly because of their religion has my sympathy—especially Christians, whose faith I share. All such cases must be taken seriously by law enforcement authorities. However, we need to view them in the context of a minority population that could be as high as 200 million people. Among such a massive group, it is sadly inevitable that some will be victims of crime and disorder.
I find it disturbing when hon. Members assert that law enforcement authorities are somehow complicit in such attacks. If there is evidence, it should be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities in India; if there is not, claims of complicity by the authorities should not be repeated. I would make a comparison with the allegations routinely made against the Royal Ulster Constabulary during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Just as it is wrong to stigmatise the RUC with allegations of collusive behaviours without solid evidence, it is wrong to make those allegations about organisations in India.
I would also say that before trying to pass judgment on other countries, we should reflect on where the UK has failed minority groups. Most notoriously, the Windrush scandal caused deep hurt and suffering, and systemic problems at the Home Office clearly contributed to what happened.
In conclusion, India’s record on minority faiths is infinitely better than that of almost all its regional neighbours—especially Pakistan and China, where there are grave concerns about the treatment of religious minorities. In contrast, members of Christian, Muslim and other minority communities in India play a hugely successful, visible and positive role in business, politics, public life, media and culture. It is something we should all celebrate. It reflects the Government of India’s vision of “Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas, Sabka Vishwas”: together, for everyone’s growth, with everyone’s trust.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this important debate and on his work in support of religious freedoms.
As a member of the APPG, I stand firmly behind the rights of minorities to religious freedom, both India and across the world. With the rise of nationalist and populist politics all over the world, we are witnessing increased threats to minority rights. According to recent research by the V-Dem Institute, authoritarian regimes outnumber the world’s democracies for the first time since 2001, and the number of such regimes is growing. It is therefore essential for democracies—of which India is, of course, the world’s largest—to stand firm together in defence of universal human rights.
We must lead by example and stand up for the freedoms of expression and religious belief. They are the cornerstones of the values that we in the United Kingdom, and particularly in the Labour party, hold dear; they are values that democrats across the world should defend. That is why, on behalf of my Sikh constituents—many of whom have families living in India—I would like to call attention to and condemn in the strongest possible terms the persecution of Sikhs and other religious minorities in India. We saw that persecution during last year’s farmers’ protests in India, where Sikh men and women faced the most appalling violence. I reiterate that the farmers in India must have the right to protest peacefully, and that the Indian authorities must commit to upholding that right.
We have seen a recent legacy of persecuting other religious minorities in India as well. In 2019, India passed the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, which offers amnesty to non-Muslim illegal immigrants and expedites the path to Indian citizenship for members of six non-Muslim faiths. Both measures explicitly exclude migrants who are Muslim. Amnesty International has said that this Act
“legitimises discrimination on the basis of religion”.
The situation has been compounded by recent mob violence against Muslims—often working class men—in what Human Rights Watch has called “mob attacks against vulnerable communities.”
Equally as grave, we have heard reports of gruesome violence perpetrated against Christians across the country. Open Doors recently published a report based on research from the London School of Economics in which they refer to the case of Sunita, a Christian woman who was eight months pregnant. She was brutally assaulted by a group of men and suffered the death of her unborn baby as a result. The report also detailed the case of a Christian teenager in Odisha who was lynched and murdered by a vigilante mob.
These harrowing stories speak for themselves. We must use our platforms to shout down the appalling persecution of religious minorities in India. British foreign policy must place the rule of law, democracy and human rights at the heart of its agenda, and we must be clear that religious freedom is a critical right that must be universally upheld. I call on the Government to do just that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on leading the debate, and on setting the tone for it and the other contributions that have been made. May I gently but firmly correct him? Shri Narendra Modi is the Prime Minister of India and not the President. The hon. Gentleman referred to him as that in his speech, and I am sure he will want to correct that when he sums up at the end of the debate.
We have to be cautious when we come to lecture India on protecting religious freedom when in this country, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) alluded to, antisemitism is at its peak, anti-Muslim hatred has been launched and anti-Hindu feeling is strong. When so many people feel threatened, it ill befits us to lecture India. Equally, the history of the United Kingdom in India is not completely blame free, particularly in Punjab; the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) referred to her Sikh constituents.
We have to be cautious and to remember that India’s constitution directly protects and safeguards religious minorities. Minority community status for Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Buddhists and Jains is not only protected by law, but they are encouraged to promote their individual identities. That is in the constitution.
I am always cautious about talking about somewhere I have never been, and I declare my interest as the co-chair of the Indo-British all-party parliamentary group who has had the opportunity to visit India on seven occasions. I have been to 14 states in India, which is about half the states, and seen at first hand what protection of religious minorities is available, and I will come on to that later. I have spoken to many parliamentarians in India, and I assure hon. Members that they like nothing more than to debate their constitution. The constitution is very important to all the representatives of the Indian Government and the Members of Parliament.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, the Indian Government have enabled many programmes to protect religious minorities and to promote the opportunities that they should have. In many Indian states minority religions are practiced by the majority of people in those states.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
I am honoured to represent one of the largest Goan populations outside India. Of course, they are devout Catholics. Would my hon. Friend agree with the observation that the largest non-agricultural landowner in India is the Roman Catholic church? That underpins the important differentiation we need to make between atrocities against religious minorities and wilful acts or omissions by the state of India. The two things are different, and we should remember that in this debate.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. He rightly refers to investments that have been made, not only by the UK but by the various different religious groups across India.
We should also remember that India has state government as well as federal government, and therefore the state government should make decisions as well as the national Government. Indeed, independent democratic institutions, such as the National Commission for Minorities, the National Human Rights Commission of India and the Ministry of Minority Affairs, safeguard those rights. National Minorities Rights Day is observed in India every year on 18 December. Given that we are talking about what should happen in India, perhaps we might think about having a national rights day in this country. India has one already, so let us learn the lesson from India and give minorities that opportunity.
We should equally look at the growth of the different minority religions’ populations. India is an incredibly diverse country; there are more Muslims in India than in Pakistan and Bangladesh combined. We should remember that minority religion is growing demographically, up from 15% in 1947 to around 20% in 2011. That is completely unlike the trend in our country. With over 207 million followers of Islam, India has the second largest population of Muslims in the world. Indeed, that is 10% of the world’s Muslim population. Not only is that number growing, but it is expected that by 2050 India will have the largest Muslim population in the world, overtaking Indonesia.
Of the 28 states, four—Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Nagaland—have a Christian majority. I hope that they have enlightened policies and enable other minority religions to prosper and grow. Kerala and Tamil Nadu have the largest section of Christian population anywhere in India. I know the hon. Member for Strangford has not had the opportunity to do so yet, but I invite him to come with me on a visit to India and we can see that first hand. Kerala is the state that is visited most by people from the UK, and there not only the churches but the synagogues are preserved. It was the centre of the Jewish population in India before Israel came into existence, and, after that, many of those people chose to migrate to Israel from their ancestral home. These circumstances demonstrate that clearly not only is there an opportunity but there are centres of Christianity in India.
Jammu and Kashmir has a Muslim majority and Ladakh has a Buddhist majority, so it is not fair to say that India is not a diverse country. That can only be possible when minorities feel safe, secure and nurtured. Across the board, minorities have been the torchbearers of India’s scientific and economic success and leadership. From Indian states in the north-east and regions in the north where minority religions form the majority, minorities’ visibility, success and leadership in all spheres of human activity—from the civil services to political representation and civil society, and from media to corporate houses—is a true reflection of the Indian people’s genuine commitment to their age-old tradition.
In any thriving democracy there are bound to be questions, debates and challenges from time to time. There might have been—and have been—isolated cases and reports of minorities facing discrimination. However, there are independent institutions to address them, such as the National Commission for Minorities, and others that I have mentioned, as well as an independent judiciary. Those reports and cases need to be reflected on in the context that there are 200 million religious minority members. The incidents are very rare, relative to the population size.
We should also consider the concerns that have been expressed to me by many people of Indian origin about the activities of those who seek to convert people from one religion to another. We have to be very cautious about that approach. I agree that it is the fundamental human right of an individual to choose their religion. However, it is not reasonable—it is unacceptable—for people to be forced to convert against their will, and against their family’s will as well.
Jim Shannon
Of course, if the individual is of age, he or she will be able to make their own decision about which religious viewpoint they wish to pursue or follow. May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman—we are good friends, and I am always very mindful of that fact—that Open Doors, whose event the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) chairs every year, said in its report that India was 31st on the list in 2013 and is 10th today, meaning that it went up the ladder of where religious incidents are recorded? That shows that there is more persecution, so how does the hon. Gentleman equate those facts? Whenever persecution is rising in India, the number of incidents rises, and he cannot ignore that.
Bob Blackman
Clearly there are tensions, and I would never say that any attacks on individuals because of their religion are acceptable. What I would say, however, is that when a country has a growing population with growing opportunities for employment, wealth and getting people out of poverty, there are bound to be clashes. There are often clashes in India over religious sites, and there is fault on all sides in that respect. In many cases, the clashes occur where there has historically been a temple when a mosque or a church has been erected on that site, or the other way around. That leads to fundamental clashes between religions. It is up to the Government of India and the forces of India to ensure peace and harmony between people, and it is up to the religious leaders of the religions in India to encourage and promote that harmony as well.
I say to the hon. Member for Strangford gently that, having had the opportunity to visit many of these parts of the world and to see at first hand the position in India, I would argue strongly against the position he has taken. Yes, there are problems—there will be problems all over the world—but they are very rare relative to the size of the population and the number of people who celebrate their religions in peace and harmony.
India is a robust pluralistic democracy where the aim is harmonious co-existence of people of all religions, cultures and ethnicities across the length and breadth of the country. That is a fundamental characteristic of the people—certainly in my visits, I have always experienced that. Safeguarding and celebrating India’s unity and diversity is central to the Indian Government’s social and political ethos, and is firmly embedded in the constitution of India through inviolable provisions and plays out in spirit in myriad ways. Finally, India’s unique example of protecting and nurturing religious minorities offers important insights for other countries, including this one.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate and on all the work he does as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I think we would all acknowledge is dedicated, committed and sincere.
Speaking in my capacity as vice-chair of the APPG, I recognise that when it comes to India, there is understandable reticence when tackling the subject of this debate, given the historical and current ties between the UK and India. To put it bluntly, the largest democracy in the world should not need or want other countries—not least the UK, given our colonial history—to criticise it about a fundamental human right and foundation of democracy, namely freedom of religion or belief. However, it is because of our close relationship with, friendship with and support for India, as well as because we want freedom of religion or belief for everyone everywhere, that we have to call out the concerns, particularly those expressed by Muslims and Christians in India, about serious violations of freedom of religion or belief in that country.
It is because India is a great country, founded historically and constitutionally upon a respect for other religions, that we take seriously the concerning reports of increasing discrimination and persecution of religious minorities in some parts of India. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, India is a massive country. It has 1.4 billion people. It is complex, so any judgment on India will be multifaceted.
My hon. Friend also said, quite correctly, that virtually every country, including our own, has lessons to learn about freedom of religion or belief. Having said that, FORB is not just a lobby for religious minorities’ rights or indeed for one religion or another. It is for everyone, everywhere. It is the foundation of a good, functioning democracy, and it is good for a growing economy and for peace and security. It is testament to the Hindu Sanskrit verse Vasudeva Kutumbakam, meaning “The whole world is one family”, that faith communities such as Jews, Parsis and Christians have long found a home in the wonderful land of India, even before its young secular constitution came into effect in 1950.
It is worth noting that Christians have been living and flourishing in India for over 1,500 years. They were free to manifest their faith and were key contributors to modern India’s development. There are many Christians and churches flourishing across various parts of India. Some have thousands attending every Sunday, and those who are able to attend do so without any issue whatsoever. However, in recently years we have sadly seen a decline in tolerance towards the Christian faith in some—I emphasise the word “some”—of India’s states, particularly in rural areas and where churches are run independently.
Any state has the right to scrutinise Christian churches and organisations that are run illegally, but the burning of churches, desecration of altars and beating of pastors or congregation members by various radical mobs is totally unacceptable and must not be tolerated. It is not the India we have known for hundreds of years, nor does it reflect its historic principles or, as we have heard, the principles in its constitution.
It was deeply worrying to hear reports in December that the Karnataka assembly secretariat had instructed the department responsible for minorities’ welfare to submit a report on all religious conversions in the state over the past 25 years, in what appears to be groundwork for the anti-conversion law that the ruling Bharatiya Janata party has promised to announce. BJP MLA Gulihatti Shekhar, who presided over the meeting, has controversially instructed district authorities and the police intelligence wing to conduct a survey of the state’s 1,700-odd churches and prayer halls to examine their legality.
Although this may seem like a direct attack on the Christian faith, it should also be noted that Hindu temples have been and still are under security in various states for the status of their legality. After independence, the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act 1959 was passed, and Tamil Nadu temples are under the control of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. That is incompatible with the fundamental rights granted to every Indian citizen in the constitution. This should matter to all in India’s 75th years of independence who seek to uphold the constitutional principles described by Prime Minister Modi as the real holy book.
As Sadhguru, the founder of Isha Foundation, wrote last year,
“If people do not have the freedom to practice their religion the way they want, what kind of freedom is that?”
India is experiencing Islamophobia and Christianophobia, which in response can lead to Hinduphobia. This is all a far cry from the founding principles of India. It is a sad stain on modern India.
People of all faiths, especially Hindus, Muslims and Christians, should stand together in solidarity, both in the UK and India, and must surely condemn some of the following incidents. Some 505 violent incidents against Christians were recorded by the United Christian Forum for Human Rights in 2021, including false accusations leading to arbitrary police detention, arrests and prosecution, forced conversion, hate campaigns, assault, death threats, illegal occupations of churches, forced displacement, acts of public humiliation, disruption of religious gatherings, and the looting and destruction of Christian homes, church buildings and other Church-owned properties. The attacks against the Chhattisgarh Christian community in January included imprisonment, injury, arson and forced conversion.
Theresa Villiers
We have heard about the controversy surrounding rules to regulate conversion, but I get the very strong impression from those who understand those issues that the laws are designed to protect people from forced conversion, which is a very real risk—it is also a problem in Pakistan. It is very often young Christian women who are vulnerable to the pressure of forced conversion, forced marriage and forced conversion to Islam. That is what the laws are trying to prevent.
Fiona Bruce
The concern, of course, is the misuse of such laws.
Pastor Rakesh Babu and his family were brutally beaten at their home in Chandauli, Uttar Pradesh, by unidentified men armed with wooden logs as they gathered to pray in their parsonage, a tiny room attached to the church where Pastor Babu had served for 15 years. A week earlier, he had been threatened with jail if he continued to encourage others to join him in prayer. Worryingly, after the attack, the pastor struggled to get local police to properly register his report. Mervyn Thomas, the founder-president of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, told me that police often refuse to register first information reports and that over a number of years, perpetrators of communal violence in a number of areas have not been penalised. More information about that can be found in the CSW reports.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) made the important point about referring things to the police. A number of incidents against Christians—particularly the desecration of churches, the beating up of people, the burning of bibles, and the injuring of people going in and out of churches—have been reported to the police, but there have been instances of the police not turning up as requested. There is an evidential base that cannot be ignored.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I said, more details about such reports can be found in the Christian Solidarity Worldwide reports on India.
I will mention two further reports. On 20 May, Pastor Alok Rajhans was attacked at his church by Hindu nationalists. Most worryingly, we learnt about the death in judicial custody of Father Stan Swamy, one of 16 humans rights defenders, on 5 July. We should applaud Indian civil society for last week launching a popular petition opposing the anti-conversion Bill, which was approved in the Karnataka state Parliament on February 14.
Ram Puniyani, the co-ordinator of the National Solidarity Forum—a consortium of more than 70 organisations and civil society groups of different origins and inspirations—said:
“Wherever the anti-conversion law, ironically called the ‘Religious Freedom Law’, has been passed, it has become a justification for the persecution of religious minorities and other marginalized groups. Attacks on minorities have increased significantly in recent years since this law has been used as a weapon against Christians and Muslims, especially Adivasis, Dalits and women”.
To those who criticise us for calling out those incidents in India, and who ask what it has to do with us, I say that we are all in this together and we must all join together, as demonstrated by this cross-party debate, to unite around the universal human right of freedom of religion or belief. I look forward to working as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for FORB—across party lines and across all faiths and none—to continue upholding that fundamental human right.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to participate in this afternoon’s debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it. I also pay tribute to him and to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for all the work they do on these matters.
As we have heard today, India’s minorities face increasing intolerance under the Modi Government. The principle of freedom of religion is inviolable. The freedom to practise one’s faith freely and without persecution is a basic human right. I have listened very carefully to all the viewpoints in this debate, but the reality is that Prime Minister Modi’s Government have presided over discriminatory policies and delivered the persecution of religious minorities, so much so that in April last year the US Commission on International Religious Freedom recommended that India be designated as a country of particular concern for egregious religious freedom violations and placed on a religious freedoms blacklist alongside countries such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Eritrea.
According to the South Asia State of Minorities report 2021, human rights defenders and religious minorities in India who dare to protest against discriminatory laws and practices have faced restrictions, violence, criminal defamation, detention and harassment, while recent legislation has limited freedom of opinion and expression under the guise of preventing disharmony and disaffection. More and more of India’s states have adopted controversial and radical anti-conversion laws, which we have heard a lot about today. These laws are used by militant Hindu groups to prosecute members of religious minorities and make false allegations against them. It seems that these laws often provide justification for attacks on Christian leaders, which are carried out with impunity.
In 2021, Open Doors—a very important charity that supports the freedom of Christians to practise their faith in the face of persecution around the world, and one to which I pay tribute for its excellent work—ranked India as the world’s 10th most dangerous place to be a Christian. The Open Doors report concluded that since the current ruling party took power in 2014, Hindu extremists have fuelled a crackdown on Christian house-churches and attacked believers with impunity, believing that to be Indian is to be Hindu. In rural areas, Christians were told that one church would be closed down every week, because they have been destroying local tradition and culture by luring non-Christians to convert to Christianity. It is also common for Christians to be cut off from local water supplies and denied access to Government-subsidised groceries.
International Christian Concern has told The New York Times that Christians are being suppressed, discriminated against and persecuted at rising levels in India, like never before. Indeed, last year was branded the most violent year in recorded history for India’s Christians, with the United Christian Forum recording 486 violent incidents of Christian persecution, which exceeded the previous record of 328 violent incidents in 2019.
The evidence seems pretty clear. Of profound concern is the growing number of arrests in India of human rights defenders, student leaders, feminist activists, Dalit and Adivasi rights campaigners, trade unionists, opposition politicians and writers, artists, lawyers, academics and journalists who are critical of the Modi regime.
The UK has a considerably interlinked and close relationship with India, as we have heard today, and every diplomatic tool at the UK’s disposal must be used to effect change in India, in order to ensure that religious minorities are protected and flagrant abuses of human rights, of which religious freedom is only one, will not be tolerated.
During the UK-India free trade agreement negotiations, the UK Government have a clear opportunity to send a clear message that a trade partnership between the UK and India will not be ratified unless there is real and meaningful change on human rights and religious freedom in India. The UK has a very positive relationship with India, so it is in an excellent position to exert such influence. The UK must demand more from its friends, and human rights and religious freedoms in India must be at the forefront of our conversations and trade negotiations with India.
The human rights text in the clauses of any free trade deal with India must have policy teeth and must be enforceable. Will the Foreign Office, with help from the Department for International Trade, undertake human rights impact assessments before any trade and investment agreements are finalised with India? Will the UK Government work towards an integrated framework of atrocity prevention in the UK’s India strategy to ensure that at the very least UK officials can monitor risk and communicate the risks internally and externally? Will the UK Government ensure that human rights and environmental specialists are included in trade delegations?
India has ratified only six out of the eight international labour organisations’ core conventions. Will the UK Government make access to UK markets conditional on the Indian Government ratifying and effectively implementing key human rights conventions?
In 1995, it was agreed that every new EU trade deal would make human rights an essential criterion, allowing a treaty to be suspended if human rights commitments were broken. It is deeply concerning that the Foreign Secretary appears to have edged away from that principle in trade deals with Turkey, Singapore and Vietnam. Will the current Secretary of State for International Trade, or indeed the whole UK Government, go down the same path?
It is abhorrent that people can be prosecuted simply for practising their faith and worshipping their God. The constructive relationship between the UK and India gives the UK influence, perhaps uniquely among all the international actors, to effect change and exert influence—to pressure, encourage, cajole and do whatever it takes to ensure that India is governed by tolerance, understanding and equality, and that that is shown to Indians who are a part of a religious minority.
The ongoing trade negotiations with India represent a very important moment to focus minds on this matter. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us that that is exactly what will happen, and that the UK will stand up to India as a critical friend to make it clear that basic human freedoms are inviolable, and we expect our friends and allies to recognise, practise and respect that principle.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who as ever has secured a debate to continue to champion his interest in religious freedoms across the world. He, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) and others in this House are assiduous members of the all-party group for international freedom of religion or belief. They stand up also for people with no faith, and that is a very positive part of their group.
As we know, India is a proudly diverse and multifaith democracy with a secular constitution that places freedom of religion or belief at its heart. That is welcome statutory backing for equality and protection of minority rights. India’s diverse communities and its proud record of religious freedom with rights for religious minorities is unthinkable in many other countries of Asia. It is also noteworthy that in India there is political representation for minorities in Parliament and in the Cabinet. There is still some disproportionality relative to other countries in the region, but the attempt to diversify and provide role models from different communities in leadership positions should be recognised and placed on the record.
We have heard Members in today’s debate express multifaceted and broad-ranging concerns about increasing numbers of attacks on minority groups. As Members have highlighted, there is a raft of anti-conversion laws that have targeted Christians in some Indian states. Although the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom has reported that very few arrests have been made under those laws, it cannot be right that people face sentences of up to four years for violating anti-conversion laws. I urge the Minister to address that question in her concluding remarks.
There are also numerous concerns relating to the treatment of Muslims in India, which is what I want to press the Minister on. Research by the House of Commons Library indicates that some 4,000 people have been arrested in Uttar Pradesh alone under its contentious anti-cow-slaughter legislation. NGOs have criticised the police for their inadequacy in responding to complaints of violence against Muslims in that dispute. I hope that the Minister will mention that in her concluding remarks.
Arguably more worrying, and a point made so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West, is the general direction of travel being witnessed in pockets of Indian society, with the Citizenship (Amendment) Act seen by many as anti-Muslim. Human Rights Watch, among others, has highlighted that “mobs” have been reported assaulting Muslim men with impunity, and that deserves to be looked at closely and to be part of the ongoing dialogue the FCDO is having with India on trade. It is right that these issues are highlighted and addressed by the Indian Government.
I know that many in India have added their voices to the condemnation arising across the world at this trend. Islamophobia, anti-Sikh hate, anti-Christian actions and general persecution of minorities are not something that most Indians believe in. Indeed, the majority would be repulsed by the association of their proud country with these actions.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Congleton are correct in expressing caution, given the traumatic past relationship between India and the UK, with many painful memories associated with the colonisation period in India. Criticism from this Chamber can be difficult to hear. I hear the exhortation from the hon. Member for Harrow East to visit India, and during the forthcoming Commonwealth Parliamentary Association visit to Delhi in April, MPs will seek to develop a deeper understanding of the complexity and diversity of India on the part of the UK Parliament.
Theresa Villiers
In the light of that mutual understanding, does the hon. Lady regret that during the Batley and Spen by-election, Labour circulated a leaflet showing our Prime Minister and Mr Modi together, with the title:
“Don’t risk a Tory MP who is not on your side.”
That was very divisive and it upset many in the Hindu community.
Catherine West
I thank the right hon. Member for her reminder of what was a mistake. I understand that, at the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) clarified that that was a moment in the heat of the by-election. I know she is a fierce campaigner and understands the sentiment that this was not the right thing to put out and that it does not contribute to community cohesion.
I urge the Minister to outline what steps the British Government are taking to support freedom of religion or belief in India, and indeed whether it has been raised in discussions with the Indian Government. India is, and will always be, a country that is held in the highest regard by Members of this House and in this country, not least with the large diaspora of British Indians who live in all our constituencies. I think of the community hub in my own constituency, providing such crucial community-based services locally. Those involved are great champions of human rights and have written to me regarding their concerns about today’s debate.
We must redouble our efforts to understand more fully the complexity of today’s India, and we must continue to develop our shared understanding of the promotion of human rights, as enshrined in the constitution of India, without fear or favour and to cherish religious freedom of expression.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Before the Minister responds, let me say that we have plenty of time, but please could she leave two minutes for the mover of the motion to reply?
The Minister for Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing the debate. I commend him for his tireless work in supporting freedom of religion or belief, including as chair of the all-party group. I thank him and his colleagues for their 2021 annual “Commentary on the Current State of International Freedom of Religion or Belief”, published in March last year, which provides valuable insight into the state of freedom of religion or belief around the world. I look forward to the 2022 edition.
I am grateful to the Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for their contributions.
We heard many passionate views on all sides, and I hope hon. Members will understand that due to the situation in Ukraine and the debates happening in the main Chamber, I am providing cover for my Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office colleagues, so any topics that I have not been able to address fully will of course be followed up by letter.
The hon. Member for Strangford gave a passionate speech in support of religious minorities. He mentioned Rana Ayyub, and that is a case that the UN is looking into. I want to reassure him that the Government are committed to working for freedom of religion or belief for all and to promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. I want to put on record the fact that we condemn all threats, discrimination and violence perpetrated on the grounds of religion, belief or faith.
Although this debate focuses on Christians, we must not forget those who have been persecuted around the world for belonging to other religions and holding other beliefs, or for having no religious belief at all. We want everyone, everywhere, to be able to live in accordance with their own conscience and exercise their faith or beliefs freely. That not only is the right thing to do for individuals, but makes countries stronger. When countries protect and promote freedom of religion or belief, they tend to be more stable, more prosperous and safer from violent extremism.
The Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment to promoting that agenda globally by appointing my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton as his special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, and I am very pleased to see her in the debate. She has been working closely with the Minister of State responsible for human rights, Lord Ahmad, to drive forward our work on freedom of religion or belief.
My colleagues in the FCDO wanted me to give a bit of background on India, although I fear that it might look shallow compared to the extensive briefing we received from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—I think he should probably be briefing the FCDO. As we have heard, India, like the UK, is a society with many different faith communities. It has a proud history of religious tolerance and is among the most religiously diverse societies in the world, with significant religious minority communities, including Christians and Muslims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said, it also has strong constitutional and legal protections for human rights, including freedom of religion or belief, and is home to a vibrant faith-based civil society.
We recognise that, in a country of 1.3 billon people, the situation for minorities varies, depending on the region and their social and economic status. It is up to the Government of India to uphold those freedoms and rights, which are guaranteed by its strong democratic framework and legal mechanisms.
We have an open and constructive dialogue with India. As with any issue, where we have concerns, we raise them directly with its Government. We have previously discussed the impact of legislative and judicial measures on minorities with the Indian Government at the ministerial level.
There were some questions that hon. Members raised that I think I have answers to. The hon. Member for Coventry North West talked about agricultural reform laws. I understand that India repealed the three agricultural reform laws in December 2021. We recognise the interest in the Indian Government’s agricultural reforms, particularly among the Indian diaspora in this country.
There were questions around India’s Citizenship (Amendment) Act. I wanted to let hon. Members know that Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon has discussed the impact of that and other judicial measures on India’s minorities with Indian Government Ministers. As I said earlier, its strength—like that of the UK—is its diversity, and it is the Indian Government’s responsibility to address the concerns of all Indian citizens, regardless of their faith.
Several Members, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, discussed the interfaith marriage laws. My understanding is that the British high commission in New Delhi also monitors all political and societal trends in India. We have noted new interfaith marriage laws in some Indian states, but that is as far as I am able to speak on those laws. I cannot confirm some of the things that Members have said during the debate, but they have been noted, and I am sure that Foreign Office Ministers will be able to address anything required in more detail.
Bob Blackman
One of the key concerns is around abduction and forced marriage, particularly of young women, which is the prime focus of those particular laws. I am sure the Minister agrees that forcing someone to change their religion after having abducted them from their family is not only morally wrong, but reprehensible.
Kemi Badenoch
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is morally wrong and reprehensible to carry out such actions.
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green requested UK action in India. As other Members have recognised, faith leaders in India are influential figures in their local communities, so UK Ministers and diplomats regularly meet them to understand their perspectives and hold a dialogue with diverse communities across that country.
Our high commissioner has visited a number of different places of worship in India and met faith leaders there. He has met Christian communities, including visiting Sacred Heart Cathedral, where he met the Catholic Archbishop of Delhi, and the Cathedral Church of the Redemption, where he met the Moderator of the Church of North India.
Faith-based NGOs also make a positive contribution to Indian society. Over the last three years, staff across our network in India have worked with local NGOs to bring together young people of different faiths. Through our high commission, we are supporting a UK-India interfaith leadership programme, which brings together emerging Indian leaders of diverse faith backgrounds, including Christians and Muslims, to exchange UK-India perspectives and foster understanding and respect. In May last year, the high commission held a virtual iftar to celebrate the important contribution that Indian Muslims make to Indian society and to bring together different faith communities. My fellow Minister, Lord Ahmad also met with faith leaders while visiting India last March.
I know that Members are interested in the UK-India relationship. It is central to our foreign policy tilt towards the Indo-Pacific. In May 2021, the UK and Indian Governments committed to strengthening the relationship through our new comprehensive strategic partnership. Our 2030 road map, which was launched by the Prime Minister and Prime Minister Modi last year, will guide our co-operation and benefit people across both countries. It will support regional and global security and prosperity.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran asked a few questions to which I am afraid I do not have the answers. I think some of them are DIT questions, but our 1.6 million strong diaspora community provides a living bridge of people, commerce, ideas and culture between our countries. It is an important strategic relationship, but even within that group there are many views that we have to take into account.
Jim Shannon
Minister, in the Open Doors top 50 league India is now No. 10; it was No. 31. That is clear factual evidence of lots of persecution and attacks on people of religious minorities. I know that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but will she ask the Minister responsible to bring this to the attention of the Indian authorities? It is important that we are constructive in our contributions, but also that we are friends who can highlight issues that people are telling us are important?
Kemi Badenoch
I understand that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is something that I can ask my colleagues to do. I know that this is the sort of regular engagement that they have with their counterparts.
I can update those Members who raised the UK-India trade relationship. We recently launched negotiations for a comprehensive UK-India free trade agreement, which would particularly benefit the north of England, the west midlands, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We will work with India to support its COP26 commitments, including through a $1 billion green guarantee and British international investment partnership. Oxford University, AstraZeneca and the Serum Institute of India are enabling the world to navigate its way out of the pandemic with their collaboration to produce covid-19 vaccines at scale.
I now want to turn to the UK’s wider work on freedom of religion or belief. In July we will host an international ministerial conference. We will use the conference to bring Governments from across the world together with faith leaders to drive collective action in promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities around the world, so that everyone, everywhere can practise their religion or belief freely. We continue to work with organisations such as the United Nations, the Council of Europe, the G7, and the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance, to bolster international action on freedom of religion or belief.
The Prime Minister’s special envoy—my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton—who even now is working in this capacity by participating in the debate, is currently chairing the alliance, and I thank her for her commitment and leadership. In November, the Foreign Secretary attended the alliance ministerial forum and underlined the UK’s commitment to working with partner countries to support freedom and openness around the world. We and our alliance partners raise awareness of cases of particular concern and advocate for the rights of individuals persecuted or discriminated against on grounds of their religion or belief, as we have heard from hon. Members today.
We also continue to implement the recommendations made by the Bishop of Truro’s review of our work in support of persecuted Christians and members of all faiths and beliefs and those of no religious belief. We have implemented 13 of the recommendations. We are close to achieving a further six and we are making good progress on the remaining three.
To conclude, it is right that we reaffirm our commitment to do all we can to foster intercommunal and interfaith understanding and respect around the world. That is why we continue to discuss issues of freedom of religion or belief with the Indian authorities. This is part of our dialogue and partnership with India, a country with a long history of religious diversity. Our partnership with India is very important to us. It is a partnership that brings great benefits to communities in both our countries.
Jim Shannon
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions, and in particular the Minister for her summing up. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) sponsors the Open Doors event every year. We thank her for that. I am sure she will bring to the attention of the Indian Government the fact that India is now No. 10 rather than No. 31. We look forward to her using her position to do so.
I thank the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) for her contribution. She recently joined the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We are very pleased to have her on board, and thank her for highlighting that where there is persecution we must stand up and say so. Well done to her for that.
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) knows that he is a good friend of mine. We might agree on some things and disagree on others, but I thank him for the very balanced point of view that he put over today. He acknowledges that there are issues to be addressed. We are not here to give him a hard time, but to highlight the issues. That is our job. People do not come to us when things are all right; they come to us when things are wrong. They tell us these things, and these things have to be addressed. When there is an evidential base and the police are not providing protection, or are letting things happen, that has to be taken on board, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point.
The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) spoke up for Muslims in his intervention. I thank my dear friend, the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for all that she does. The Government made the right decision in putting her in her post. I mean that genuinely. Forgive me, Mr Stringer, for going all gushy, but she is wonderful. She does that job well, and we are particularly pleased to have her in her post.
Jim Shannon
I am not allowed to take an intervention. The hon. Lady expressed all the concerns that we have about the issues.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who is also my friend, always brings passion and fire to these issues. The conversation in trade negotiations should be about human rights; they must be at the centre of all discussions.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), also highlighted the issues in her summing up. I understand that there are pockets in India where these things are happening. That is what we are here to highlight—where they are happening—not to brush over them like they do not matter, because these people have no one else to speak for them.
I know that the Minister is not responsible for this area, but she always does well and I thank her for that. I am very pleased to know that the Government have the persecution of Christians, and the freedom of religious belief for people of all religions, at the core of what they are doing across the world. As always, I thank the Government for that.
I was reminded by people who emailed or texted me during the debate that, when right-wing groups are emboldened by a culture of state negligence or complicity, such things continue to happen. We need to ensure that they do not happen in India any more, and that the future will be one in which all people, wherever they are from in India and whatever their religious viewpoint may be, have freedom of expression and belief. That is the one thing on which probably all of us present in the Chamber can agree. We believe in that, and we must see it happen. If it does not happen, we look to our Minister and our Government to ensure that they highlight that with the country of India.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the persecution of Christians and religious minorities in India.
Written Statements
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Platinum Jubilee Pageant Ltd
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Chris Philp)
I am repeating the following written ministerial statement made today in the other place by my noble Friend the Minister for Arts, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay:
I am tabling this statement for the benefit of all members of this House to draw their attention to the departmental minute laid today which provides notice of a contingent liability created by the Department. This is in respect of a request for the Government to provide an underwrite to The Platinum Jubilee Pageant Ltd (“The Pageant Company”) to cover any projected losses should the platinum jubilee pageant be cancelled due to specific, extenuating circumstances. The underwrite will only be agreed in the event of certain conditions being met.
Buckingham Palace has invited the directors of The Pageant Company to deliver the platinum jubilee pageant. The Pageant Company is a company limited by guarantee.
The Pageant Company is independently fundraising to deliver the pageant at no cost to the taxpayer. The Government wish to place on record its thanks to the board of The Platinum Jubilee Pageant Company, and to all their partners and donors, for their efforts to mark this historic moment in our nation's history. Given the Government underwrite will only provide The Pageant Company with financial support in the event that the pageant is cancelled due to specific, extenuating circumstances, the likelihood that the underwrite will be required is low.
The Government underwrite will be capped at £2.45 million, will expire at midnight on Monday 6 June 2022, and will not be used to repay donors.
A copy of the departmental minute will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS631]
Higher Education Reform
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan)
Today I am announcing the Government proposed plans to reform the higher education sector through the launch of two linked consultations on higher education reform and the lifelong loan entitlement.
The Secretary of State for Education will make an oral statement to the House of Commons later today.
Our university sector is a great success story, home to world-leading universities that are true powerhouses of innovation and research and I am very proud that four of our great institutions are ranked in the top 10 in the world.
That does not mean our system is perfect and it is our duty as Ministers at the Department for Education to deliver solutions to the problems the higher education system is facing and to deliver a fairer deal for students and taxpayers.
These problems were examined in great detail with the review of post-18 education and funding, launched in 2018.1 am grateful to Sir Philip Augar and his panel for their thoughtful and important recommendations across the higher and further education sectors, and I am pleased to say that with the publication of these documents, which address the pivotal higher education recommendations, we have brought this review to its long-awaited conclusion.
Lifelong loan entitlement
One of the independent panel’s core recommendations was the provision of a lifelong learning entitlement. That is why we, the Government, are launching today a consultation on the lifelong loan entitlement, to seek views from the sector and public on the shape and scope of this policy.
Under this flexible skills system, new students will be able to sign up and log in online to find a lifelong loan entitlement worth the equivalent of four years of post-18 education (£37,000 in today’s fees) to be used across Higher and Further Education as they choose. This entitlement can be used for individual modules or full years of study, at higher technical and degree levels, provided in colleges or universities.
People will have the opportunity to train, retrain and upskill as needed, in response to changing skill needs and employment patterns. The lifelong loan entitlement will turn education from a narrow, set destination, into an accessible, long-term and flexible journey.
Picture vehicle technicians who have worked building and fixing diesel vans for 10 years. They know their current roles will eventually become extinct and they want to move to higher-wage, higher-skilled jobs in a growing part of their sector like electric vehicle production. Maybe they have children and time constraints, so they never imagined they would be able to flexibly reskill on a higher education course.
After 2025, these technicians will be able to log onto their online lifelong loan entitlement account and see their loan entitlement and receive clear signposting of the courses and modules they can enrol on in order to reach their career goals.
We will be the first country in the world to implement a system like this at scale. This places us in a brilliant position to have an education system and economy that work hand-in-glove together to produce a highly skilled, highly paid workforce. I look forward to working closely with the sector to implement this entitlement as part of the wider levelling-up agenda.
Interest rates and tuition fees
We have thought carefully about fairness for students in our consideration of the independent panel’s recommendations. I am delighted to announce that we will deliver our manifesto commitment to address the interest rates on student loans, by reducing interest to inflation only for new borrowers starting their courses in academic year 2023-24. This will mean that, under these new terms, borrowers will not repay more, in real terms, than they borrow.
We will also continue to freeze tuition fee caps for undergraduate degrees up to and including academic year 2024-25, meaning the maximum fee cap will have remained at £9,250 for seven years. This will reduce debt levels for students in real terms and encourage higher education providers to increase efficiency further. In combination, the reduction in interest rates and the two-year fee freeze mean a borrower entering a three-year course in academic year 2023-24 could see their debt reduced by up to £6,500 at the point at which they become eligible to repay. When the total seven-year fee freeze is taken into account, this totals up to £11,500 less debt, at the point at which they become eligible to repay.
Fairer system for students and taxpayers
It is now more important than ever that we have a funding system for Higher Education that is fair for both students and taxpayers. Without intervention, the student loan book is estimated to reach over half a trillion pounds, in financial year 2020-21 prices, by April 2043, up from £161 billion in April 2021. Only 23% of borrowers who enter full-time higher education in academic year 2023-24 are forecast to repay their loans in full. This is not fair for taxpayers, many of whom will have chosen not to go to university. This is not a sustainable basis upon which to maintain a world-class university sector.
Further changes to student loan repayment terms are necessary to keep higher education accessible for students with the ability and desire to benefit from it, while keeping costs down for the taxpayer. The annual income threshold above which post-2012 student loan borrowers are required to make repayments on their loans will be kept at its current level of £27,295 until April 2025. For new student loan borrowers who start their studies from September 2023 onwards, there will be a repayment threshold of £25,000, rising with inflation from April 2027 onwards, and a loan term of 40 years. With the current 30-year loan term, graduates who finish their course in their 20s will have unpaid loans written off in their early 50s, a period when the earnings premium for most borrowers is still likely to be significant. These changes will increase the proportion of 2023-24 entrants who are forecast to repay in full to over half, as well as enabling the significant reduction in interest rates for new loan borrowers.
We have considered carefully how we can support disadvantaged students with this package of reforms. We want access to higher education to be dependent on attainment and ability to succeed rather than background. Our proposals to reduce the fees and loans for foundation years will help make them more affordable for those who would benefit from another chance to access high-quality higher education at lower cost. Our flagship national state scholarship worth up to £75 million will help support high-achieving young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to achieve their dream, regardless of course or university.
The changes to student finance and funding are detailed in full in the higher education policy statement and reform consultation.
Investment in higher education
In addition, we are putting almost £900 million of new investment into our fantastic system over the next three years. This includes the largest increase in Government funding for the sector to support students and teaching in over a decade. £750 million will be invested in high-quality teaching and facilities including in science and engineering, subjects that support the NHS, and degree apprenticeships.
Consultation proposals
We are consulting on policies that will help to ensure every student can have confidence that they are on a high-quality course that will lead to good outcomes. These policies build on the significant regulatory reform we are taking forward with the Office for Students to drive up quality and standards, and tackle pockets of low-quality provision, setting expectations on completion rates and progression to graduate jobs or further study, and taking action where provision does not meet these expectations. These are key priorities which we recognise the importance of taking forward. We are also working to improve transparency in course advertising, so that in next year’s admissions cycle, adverts provide comparable data on the percentage of students who have completed their course, and the percentage who have gone into professional employment or further advanced study.
Our consultation on low-level minimum eligibility requirements and limited student number controls will seek views on how we can ensure everyone who goes to university will be able to reap its benefits and help us to deliver real social mobility. This means shifting from a focus of simply getting students through the door, to ensuring they complete their course and secure good outcomes after they graduate.
It is therefore right that we have the conversation about low-level minimum eligibility requirements, which could for example be a return to the old requirement of two E grades at A-level, or a grade 4 in GCSE English and Maths. These could also include a number of exemptions on which we are consulting. We should not be pushing young people into university if they are not ready.
Bringing further education and higher education closer together
Higher technical skills are vital to meeting the needs of the economy now and in the future. As a result, and as a pathway to the lifelong loan entitlement, we are rolling out higher technical qualifications (HTQs). These are level 4 and 5 qualifications approved as providing the necessary knowledge, skills and behaviours that employers need. Higher technical qualifications are approved by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, drawing on the advice of their employer panels, using the same framework of employer-led standards which underpin higher apprenticeships. They will be offered by further education colleges, universities, independent providers, and institutes of technology.
Higher technical courses can lead to better life chances for those who take them. We are addressing financial barriers for learners and moving towards the flexibility envisaged by the lifelong loan entitlement by placing the student finance package for higher technical qualifications on par with degrees, from academic year 2023-24. This means extending student finance access to higher technical qualifications and allowing part-time learners to access maintenance loans, as they can with degrees. Together these reforms will help to bring together further and higher education, in line with the independent panel’s recommendations.
Post-qualification admissions
While we are considering and implementing a range of reforms, after careful analysis of responses to the separate consultation on post-qualification admissions, we have decided not to proceed with this at this time. I want to thank the sector for their considered input and assure them that we will work to address underlying problems that underpinned calls to introduce post-qualification admissions.
As a whole, I believe that these reforms are fit for a dynamic and growing economy. I am confident they will set up the sector for great success in the years to come. These reforms will keep our student finance system future-proofed and fair for students and taxpayers and help to ensure that higher education remains open to anyone with the ability and desire to benefit from it.
[HCWS630]
Coronavirus Test Device Approval
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
The UK is developing one of the most rigorous regulatory regimes in the world for coronavirus tests. The coronavirus test device approval regulations set high bars of specificity and sensitivity to ensure only high-quality tests are available on the UK market.
I have been impressed by the number of applications that the validation process has received to date. This figure currently stands at 212 applications across all antigen and molecular test devices. This is a testament to the willingness of businesses to rise to the public health challenges set by this pandemic. However, some manufacturers have struggled to provide sufficient evidence in time.
In order to ensure the greatest possible number of high-quality tests are available to the public, we have worked closely with applicants to support them through the process, which inevitably slows the validation process overall. As of 24 February 2022, 31 devices are on the approved products list and officials continue to work closely with applicants to support them through the process.
To avoid the serious public health risk posed by a shortage of covid-19 tests, I exercised my power under regulation 39A of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 to permit certain tests with a pending application to remain on the market up to 28 February 2022, or until their validation application is determined, as a temporary protocol.
With the current end date of the protocol being 28 February 2022, this means some useful devices would have to be temporarily removed from the market while they complete their validation under the CTDA process. This will likely create a contraction in supply to the market, particularly of self-test lateral flow devices. This presents a serious risk to supply chains and testing used by vulnerable people. Therefore, the creation of two new protocols is needed to address the public health risks presented by the ending of the current protocol, otherwise, these devices would be removed from the UK market.
From 1 March 2022, I am now intending to create two new protocols, one for three months for certain devices until 31 May 2022 and one for six months until 31 August 2022. These new protocols would replace the current protocol which expires on 28 February 2022.
The tests that are permitted to remain on the market with a pending validation application are listed in the protocol on gov.uk. These tests have been selected because they have been through similar validation previously by a public sector body and have an existing CTDA application. There is, therefore, a reasonable expectation that the performance of these tests can be trusted to protect the public from the risk posed by false results.
I have placed copies of both protocols in the Libraries of each House of Parliament and they have been published on the gov.uk website.
[HCWS637]
Early Medical Abortion: Extension of Temporary Arrangements
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maggie Throup)
Today I am announcing a six-month extension to the temporary arrangements for the provision of early medical abortion put in place during the covid pandemic. The Government will end the temporary approval put in place at the beginning of the pandemic that allows women to take both pills for early medical abortion up to 10 weeks gestation at home. The temporary approval will end at midnight on 29 August 2022. From this point, the pre-covid regulatory requirements for the provision of early medical abortion will be reinstated.
At the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic in March 2020, the Government put in place a temporary approval in England, enabling women to take both pills for early medical abortion up to 9 weeks and 6 days gestation in their own homes if they chose to do so. A telephone or e-consultation must have first taken place with a clinician. However, women did not need to physically attend a hospital or clinic. Prior to the pandemic, only the second pill for early medical abortion could be taken at home and women were required to attend a clinic to take the first pill.
This temporary measure was put in place at the start of a public health emergency, to address a specific and acute medical need, reducing the risk of transmission of covid-19 and ensuring continued access to abortion services. At the time, a decision was made to time limit the approval for two years or until the pandemic was over, whichever was earliest.
After careful consideration, the Government’s view is that the provision of early medical abortion should return to pre-covid arrangements. The wellbeing and safety of women requiring access to abortion services has been, and will continue to be, our first and foremost priority.
Thanks to the success and impact of the national vaccination and booster programme, we are in a very different position compared to the beginning of the pandemic. However, health services and the workforce have been under increased pressure in recert months. A short-term extension of the temporary approval will be made to enable a sure and reliable return to pre-pandemic arrangements and continued access to services.
The replacement temporary measure will end at midnight on 29 August 2022.
As with any healthcare service, this measure will be kept under review.
I am depositing a copy of the summary of responses to the Government’s consultation on this issue in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS629]
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
Section 19(1) of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures (TPIM) Act 2011 (the Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of her TPIM powers under the Act during that period. TPIM notices in force (as of 30 November 2021) 4 Number of new TPIM notices served (during this period) 0 TPIM notices in respect of British citizens (as of 30 November 2021) 4 TPIM notices extended (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revoked (during the reporting period) 0 TPIM notices revived (during the reporting period) 0 Variations made to measures specified in TPIM notices (during the reporting period) 5 Applications to vary measures specified in TPIM notices refused (during the reporting period) 0 The number of subjects relocated under TPIM legislation (during this the reporting period) 2
The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
The TPIM Review Group (TRG) keeps every TPIM notice under regular and formal review. The fourth quarter TRG meetings were held in January 2022.
[HCWS632]
British National Overseas Immigration: Hong Kong
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
The Government are today announcing changes to the British National (Overseas) immigration route.
On 31 January 2021, the UK launched a bespoke immigration route for British National (Overseas) (BN(O)) status holders and their family members. The route reflects the UK’s historic and moral commitment to those people of Hong Kong who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BN(O) status before Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997, and followed China’s passing of the national security law which significantly impacts the rights and freedoms of the people of Hong Kong.
The route has already been a great success and as of 31 December 2021, there have been 103,900 applications since the route launched.
The current rules enable adult children of a BN(O) status holder to apply as a dependant if they apply at the same time as their BN(O) parent, are part of their parent’s household in Hong Kong, the UK or the Crown dependencies and were born on or after 1 July 1997. However, some of this cohort cannot currently access the BN(O) route because their BN(O) parent does not wish to apply, because they are not part of their parent’s household, or they are unable to apply at the same time.
It was right to think about the family unit of the BN(O), but this is creating unfair outcomes for the families of BN(O) status holders with some children able to access the route independently as they were old enough to be registered for BN(O) status, while their younger siblings aged between 18 and 24 are unable to access the route. It is right and important to address this so the Government have made the decision to enable individuals aged 18 or over who were born on or after 1 July 1997 and who have at least one BN(O) parent to apply to the route independently of their BN(O) parent.
This cohort will still be required to meet all of the other suitability and eligibility requirements for the route, including six months maintenance funds and the requirement for the applicant to be ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, the UK, or the Crown dependencies. Applicants will also need to pay the existing application fees for the route (£180 if applying for 30 months leave or £250 if applying for five years leave) as well as the immigration health surcharge. They will be able to be joined in the UK by their partner and children under the age of 18. After five years in the UK those on the BN(O) route will be able to apply for settlement, followed by citizenship after a further 12 months.
We intend to lay the changes to the immigration rules in September with the changes expected to go live in October.
This Government are committed to ensuring those planning to make the UK their home feel fully supported and welcomed when starting their lives here. As with those who have already come to the UK on the BN(O) route, this additional cohort will have access to the provisions available through the UK-wide Welcome programme led by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, which consists of a package of support with up to £43.1 million made available so far.
We look forward to welcoming applications from those individuals who wish to make the UK their home.
[HCWS635]
Disclosure and Barring Regime
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
On 21 July 2021, the Government published their “Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls” strategy. The strategy sets out a raft of measures capturing activity across Government to prioritise prevention, support victims and survivors and ensure perpetrators are brought to justice. The strategy also set out measures to strengthen and ensure the systems and agencies in place both take action to tackle violence against women and girls and work together to do so. This included the commitment that the Home Office would undertake a review of the disclosure and barring regime to provide assurance on its effectiveness in safeguarding the vulnerable. The regime helps employers to make informed and safer recruitment decisions through the disclosure of relevant criminal records. The review will assess the effectiveness of the regime in England and Wales in safeguarding the vulnerable.
I am pleased to announce today that I have appointed Simon Bailey, ex chief constable of Norfolk Constabulary and National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for child protection and abuse investigation, to lead this review. With over 35 years of experience serving with the police and working on those areas to protect those most vulnerable within society, including the creation of a project to change the way the police service responds to vulnerability, exploitation and abuse, Mr Bailey brings with him a wealth of experience and knowledge.
To further support the review I have also appointed Stephen Linehan QC, who holds extensive experience of dealing with victims, witnesses and defendants and has worked on cases related to rape and serious sexual offences, including those involving children, young persons and vulnerable adults. Mr Bailey will also engage with those offering expert knowledge on areas linked to those delivering the regime, a representative of victims and survivors and an independent representative to provide input on policy delivery.
The review will commence immediately and will aim to report to me in the summer of 2022. Its focus will be to identify key issues of concern about the current regime; consider current responses to them; assess and advise on risks and opportunities; and make recommendations for improvement.
I will place a copy of the terms of reference for the review in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS633]
Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation: 2019 Report
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
In accordance with section 36 of the Terrorism Act 2006, Jonathan Hall QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has prepared a report on the operation in 2019 of the Terrorism Acts, which was laid before the House on 23 March 2021.
I am grateful to Mr Hall for his report and have carefully considered the recommendations and observations included within. I am today laying before the House the Government’s response to the report (CP 623). Copies will be available in the Vote Office and it will also be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS634]
Rough Sleeping: Annual Snapshot
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
Today the annual rough sleeping snapshot is published which shows that the number of people estimated to be sleeping rough on a single night in autumn has fallen to an eight-year low and almost halved since 2017, with a reduction of 49%. This year the numbers have fallen by 9%, with falls seen in every region across England.
These figures are the result of remarkable work and dedication from local authorities, charities and other local partners, backed up by significant Government funding and support. This year alone we are investing £800 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping, including £202 million for the rough sleeping initiative which is empowering local areas to deliver tailored local solutions for rough sleeping. It also includes funding for the rough sleeping accommodation programme, which is delivering 6,000 homes for rough sleepers—the biggest ever investment in housing of this kind. We are also investing up to £52 million for rehab and detox services for people with drug or alcohol issues. The statistics released today are proof that this approach is working and is helping thousands of vulnerable people to turn their lives around.
At the local authority level, the three largest decreases are in Westminster, Manchester and Exeter. Westminster faces a significant flow of new rough sleepers to the borough, and has focused on immediate accommodation, triaging cases for support and rapid, effective move on into more settled accommodation. In Manchester, its partnership working alongside an assertive outreach approach has contributed to its reductions in the number of people sleeping rough. Exeter has focused on a flexible off the street offer and has worked to minimise returns to the street. These areas are all fantastic examples of what can be achieved when local partners and local leaders work with central Government to develop ambitious plans. We look forward to seeing further progress in the coming years, particularly through local areas’ rough sleeping initiative 2022 to 2025 plans.
We have also published today further monthly management information for February to December 2021, which shows numbers of people on the street, numbers in emergency accommodation and their nationality, and numbers moved on into settled accommodation. Publishing this additional data provides greater transparency about rough sleeping levels across the year and helps also to track progress in providing individuals with safe accommodation.
Since May 2020, thousands of people have been helped into long-term accommodation. Our figures show that as at the end of December 2021, 40,240 individuals have been supported into long-term accommodation. Both the annual rough sleeping snapshot statistics and the additional management information published today show positive progress and demonstrate the impact of the significant support Government has put in place to support rough sleepers off the streets, including throughout the pandemic.
We want rough sleeping to be prevented wherever possible and, when it does happen, to ensure that rough sleeping is rare, brief and non-recurring. To deliver this we will bring forward a bold, new strategy to end rough sleeping. The strategy will set out how we will ensure rough sleeping is prevented in the first instance and is effectively responded to in the rare cases where it does occur, but also that our police have the ability to intervene where needed and to keep people safe.
We know that we cannot end rough sleeping without a whole system, cross-Government approach, which is why working together is critical to providing individuals with the range of support and services that they need—working with relevant Government Departments, local authorities, police forces, the health sector and the voluntary sector to achieve this. This will be supported by the £2 billion we have committed to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping over the next three years.
Every person brought off the street represents a life that has been turned around, thanks to the dedication and hard work of local partners. This Government are committed to ending rough sleeping, and we will continue to work with local and national partners to achieve this.
[HCWS638]
Machinery of Government: UK-EU Relationship
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Responsibility for the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, including oversight of the implementation of the trade and co-operation agreement and the withdrawal agreement, is being moved to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The transfer of responsibilities to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office aligns the UK’s European strategy and bilateral relationships with the Department’s diplomatic expertise, as we continue to build a new relationship with the EU and its member states as sovereign equals, underpinned by trade, our shared belief in freedom and democracy and co-operation on common global challenges.
[HCWS636]
Grand Committee
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others and to wear a face covering when not speaking. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Building Safety Bill
Thursday 24th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Building Safety Act 2022 View all Building Safety Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 98-III Third marshalled list for Grand Committee - (24 Feb 2022)
Lord Blencathra
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 13 and to speak to Amendments 14 and 15 standing in my name. First, I declare a personal interest in that I am a leaseholder in a block of flats near here which qualifies for remediation work; we may have wooden balconies and other bits and pieces not technically covered.
Quite simply, I have tabled these amendments because I believe that the penalties for big building corporations are ridiculously light. I accept that for the single trader plumber, electrician or brickie, the magistrates’ court might suffice, but I say to my noble friend the Minister that it is preposterous to permit the Persimmon or Berkeley Homes of this world to be taken to a magistrates’ court for breaches of the law and fined a mere £200 per day that the breach continues. Theoretically, a magistrates’ court could impose an unlimited fine for breaches of the amounts imposed, but those amounts are trivial. Contrast that to the Health and Safety Executive, where last year the average fine was £140,000 and it fined the National Grid £4 million. Not a single person was killed in that incident, but the HSE believed that the National Grid’s records were inadequate and fined it £4 million.
In 2019, the Competition and Markets Authority fined three construction firms £25 million, £7 million and £4 million for indulging in a concrete pipe price-fixing ring. In 2021, another two firms were fined £15 million for fixing groundworks contracts—and these companies were not the large, mega housebuilding firms we all know and love. If the CMA can impose those levels of fines on small and medium-sized companies which have not compromised safety, why on earth should we even countenance four construction monoliths—which, in 2020, posted profits of £3.8 billion—getting a fine of £200 per day for breaching building regulations? That is why I believe we need to hit them hard, and the penalty in my amendment is the construction cost of the building they broke the law constructing, and that cost would double for each month that they fail to remedy it.
Let us emulate the CMA, which says:
“In calculating financial penalties … the CMA takes into account a number of factors including the seriousness and duration of the infringement, turnover in the relevant market, any mitigating and/or aggravating factors, deterrence and the proportionality of the penalty relative to each company’s individual circumstances.”
I simply suggest, in conclusion, that if that is the modus operandi of the CMA, it should be the modus operandi when we are tackling huge building firms which have breached building regulations. The big corporations need to be hit hard. Our penalties at the moment may be appropriate for the single plumber and electrician but not for the Berkeley Homes of this world, to name just one. I beg to move.
Lord Best (CB)
In the absence of others, I rise to speak to Amendments 94A, 94B and 97A, which seek to strengthen the hand of the new homes ombudsman. At Second Reading, I congratulated the Government on introducing this new dispute resolution service. I noted just how important it was for consumers to have an accessible and effective means of handling their numerous complaints against shoddy workmanship, building defects and appalling service in rectifying these problems, not least by the oligopoly of volume housebuilders.
My concern has been that the new homes ombudsman will not have sharp enough teeth to deal with these powerful players, and at Second Reading I posed a number of questions to the noble Lord the Minister accordingly. He was able to give me some reassurance on the independence of the new ombudsman from the industry. The housebuilders will be required to fund the ombudsman’s costs and will have a major say on the New Homes Quality Board, which will oversee the ombudsman service and agree the code of practice to be used, but the Minister assured me that the independence of the ombudsman will be preserved.
Subsequently, I have received a lengthy and extremely helpful briefing from the chair of the New Homes Quality Board, Natalie Elphicke MP. From that it is clear that considerable effort has gone into ensuring the genuine independence of the new arrangements from the influences of the housebuilding industry. I am grateful for those reassurances and for other details of the work that has been going on behind the scenes, which I hope will now receive the publicity it deserves.
Only Parliament in statute can endow the ombudsman with legal powers, and two of my amendments before the Committee today are intended to bolster the ombudsman’s jurisdiction to achieve better behaviour by the housebuilders. At present, the Bill makes provision for the ombudsman to make “make recommendations” about changes that developers and housebuilders should make to improve standards of conduct or standards of quality of work where,
“following the investigation of a complaint the ombudsman identifies widespread or regular unacceptable standards of conduct or standards of quality of work”.
This is good stuff, and making recommendations to this end is an admirable task for the ombudsman. However, making recommendations is not the same as placing requirements upon the builders to up their game. Amendments 94A and 94B add a power for the ombudsman to go further and place “improvement requirements” on the members of the scheme—that is on all the builders and developers selling homes, where widespread unacceptable standards of conduct or quality of work are found.
Amendment 97A seeks to strengthen the ombudsman’s hand in another way. At present, the remit of the ombudsman only covers any faults, defects, snagging problems and so on during the first two years after a new-build home is purchased. Certain defects that emerge after two years would be the subject of a claim under the 10-year warranty, which is a compulsory part of the sales process. The trouble with this cut-off of two years for the ombudsman is that the warranties thereafter do not cover all kinds of issues that may not be catastrophic defects but are, none the less, aggravating problems that can cause endless anxiety, annoyance and cost to the purchaser.
One example is that roofs are not covered when properties are converted into new homes. A more commonplace example might be a buyer trying to get a French window repaired or replaced who raises this with the builder within the first few months but does not take it to a formal complaint to the ombudsman until after the two-year time limit is up. Or the buyer has a plumbing problem that gets fixed but returns, gets worse and finally leads to an ombudsman complaint, only to discover that the issue is now too late to be considered.
Amendment 97A would enable the owner to take a complaint to the ombudsman up to six years after the property was first purchased, where the complaint cannot be dealt with under the warranty. It will not be possible to complain about the warranty to the Financial Ombudsman Service, which handles redress in relation to warranty providers, because these warranties do not cover snagging and minor defects. Most warranties are pretty tightly drawn and some are worse than others. There is a strong case for giving the ombudsman the power to insist upon all warranties satisfying proper quality standards.
But specifically in relation to the housebuilders, what the consumer needs is for their complaint about the multiplicity of things that the builder gets wrong to be handled by the new homes ombudsman without the buyer being told that they are out of time. The purchaser may simply have been giving the builder the benefit of the doubt, or the particular defect may not have emerged immediately, or the buyer was just not sure of their rights. Two years is simply not long enough. Six years matches the traditional time for liability in other circumstances, as in the Defective Premises Act. The Legal Ombudsman, for example, will investigate claims up to six years after a relevant incident is reported.
While not detracting from my congratulations to the Government on bringing forward the proposals that will create a much-needed new homes ombudsman service, I believe that these amendments—which would place requirements for better behaviour on all house- builders and support the consumer for six years, instead of two, after their purchase—would sharpen the ombudsman’s teeth and help ensure that the new arrangements can make a real difference to the performance and behaviour of this industry.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, we were waiting for the government Minister to introduce his amendments, so that we can then respond.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
Sorry, my Lords, I am just learning as we go, as they say. I really admire this House because, obviously, this is the day following the night when Ukraine, a sovereign state, was invaded by Russia, and yet the serious business of government continues, as we consider this group of amendments. I always distil groups of amendments into three words or fewer, and I can do this one in two: these are “technical amendments”—it is not that hard really.
Before introducing the government amendments, let me start by saying that I have listened to speeches from two of my favourite speakers—everyone should have favourites. I have known the noble Lord, Lord Best, for some time; let us say that I was in my prime when we first met—a young man, with a future ahead of me—and we went off for a retreat in Windsor Castle, where Richard—the noble Lord—and I thought about big thoughts. I have a lot of sympathy for what the noble Lord said, but I shall read out my speech. However, the bottom line is that he has raised important points about how we can strengthen the new homes ombudsman—indeed, we need to make sure that the complaints process works across all types of housing and all type of tenures.
I should say to the noble Lord that we are probably going to look at this in a different way, so if I come across in any way negative, it is not because I do not agree with him, but we need to find the right vehicle to do this, which is probably, as I said before, through improved warranties. It is an absolute shocker that the warranty system for housing, which is the single biggest expenditure for an individual, is so poor—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has brought up on a number of occasions—and I have met with the warranty providers. We need to ensure that we extend the period of coverage that is available when you buy your own home. The period is slightly longer for public or social housing, where it is 12 years, but it is 10 years for private housing—and that in itself is odd, as these are still homes, whether they are social homes or private homes. So I thank the noble Lord, Lord Best, for his thinking.
My absolute favourite rhetorical speaker is my noble friend Lord Blencathra. To be honest, I always remember to declare my interests because he always starts off by declaring his interests, so I declare all my interests—residential and commercial property interests—as set out in the register. I follow my noble friend in doing that. Also, I love the passion with which he says that, actually, it is important that people who break the law are penalised. Effectively, he is saying that what they have done is a crime and they should pay a lot of money for it, and I completely agree with those sentiments. If I in any way seem to be resisting in my speech, he will know—he has been in government and understands these things—that I am with him in spirit.
I will now speak to my amendments, which are government Amendments 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 27 and 29. These technical amendments make changes to Clause 41 and Schedule 5, to create an information sharing gateway between the regulatory authorities of the building control profession in England and Wales. The information sharing gateway also extends to a person to whom the regulatory authority has delegated registration functions under new Section 58Y.
Some registered building control approvers and building inspectors will operate in both England and Wales. These amendments will ensure that, if the regulatory authority in one nation identifies that a cross-border registered building control approver or building inspector has breached professional conduct or operational standards rules, it can share this information with the regulatory authority of the other nation, if appropriate. The regulatory authority of the other nation may then wish to take investigatory action to discern whether similar breaches are taking place by the same registered building control approver or building inspector in their jurisdiction. These amendments will therefore ensure that regulatory bodies can share information with one another to effectively regulate the building control profession.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Could the Minister slow down a little? I do not know where I am any more. Could he start that group again? I am trying to make some notes on what he is saying.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
I am sorry; I will slow down. Amendment 23 is a drafting change to Clause 52 and should be read alongside Amendment 26, which amends the same section of the Building Act 1984. Amendment 26 is a tidying-up amendment and is consequential on the repeal of Section 16 of the Building Act 1984, provided for by paragraph 20 of Schedule 5.
Amendment 133, to Clause 135, relates to the requirement for a regular, independent review of the building and construction products regulatory system, which must cover the effectiveness of the building safety regulator. This minor amendment defines the regulator’s functions to be covered by this review, using the same definition of those functions as in Part 2 of the Bill.
I turn to government Amendments 21, 25, 30, 41, 42, 61, 138 and 146. They do three things. First, they extend the application of the Building Act and building regulations to work on Crown buildings and by Crown bodies. The Government believe that the ownership of a building should not determine whether the new building safety regime, or building regulations requirements, should apply. There should be a consistent approach in how building safety legislation operates across the whole life cycle of a building.
Parts 2 and 4 of the Building Safety Bill apply to the Crown by virtue of Clause 137. The arrangements during the design and construction stages are being implemented by way of changes to the Building Act and, in due course, through building regulations. To apply the requirements for gateways and the golden thread to Crown buildings, the Building Act and the building regulations will need to be applied to work on Crown buildings. This new clause does that.
There is an uncommenced provision in Section 44 of the Building Act which would allow the substantive requirements of building regulations to be applied to the Crown. The drafting of that section has limitations, however, so we consider it better to start afresh by repealing and replacing Section 44. There are also some necessary exclusions to reflect that the Crown cannot be subject to criminal sanctions.
Secondly, the amendments make provision about the application of the Building Act and building regulations to work on the Palace of Westminster and other buildings on the Parliamentary Estate. At Second Reading, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester asked in his valedictory speech that the building regulations should apply to the restoration of the Palace of Westminster. This change to the Building Act will ensure that happens.
Finally, this new clause provides that if, in future, a building on the Parliamentary Estate came within scope of Part 4 of the Bill, that part would apply, subject to equivalent exclusions to those which affect how the Building Act and building regulations are being applied to the Crown and Parliament. These new sections of the Building Act and the Bill therefore ensure a consistent approach to building safety for Crown and parliamentary buildings.
Finally, I turn to government Amendments 90, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 142 and 143, which relate to the new homes ombudsman provisions and expand them to Northern Ireland. These provisions have already been expanded to Scotland and Wales, so this ensures that new-build home buyers will have improved protection when things go wrong, no matter where they live in the UK.
Amendments 97 and 98 enable the provisions to work practically in Northern Ireland as a consequence of extending the scope of the provisions. Amendments 90, 91, 100, 103, 104, 105 and 106, include consultation requirements so that the Secretary of State must consult the relevant department in Northern Ireland designated by the First Minister or Deputy First Minister acting jointly before exercising powers concerning the scheme, or consult the Executive Office in Northern Ireland when a department has not been designated. The Secretary of State must consult the Northern Ireland Executive before making arrangements for the scheme, before making regulations requiring membership of the scheme, and arranging for that requirement to be enforced, and before a developers’ code of practice is issued, revised or replaced, either by the UK Government or by a third-party scheme provider with the Secretary of State’s approval.
Amendment 99 confers a power on the relevant national authority in Northern Ireland to add to the meaning of the term “developer” in the new homes ombudsman provisions in relation to homes in Northern Ireland, through regulations as appropriate, and following consultation with the other relevant national authorities. Amendments 95 and 96 include provision so that any externally run new homes ombudsman scheme involves the provision of information to the department in Northern Ireland designated by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly.
I hope that your Lordships will be pleased that the government amendments in my name today will help to deliver the effective implementation of the new regulatory regime, as well as providing redress for homeowners across the union.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
After that rapid run-through of about 40 amendments in this group, I shall respond to all of them as follows.
The first three amendments are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and I have to say that I have a lot of sympathy with what he said. Too many times, when new homes are built in the ward where I live and which I represent—and I declare again my interest as a councillor in Kirklees—roads are not completed to adoptable standards, because that is a good way of saving money. You sell the homes and move on quickly, and it is then really hard for enforcement to be effective, especially when the fines imposed are paltry in relation to the costs of enforcement. So I have a lot of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has said, and I hope that the Government could look again at that element of the building safety regime.
The next amendments referred to are those in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, Amendments 94A, 94B and 97A, about the new homes ombudsman. I agree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Best, has said—and the Minister is nodding, so I assume that he does too, and will make changes at Report. That is excellent. It is especially about the issue in relation to Amendment 97A, about extending the time limit to six years. People buy a new home, starry-eyed, and move in—excited, obviously—then one or two snagging issues arise; they try to get them resolved, they fail to do so, time runs out, the two years has gone and they have nowhere to go. So it is an excellent move to extend that to six years.
In my capacity as a local councillor, I have had to try to help people, and I have to say that I have failed, because we did not have these powers in place at the time, to do with people for whom simple things like plumbing was not done adequately. Their kitchens were being flooded out, and nobody would take on the responsibility because their time had run out. So I totally endorse the views expressed, and the hope expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the timeframe for the new homes ombudsman should be six years.
I heard what the Minister said before he introduced his great long list of amendments: that the Government were considering extending the warranties for new homes from 10 years. The trouble with warranties, unless they are really tightly worded, is that developers can find a loophole. You end up with a new home owner on their own trying to get recompense from a powerful business—often a David and Goliath situation and, in this case, David often does not win. That is why I support the move of the noble Lord, Lord Best, to give the new homes ombudsman—him or her; would it not be good if it was a woman?—power to deal with defects in new homes.
That brings us to the many government amendments that the Minister introduced, which he called technical. I always worry when Ministers call amendments technical. It is like saying, “Don’t worry about these. We will rush them through, nobody will notice and you might regret what we have to say.” I am pleased that he was very clear that the building safety regime will apply equally—I hope this is what I heard—to all buildings, regardless of where they are in the UK, be they Crown buildings or, indeed, the Palace of Westminster. I would love to have a discussion about the impact that will have on the restoration project.
Extending the scope of the Bill to include the devolved Governments has been rather rushed over. I have here the Welsh Government’s legislative consent memorandum on the Bill, in which the Senedd says that its consent is required to Clause 126, to which the Government have an amendment, about remediation and redress. I seek from the Minister some explanation that the Government will not ride roughshod over the powers of the Senedd. We have devolved Governments in three parts of the UK, and we need to respect their powers and work with those Governments. I am sure they would work with the Government as long as they do not try to act quickly, not get their consent but try to rush over them. That is no way to work.
I have here a long paper, which I am sure the Minister has seen, which outlines exactly what the Senedd hopes the Government will do. I am sure his civil servants will be able to give him a form of words which will enable me to reassure those of my colleagues who are concerned about Welsh affairs that the Government do not intend to intrude on the powers of the Senedd. With those words, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I will just pick up on one or two things. Before I do so, hearing other people’s declarations of interests, particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, makes me realise that mine on Monday was perhaps a little light, although it is in the register. I am a co-owner of let residential and commercial property, but nothing of the nature of long-leasehold flats—they are all individual houses.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, raises an absolutely crucial point: the magistrates’ court is too small a threat. It does not have the technical knowledge, and I do not believe it has the capacity either, to deal with it. This threat will simply be laughed at. It really has to have much more meat than that, whether it is through the court process—which I am always a little reluctant about—or through what is proposed in the third group of amendments later on, and in particular my amendments, which obviously take a different tack on how to establish liability. I very much support what he said there.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, it has been a very interesting debate so far. I do not intend to prolong it at all but, in relation to the technical amendments, I notice that the Bill is 244 pages long and the Government have published 37 pages of amendments. The Explanatory Notes for the Bill were 250 pages long, but there are none for those 37 pages. The explanation we had today, as I understand it, forms the explanatory notes for these provisions, so I appreciate the Minister jamming in all the information in his speech. It was short in time though obviously heavy in content. I just make the plea that we are doing some really hard stuff here, which has implications, but we have no impact assessment which covers the very substantial matters covered by the Government’s new clauses.
In later groups, I will want to raise some points about what seem consequential circumstances arising from the proposed changes to the legislation in the government amendments. I am just logging the fact that we are quite short of what the Government’s assessment is of the impact of the various changes, both technical and more substantial, which will come before us in our consideration of the remainder of the Bill.
I will comment briefly on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Best, which I strongly support. In fact, I would have put a longer limit than six years. I had a case in my last year as an MP of a terrace of three low-rise houses which burned down, and the fire brigade quickly determined that it was because there were no cavity barriers in those properties. That fire took place 10 years and one month after they had been handed over to the owners, so the company was actually out of its warranty period—never mind whether it could be appealed to any ombudsman or whoever. The Minister is looking at his watch; I agree that it should be longer than 10 years, but I am not proposing to speak for longer than 10 years.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this debate has been really interesting and slightly longer than I was expecting, so it is great to have had so many contributions. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock: we have a lot of sympathy with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his introductory comments were excellent. As we know, non-compliance with building regulations has been a criminal offence under the Building Act for nearly 40 years now. The Bill heavily extends the scope of available power to enforce compliance and/or impose penalties for contraventions, placing much of that power in the hands of the Health and Safety Executive as it establishes the building safety regulator.
We would hope that the building safety regulator takes a more proactive stance to the broad scope of enforcement measures available to it under the Bill, as Dame Judith Hackitt’s public statements have suggested that it will. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that will be the case. But it also has to have the resources and funding to be able to do so; otherwise, the new and extended measures may have a lot of bark but little actual bite. Again, that is why the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, are so important. Furthermore, the key to ensuring building safety going forward will not rest just on sanctions and enforcement; as has been said in the previous debates and at Second Reading, we need a change of culture and attitude.
So, I think the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has brought about a really important discussion with his amendment on enforcement. I was particularly struck by his comments on the differentiation of fines for big corporations—I think he mentioned a fine of £140,000 for a breach—compared to that of millions for the National Grid on a breach that would not likely have had the impact on life that the breaches of the building corporations could have. To me, that really strikes at the heart of this. It is an extraordinary anomaly, and I hope the Minister will look at that, because we have a very different reaction to different kinds of breaches of law.
Again, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best, have had a lot of support in the debate today. I add our support too, because these are really important things to speak about, and he did so very eloquently at Second Reading when he talked about the need to confront housebuilders’ defective workmanship and the dreadful consumer or customer service we too often see when they are responding to entirely justified complaints by home buyers. So, along with him and others, we think it is good news that, with this Bill, the Government are bringing in an ombudsman to whom the home purchaser will be able to turn. That is long overdue.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Best, drew attention in his introduction and his amendments to the fact that there is no point having an ombudsman unless it is genuinely going to make a real difference. As he said in his introduction, customers and purchasers need an accessible means of redress. Too often it is too difficult to jump through all the different hoops you need to go through in order to get any kind of response or result from ombudsmen. We also agree with his concerns that the new ombudsman may not have enough teeth. I am particularly interested in what the Minister has to say on this area; it would be extremely helpful if he could give us reassurance on this, because we need to make sure that the ombudsman’s jurisdictions are going to make a proper difference to this.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who referred to when he was a Member of Parliament. When I was a Member of Parliament, this kind of issue used to come up pretty regularly, unfortunately—and pretty regularly with certain developers, who I will not name in Committee today. For them to have had this kind of redress would have been hugely helpful.
Moving on to the government amendments, I first thank the Minister for agreeing to slow down, because an enormous number of government amendments landed in our laps after 10 February while we were in Recess. It is a lot to take in and get your head around in quite a short amount of time. I wanted to listen carefully to the Minister’s introduction on this because of that point, so I thank him for slowing down and taking that time.
I just wanted to make a few small points. We very much welcome the amendments around information sharing. It is really good news that it will be easier for people to share information about those who commit serious breaches in building safety. That is important.
Another matter relates to the different amendments on the devolved Administrations. To reiterate what the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, it is important that we respect and work closely with those Administrations when we bring forward legislation. It is therefore good to see those amendments and that the Government are doing so. It would be good for that to continue as we deal with other new amendments during the passage of the Bill. It was also interesting to get clarification on what is happening with the Crown Estate and to know that this building and all the repairs will be part of this new system.
However, as the Minister said in his introduction, these amendments are mainly technical and I appreciate his time in introducing them. I hope that he will be sympathetic to the points made regarding the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Best and Blencathra.
Lord Thurlow (CB)
Forgive me butting in at the end but before the Minister responds, I thought that I should make a further point in connection with the amendments of the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Best.
It is a reminder that the property development industry, when undertaking projects of blocks of flats or groups of houses—projects of medium size upwards—used to employ a clerk of the works. I am not sure whether it has been a mandatory appointment within the chain of building command, but the clerk of the works was defined as someone onsite who inspected workmanship, its quality, the safety of the work being done and, importantly, reported to senior managers and clients.
Inevitably, lack of mandatory appointment requirements and fewer and fewer clerks of works on projects led to shortcuts and poor workmanship. A clerk of the works might cost between £50,000 and £100,000 a year. For the employer, that could be significantly more, given all the on-costs. On many projects, that adds up to millions of pounds,. So of course those appointments became redundant in the eyes of the bean counters. That simply underlines the importance of the ombudsman’s role, its independence from the industry in absolute terms and the period of time limitations within which claims can be brought.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, I had not thought that this debate would take quite so long, but it has been worth listening to every second of every minute. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for that late intervention because we have unlearned a lot of the practices that led to a higher quality of build. We would not be in the mess we were in if we had not unlearned some of the things that we did so well during the Victorian period, when there was a way of building using pattern books. Everything was essentially a process, which the Edwardians developed further. Somewhere along the line we have lost that desire to build quality. Just imagine if the Romans came back from the dead to look at what we were building over the past 30 years in the 90s, the noughties and the 10s. They would be absolutely appalled at the standard of build. They did not build their temples to last 10 or 15 years but centuries. We have got to learn that quality of our built environment matters. I thank noble Lords for raising some of their points.
One of the objectives of the Bill is not just to create a regulatory system that works but to raise the competence of an industry that has cut corners and, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, effectively gamed the system. We have to get back to the culture around quality, competence and professionalism. That will take not just legislation but an attitude of mind.
I start by responding directly to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, around impact assessments. He is absolutely right. The government amendments came thick and fast. My entire weekends have been ruined since the beginning of the year, working at pace as we approved a plethora of amendments. It is fair to say that the sheer pace of this has meant that it has not been possible to look entirely at the impact. We just know that they are the right lines, and the impacts will be looked at in due course—my response says, “We are looking at the impact of the government amendments and will publish an assessment in due course.” We have been working very fast to get this right in the time we have, and we thought it was very important that we were ready to have these discussions in Committee of government amendments before we get to the even more serious business of Report.
I shall respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, about Clause 126 and intruding on the powers of the Senedd. We have worked closely with the Welsh Government across all areas of the Bill to develop and agree measures that work for England and Wales. The Welsh Government have agreed the measures applying to Wales and we expect legislative consent in due course.
I have had a number of ministerial meetings with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations, and there are lessons to be learned from the Welsh approach to the building safety crisis—and, indeed, from my Scottish and Northern Ireland colleagues—on this issue. It affects all our nations in this great United Kingdom, and we have a constant dialogue as we grapple with it, but it is fair to say that the lion’s share of the problem lies in our big cities here in England. That is not to say that we are not learning from the Welsh and others, and of course we will not ride roughshod over them. I hope that gives the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Hayman of Ullock, some reassurance.
I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for bringing forward his amendments, which are clearly aimed to impose greater punishment on those who breach building regulations. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, for mentioning a breach of the regulations, probably around the time when my noble friend Lord Young was the Housing Minister. I do not know whether he was responsible for the 1984 building regulations—he was. We have the living history in the Room, in the person who brought them forward. Do you know what I was doing in 1984? I was doing my A-levels, and here we have the Minister who brought forward the building regulations in 1984. That is the kind of place we have: people with decades of understanding of these issues.
It is a crime to breach building regulations. If you commit a crime in this country, there is no statute of limitations—I know that from being Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime—so people can go after you after any period. I have huge sympathy for the intent behind there not being a short period of time, and it is important that we recognise that breaches of building regulations are criminal; that cannot be said often enough. I thank the noble Baroness for raising that again, and the Government have sympathy, but I fear we are unable to accept my noble friend’s proposals, as I intimated in my opening speech.
Looking first at Amendment 13, we consider that the changes are unnecessary for a couple of reasons. First, for some years now, the magistrates’ courts have had the power to impose unlimited fines—and fines are, of course, the principal punishment available in respect of corporate bodies, which are most likely to be in a position to commit the offence of breaching building regulations.
Secondly, it will not have escaped your Lordships’ notice that significant backlogs have developed in the Crown Court over the past two years as Covid protocols have been introduced. The costs to the courts service, the prosecution and the defence are also far higher in the Crown Court.
As was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, it is quite possible for the building regulations to be breached in a relatively minor way. In such cases, it would be entirely appropriate for the case to be dealt with by the magistrates. It is, of course, also possible for breaches to be extremely serious, which is why the Bill for the first time allows cases to be dealt with in the Crown Court, in the same way as crimes are dealt with: sometimes in the magistrates’ court, sometimes in the Crown Court. However, we do not consider that it would be sensible to require all breaches of the building regulations to be dealt with in the Crown Court.
Turning to Amendment 14, I say to my noble friend that I agree with increasing the daily rate of fine for ongoing offences. Indeed, the Bill already increases the daily rate from £50—where it has been since 1984, when I am sure it was set by my noble friend Lord Young, when £50 was a considerably greater sum of money than it is today—to £200, which is the current rate for a level 1 fine. However, we consider that increasing it further to £2,500, as my noble friend proposes, “would be disproportionate”—that is what it says here, anyway.
The principal aim of the prosecution must be to impose an initial fine commensurate to that particular offence; any further fine should merely encourage work to be put right, rather than imposing huge additional punishment. We consider the potential maximum of £5,600 for the month of February is likely to be significantly more proportionate on top of the fine imposed on conviction, rather than the £70,000 proposed by my noble friend.
On Amendment 15, imposing a sentence according to a mathematical formula raises a number of issues. First, the cost of the work done will not always be clear; there may be disputes about the cost in the invoice or the value of the work actually done, and resolving this would take up the court’s valuable time. Secondly, the court might consider that, in a particularly egregious case, a significantly higher fine is required than one that would be arrived at from the calculation. The amendment would preclude the court from imposing that higher fine. Finally, the provision in the amendment to enable the court to impose rapidly escalating further fines, if the breach remains unresolved, has the potential to lead to significant unfairness—as, for example, a £10,000 initial fine could total up to £70,000 if a breach remained unresolved for just two months after conviction.
As I said at the start of my remarks, while I am supportive of my noble friend’s amendments, I hope that with this explanation he will be content not to press them. I reiterate that I absolutely sympathise, and want to go with the nature of this—but that is the response to the amendments as tabled today. I thank my noble friend for laying the amendments for us to think them through and debate them extensively.
Before turning to the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about strengthening the teeth of the new homes ombudsman, it is important to reflect that there has to be a little bit of work done to tidy up the whole approach to the ombudsman’s service for people in housing. I asked my colleagues behind me to list the number of people who provide a complaints service for people in different types of homes and tenures. We have the new homes ombudsman, which will be unleashed for new build, but we also, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, will know, have the Regulator of Social Housing and—my old colleague at City Hall, Rick Blakeway—the Housing Ombudsman Service, and we have the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. Homes are homes, and we need to think about how we get a complaints service that works for homes in the round. I know that we can categorise social housing as being over here, and people in private renting over there, but these are people’s homes. We need to recognise that, at the moment, it is a patchwork quilt of services that provide that whole ombudsman service, and that is not ideal. I wanted to put that forward—that, when discussing this subject, we are talking about new-build private homes and not housing in the round.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best. I thank him for raising this important matter, but I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept these amendments, as the intention can be achieved elsewhere. The Bill sets out requirements for the ombudsman scheme to include provision about what home buyers can complain to the ombudsman about in individual cases, and making improvement recommendations about scheme members’ quality of work and conduct in general. The developers’ code of practice allows the standards of conduct and standards of quality of work expected of members of the scheme to be set out.
The noble Lord’s amendments would provide the ombudsman with powers to make general requirements of the scheme’s members, duplicating provisions already in the Bill. It is unclear how they could be enforced or appealed against, and we must be careful that the ombudsman does not duplicate the role of regulators, the scheme provider or Parliament. The Bill includes provision for complaints to the ombudsman within two years of the first acquisition of the new-build property, which aligns with the developer liability period under most new-build warranties. I was shocked to find out that within a warranty it is for the first two years that developer liability is covered; the rest is covered through some form of warranty or insurance scheme to 10 years in private housing or 12 years in social or public housing. It is in this period that issues are much more likely to be raised in relation to snagging or the home-buying process. We believe that the proposal to extend this to six years would be unnecessary and would introduce a new unknown burden on members of the scheme. But I assure noble Lords that home buyers will retain their existing rights to seek redress in law and elsewhere in this Bill. With this reassurance, I hope that the noble Lord will be content not to press his amendments, and the Government will continue to consider how and where practices in this area could be improved.
I did say—if I may go a little bit further on that note —that we need to think about warranties, but we should also remember the Defective Premises Act, which has a statute of limitations of only six years. We are proposing to extend that prospectively to 15 years, hoping that there will be a culture change and a stronger regulatory environment, and 15 years is a reasonable timeframe to expect to seek redress—and then, retrospectively, 30 years. I am having those discussions and debates with my colleagues and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, because I consider breaches of regulations, even going back 25 or 28 years, as a crime. It is a crime to breach building regulations, and there should be no statute of limitations for some of the crimes that we have seen, where we are putting flammable materials on the outside of the buildings, not having compartmentalisation, and having inadequate fire stopping, or fire doors that do not act as fire doors. All that I consider to be essentially breaches of building regulations, and we need to go after the perpetrators. But that is for another group of amendments—for the perpetrator pays or polluter pays—in due course.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, as an aside, I was going to say that we are sitting in a bit of a chilly draught here, but then I reflected on what it is like for those people in blocks of flats which have had all the external cladding ripped off, leaving nothing between them and minus 5 degrees outside but a thin plasterboard wall. That is why it is important to get this Bill through and tackle that problem as soon as possible.
I am in complete agreement with my noble friend the Minister on the quality of Roman architecture. My favourite place to visit in the border country is the Housesteads military fort on Hadrian’s Wall, where the best-preserved part is the latrines in the bottom corner. To see that the Romans, 2,000 years ago, had running hot water in their toilets and latrines is an eye-opener—for many buildings in this country, we have still not caught up with hot running water in the toilet facilities.
I floated my amendments to suggest that corporate developers should in all cases be tried on indictment, with massive fines for infractions. We have all heard the expression “damned with faint praise”, but never in all my experience in Parliament have my amendments been damned with such lavish praise. My noble friend basically said, “Blencathra, you’re an absolute genius; your amendments are wise and right. We’re with you all the way; let’s hit them hard—but I still ain’t going to do it.”
I accept that there will be cases where the magistrates’ courts should have a say. I was putting in a more absolutist position. However, if the magistrates’ courts continue to have a role—as I accept—proper guidance must be issued to them through the judicial standards board, or whatever it is called. Massive fines should be imposed in those circumstances where they are deserved. As I have said, the HSE and the CMA seem to have managed to persuade courts to slap on big fines. Perhaps for local authorities it is a culture thing or, for the magistrates’ courts, breaching building regulations does not matter so much—there may be some cultural problems there, but we must cut through them and, if we keep the magistrates’ courts, make sure that guidance slaps on heavy fines.
My amendments are not as important as those from the noble Lord, Lord Best. I was impressed by his speech; I would accept my noble friend rejecting my amendments, but I think he is wrong to reject the noble Lord’s amendments, because what he asked for is eminently sensible and should not cause the Government any problems. What is the point of having a power to make recommendations if they can be ignored? Placing an obligation on builders to make improvement requirements is the only logical step. As he said, it must be beefed up—and if you beef something up, then it needs more teeth.
I also like his Amendment 97A. He made an impeccable case for it and I fail to see why the Government have rejected it—it just moves it from two to six years. Five years into my brand-new block of flats, I found a leak in the plumbing where the washbasin was. Eventually, I managed to separate the very posh fake marble frontage from it and found, in my inexpert experience, that a one-and-a-half-inch pipe had been stuck into a two-inch pipe and sealed with a bit of silica. I thought, “This ain’t right”. The developer said, “That is how we do it in the trade—nothing to worry about.” I thought, “I’m not having this”, so I hired at my own cost a plumbing expert consultant, who came in, looked at it, sucked his teeth and sent me a report saying that it should be a special reduction joint XYZ. I went back to the developer, served a notice that I would go to the county court with £200 of my own legal costs, and gave them the consultant’s report and the repair I wanted.
Because it was me, and I had the muscle and clout to do it, the developer coughed up immediately, refixed the whole thing and paid all the cost. But I have a unique position as a Member of this House, with the ability to make that threat. Most leaseholders cannot. That is why they go the ombudsman, who must have a longer period than two years to sort out these problems. I am not sure whether the noble Lord will bring it back on Report, but I say to my noble friend that there is no skin off the Government’s nose in conceding the noble Lord’s amendments.
However, returning to my Amendment 13, I will not go back to this on Report and beg leave to withdraw it.
Baroness Pinnock
“(4A) Conditions under subsection (4)(b) must specify standard qualifications and compulsory and regular training for registered building inspectors.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for standard qualifications and compulsory and regular training for registered building inspectors.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, in his response just now the Minister talked about raising the competence of the construction industry and improving the quality of the built environment. This set of amendments, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell, does precisely that. The focus is on improving consideration of the independence, qualifications and training of those with the critical responsibility of certifying that construction is in compliance with both building regulations and the approved plans. You would think that concentrating on this element of reform of a failed system would be given importance but, unfortunately, in the clauses we have in the Bill it has not been given the prominence it deserves, which has resulted in the amendments I am speaking to now.
Amendment 16 seeks to finally end the changes made by the Building Act 1984 and the approved inspectors regulations. This Act established approved inspectors. Prior to the 1984 Act, all building inspectors were local authority employees. Of course, there were failings with that system; I am not here to say that having all building inspectors under the aegis of the local authority was perfect—it was not. What was introduced—although with good intention, I am sure—has developed into what can be an unhealthily cosy relationship between constructor and inspector. It permits development companies to appoint their own approved inspector, who has to notify the local authority initially and then submit a certification to the local authority when the building works are completed.
The removal of dangerous cladding has in some cases exposed serious defects in construction. Of course, these were because constructors failed to comply with building regulations and the approved plans. Nevertheless, building inspectors had certified these buildings as compliant when they were not. This Bill is the opportunity to make detailed changes to ensure that this situation, in which buildings are signed off as compliant when they are not, does not happen again.
The dual system of building inspectors that currently exists is a key issue. There is a lack of accountability for the decisions made by inspectors. This lack of direct accountability is the very issue that runs through the Hackitt report. At the moment, even if the local authority receives reports of problems associated with a construction site, local authority building inspectors are forbidden by law from investigating and providing an independent check. The simple fact that developers contract their own building inspectors provides a culture in which precise and exact compliance can be ignored.
Change is essential if this Bill is to achieve what it states are the aims, which we are all here to support—better building safety. The Minister has often talked about the tools in his toolbox. I want him to tell me that he will use one of the tools he constantly refers to: recovering the certification documents for the buildings where there have been breaches of building regulations at the time of construction. If he does, we will find out which building inspectors, or the companies to which they belong, have signed off as compliant buildings which painfully obviously were not. Building inspection companies have a liability in this building safety crisis, and they need to be held accountable as well as all the other elements of the construction business we are referring to.
Then there needs to be a radical change to the accountability of building inspectors, both public and private. Private inspections can no longer expect to be free of public oversight, and it will be helpful to hear from the Minister how the accountability of the building inspection regime is expected to operate and how effective it will be.
So, I have covered the duality of the building inspection control system as it currently is and how I hope it will be improved. The other amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Stunell seek to have on the face of the Bill agreed and standard qualifications with consequent and regular compulsory training to ensure that all inspectors have knowledge of new building materials and how these operate in connection with other construction elements. Again, this issue of the relationship of materials in construction and retaining the integrity of the building has been cruelly exposed by the Grenfell tragedy.
Finally, building safety absolutely depends on a highly skilled workforce. Over the years, various Governments have reduced resources to organisations that are able to train and improve the skills of the construction workforce. I will give just one example: further education colleges have had funding slashed and, consequently, courses closed down. This is a short- term approach, so my Amendment 136 will require the Government of the day to publish regular assessments of the current state of the construction industry workforce in order that the aims of the Building Safety Bill can be achieved. With those comments, I beg to move Amendment 15A.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, so I invite her to speak now.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Fire Safety and Rescue Group and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I support all the amendments in this group in the names of my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Stunell.
In his response to the previous group and to some groups on the first day of Committee, the Minister rightly said how shocking some of the revelations have been to him, to us and to many others as more systemic failures have been uncovered, and how far too many people were able to refuse to take responsibility for their role in the problems.
Along with other parliamentarians, I heard Dame Judith Hackitt speaking on a number of occasions during and after her review, and I have also read her Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety—both the interim and the final reports. Her foreword to the final report published in 2018, which she describes as a personal view, is extremely powerful as a summary to the cultural and regulatory structures in the built environment sector and explains exactly why the amendments in this group are so necessary.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, we will also hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will be brief and I, too, wish to speak to the amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Stunell. I strongly support them.
At Second Reading, I commented on the large number of people who are going to be accountable for the safety of buildings when the new regime comes into force. My main concern was around the person described as the “principal accountable person” because I felt that that person had just about everything to do with the safety of buildings and that that responsibility would rest on that person’s shoulders. I was interested in the comments of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Chartered Institute of Building, which stated that the industry did not yet have qualified individuals who could undertake such incredibly important and probably statutory duties that the position would necessitate. Perhaps I may therefore ask the Minister what the Government are going to do to help the industry find those people and how they propose to go about training them with the necessary skills that will be required.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I obviously support what my noble friend Lady Pinnock said in relation to the training and independence of building inspectors. That is perhaps the most obvious of the necessities which we now know exist, as far as plugging the gaps in the current regime is concerned.
I want to focus my remarks on Amendments 116 and 119A, where mine is the lead name and which deal with fire risk assessors. We have never had before, in capital letters, something called “Fire Risk Assessors”. There is no such profession and this will clearly be a significant gap, which has to be filled very quickly if we are to achieve the aims of the Bill. We know that, right across the industry, there are shortages of skills, qualifications and competence. Above all, there is a shortage of capacity. One problem that I know the Minister has had to confront is that it has been difficult to get effective surveys of high-risk buildings because the people have not been available to do them. There are no such people, or at least insufficient people, with the right competences, skills and so on to do so.
I do not know whether the Committee will have seen the reports of the fire risk assessment that was done in advance of the Grenfell fire. The housing association had a fire risk assessor and he made a fire risk assessment. It turned out that he was a firefighter but not qualified in fire risk assessment. In order to secure the job, he had manufactured a set of initials which were accepted by the housing association as proof of his skill and capacity to assess fire risks. This is reported in the public evidence sessions of the Grenfell inquiry. It was further revealed that he was commissioned not just to assess the Grenfell Tower; he was commissioned by the housing association to be its risk assessor for the whole of the housing stock of that organisation.
That is where the importance of having a register becomes immediately apparent. You need a register of qualified people for two reasons, which overlap: first, you are not allowed to practise as an assessor unless you are on that register; secondly, as a purchaser of the skills of fire assessment, for instance a housing association, you need to be sure that the person who offers you a cheap deal to do some quick fire assessment work is somebody who is qualified, prepared and competent to do so. Amendment 116 is trying to establish clearly in the Minister’s mind the need to make this process of regulation transparent, with a publicly published register. We are obviously probing at this point, but I hope the Minister can give us some satisfaction that, if not in the Bill then in parallel with it, these matters will be dealt with.
What I have said about fire assessors may be the most dramatic and acute of the problems, but the building control function was of course also exposed as woefully insufficient in the case of the Grenfell Tower. Bearing in mind that it was a local authority building control function being exercised, it is also true that the person who was the responsible officer did not once visit that tower to make an inspection. It was purely from a desk study of drawings which had been provided to him. There is clearly a tremendous gap. Even when somebody is appointed to do a job, they may not have either the skills or competences, or they may not have the attention span or the time, to give effective service to the cause of fire safety. I hope very much to hear from the Minister that he takes these matters to heart and has in mind finding a way of establishing how this can be put right.
Our Amendment 119A is about training of fire assessors on the same basis as the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, moved on the training of building inspectors. Every one of the professionals engaged in this fire safety regime needs to be a qualified and competent person. That is so obvious that it hardly needs to be said, but at the moment we are woefully short of the number of people we need. Indeed, it has already been referenced that the RICS and others have pointed out that, at the moment, there are not enough people with the competencies to step forward if the Bill comes into force as the Minister intends.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am very sympathetic to this group of amendments, but I have a number of queries that perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, might address, just because I am not quite sure about them. One of the points just made is that a large number of people will be accountable —it seems to me to grow every time I look at the Bill. Although I understood what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, meant about the bonfire of bureaucracy, regulations and so on, there is always a danger that we are creating layer upon layer of bureaucracy and accountable people. I shall be moving some amendments later to this effect.
For now, it is obviously the case that we need qualified people involved in this, but, as has been described, there are so many new roles that the qualifications do not even exist. I am concerned about including in the Bill that you need to have the qualifications to do the role when the qualification does not exist. What does that mean? Will that hold up the process?
I am also concerned about saying that training is “compulsory”. I am concerned for the professional autonomy and integrity of those who are already involved in this area. I do not know whether legislation is the right way to go. However, it would be useful to understand from the Minister what he anticipates will happen. It cannot be, as it were, just any old Joe Bloggs given the role. Will attention be paid to talking to the professionals who already run practice qualifications in universities and further education? How will the Government manage the fact that they are creating all these new jobs with no attention, it seems, to how the qualifications will be awarded or who will give them? That is where I am very sympathetic to the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in having a register, but I am not quite sure that the amendment does it.
I am nervous, perhaps because I used to be involved in education, about another government demand on education that ends up giving people a lot of work to do when there is no capacity to do it, so it will just be a shoddy box-ticking qualification that will not mean very much. That is my concern, while being sympathetic in general.
Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in particular to the amendments in this group in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, who have made excellent contributions. I intend to be concise and brief, because the noble Baroness introduced them in an eloquent and comprehensive manner, which was followed up by subsequent speakers.
These amendments are much needed, and it is disappointing that these matters have not already been taken into account by the Government in the Bill. The new clause in Amendment 116 would require building owners and accountable persons, about whom I shall ask a question shortly, to verify the competencies of fire assessors before appointing them to conduct the fire safety assessments required by the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the 1984 legislation and, prior to that, local authority employees. The cosy relationship between building constructors, developers and inspectors is really concerning. That needs to change.
These are serious concerns. Look at Grenfell, where numerous people lost their lives, and subsequent fires in high-rise and other buildings. The system is broken. Serious construction defects are there, and there have been failures in not detecting bad buildings. Building regulations have failed. That is criminal, as my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock pointed out on the previous group. We cannot have buildings signed off as safe when clearly they are not. Developers choosing building inspectors—a point the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned—cannot be a way forward. We have to all be singing from the same hymn sheet; that is what Amendment 116 talks about.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I will first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Khan, and say that I agree with absolutely everything he said. This Bill is about not signing off unsafe building as has happened in the past. It is about having a toolbox filled with tools to fix the issues we have in the building sector at the moment, particularly with high-risk buildings.
I also agree with the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. I have heard my noble friend the Minister say this over and over again: it is about not just processes but cultural change within the whole system. With those opening remarks, to begin with I will just go through a few specifics before I get into my speaking notes, which I have just been given to do and which I have to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris and Lady Fox, asked, rightly, where the approved inspectors and fire risk assessors will come from. Those inspectors are an established professional group; there are many already operating in the sector—but obviously, as things change in that sector, they will have to be retrained and updated to work within the new system. With the fire risk assessors, we are working in the sector already to help to improve their capacity and competences, and contributing at this moment to two industry-led workstreams that are working on this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about where you can check about the completion of certificates. It is a muddled system—we know that—and that is why we aim for all documentation for buildings, including all completion certificates from construction to occupation, to be in a golden thread of information. We have legislated for this in the Bill, and further details on that will come out in secondary legislation.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, also brought up the issue of registers. Details of approved inspectors’ final certificates must be placed on registers held by local authorities, but we are also looking at a proposal for a national register of those inspectors, which will help the system no end. It is going to cost money; we are going to retrain people with different skills. There is money from government—nearly £700,000 in funding—to train more assessors, because we know that we will need them, but also to speed up that system for valuers and the EWS1 forms required. Training will provide competent professionals with the skills that they need for the up-and-coming changes, particularly those outlined in the Fire Safety Act 2021. So we are looking at capacity to do all these things.
I shall go through and respond to each amendment. First, on Amendments 15A and 16A, I think we are all looking for the same outcomes—it is about how we do that, and which tools we use. So there will be some decisions, but what is important in these debates is that we are all learning from each other about what might be the best solution, and we will continue as a Government to look at what has been said in these debates.
We are introducing a new framework for oversight of the performance of building control bodies, and a new professional framework for registered building control approvers and registered building inspectors, for their work on all buildings. This framework includes the registration of both building control approvers and building inspectors. We expect the building safety regulator will specify relevant skills, knowledge, experience and behaviours as part of registration, and require continual professional development to be undertaken, but we consider it important to give it the flexibility to choose how to incorporate these areas operationally, rather than be restricted by having a specific requirement for standard qualifications and compulsory training set out in primary legislation. We are also concerned that standard qualifications may be read as examinations, which may make it harder to recognise and value experimental learning. On this basis, I would ask that the noble Lord does not press his amendment.
On Amendment 16, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the Government are introducing a new framework for oversight of the performance of building control bodies and a new professional framework for all building control bodies, including registered building inspectors, for their work on all buildings. The building safety regulator will drive improvements in building safety by overseeing the performance of building inspectors and building control bodies through a robust professional and regulatory regime. This will include setting codes of conduct and competence, including for registered building inspectors, and operational standards rules defining the minimum performance standards that building control bodies, which will employ or use registered building inspectors, must meet.
To achieve this, the building safety regulator needs the flexibility to frame such codes and standards in the way it thinks best, and to adapt them over time as required. This would be hampered by specifying part of the content of the code in primary legislation, as this amendment suggests. However, we expect future codes of conduct to address conflicts of interest explicitly, just as the existing code for approved inspectors does already.
I turn to Amendment 116 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. I thank them for shining a light on the important issue of the competency of fire risk assessors, as they did when the Fire Safety Bill was being debated. However, I am afraid the Government will not be able to accept the amendment.
The fire safety order 2005 requires any person who has control in premises to take reasonable steps to reduce the risk from fire and make sure people can safely escape if there is one. The order applies to virtually all premises and covers nearly every type of building, structure and open space. To give noble Lords a sense of scale, this includes approximately 1.7 million residential buildings and all offices, shops, hospitals, schools, pubs, restaurants, factories and warehouses in England and Wales.
Given the scope of the fire safety order, it is important that we retain the ability for the responsible person to carry out their own fire risk assessment, particularly in small or low-risk premises, using the guidance and support available so that they can make their premises safe from fire. In some circumstances, the responsible person will be best placed to identify the potential causes of fire, the people and the risks and to take action. They can take ownership and have the ability to take quick action.
I will give noble Lords an example: a small gift shop with a simple layout, such as one floor, and a limited risk in relation to fire. With a small number of employees and visitors to the premises, a responsible person could undertake the fire risk assessment themselves—this is because there is no sleeping accommodation, no hazardous processes taking place and no cooking processes—using the published guidance to address fire safety measures.
If we require fire risk assessments to be undertaken in every case by a registered fire risk assessor, we risk two very significant downsides. First, on capacity, we know that there is a limited number of competent fire safety professionals, as we have spoken about, and that demand for fire risk assessors outstrips supply. A register would risk creating a bottleneck, which could result in a delay in responsible persons undertaking or updating a fire risk assessment. This could mean that fire hazards would not be identified or mitigating action taken. It could also distract competent professionals away from premises of higher risk.
Secondly, on cost, in some low-risk premises it will be restrictive to require responsible persons either to appoint a fire risk assessor from the register or to ensure that they themselves are on the register. It could mean that fire safety outcomes are reduced, where they could meet the responsibility of the requirements of the fire safety order themselves without the requirement to register or appoint a registered assessor.
It is vital to ensure that those appointed to undertake fire risk assessments are competent. I assure noble Lords that the Government’s intention to enhance competence has been met in the Bill with the amendment to the fire safety order to require that the responsible person must not appoint a person to assist them with making or reviewing a fire risk assessment unless that person is competent. That amendment will also include—
Lord Stunell (LD)
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have understood her line of argument very clearly, but she seems to be saying that it would still be lawful for that housing association in Kensington to have appointed an unqualified person. Is that exactly what she is saying, or not—or will higher-risk buildings have a more stringent requirement for fire safety assessors?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
No, what I am saying is that a higher-risk building, or any building which has certain issues, will need a qualified fire risk assessment. What I am also saying is that those people cannot subcontract or have anybody working with them who is not competent as well. In the case of Kensington and Chelsea, and Grenfell, they would no longer be able to have somebody who is not competent and does not have the relevant qualifications to do that fire risk assessment. I have seen with my own eyes where that has been done in the past. Does that make sense? I shall make sure that the noble Lord gets it in writing, so that he is clear, and I shall put it in the Library.
That amendment will also include a definition of the competence that is required—which I think also answers the noble Lord—and we will issue guidance to support responsible persons in identifying a competent fire risk assessor. Significant work has been done by the industry-led Competence Steering Group, the working group for fire risk assessors. Industry continues to lead and develop the work in relation to competence for the sector and has developed a centralised list of professionals where a responsible person can identify a competent fire risk assessor to assist them in undertaking a risk assessment. There is also further work taking place by the sector to develop a fire risk assessor industry competence standard. Again, I think that is very important.
I move on to Amendment 119A. We have had a lot of interest shown in the training and qualification of fire risk assessors. The fire safety order requires that the responsible person must make a suitable and sufficient assessment of the risks to which relevant persons are exposed for the purpose of identifying the general fire precautions they need to take. A responsible person can undertake that assessment themselves using guidance to help them do so if they have the requisite level of competence, and this is generally what happens in relation to buildings that are simple by design. When buildings are more complex—and I think that here we are probably getting to a better answer to the noble Lord’s question—responsible persons will often choose to appoint a fire risk assessor to undertake the assessment on their behalf. Fire risk assessors come from a range of professional backgrounds, and it is quite often the case that they themselves need to seek input from other professionals with specialist knowledge when undertaking a fire risk assessment on more complex buildings.
When a responsible person does appoint a fire risk assessor to complete the fire risk assessment, it is of course vital that they ensure that person has an appropriate level of competence. That is why we are introducing a requirement, through Clause 129 in the Bill, to the effect that the responsible person must not appoint a person to assist them in making or reviewing a fire risk assessment unless that person is competent. Clause 129 also includes a definition of the competence that is required, and we will issue guidance to support responsible persons in identifying competent fire risk assessors. We are also working closely with the professional bodies in the fire safety sector to consider capacity and capability issues in relation to fire risk assessors, and work is already being taken forward through the industry-led Competence Steering Group fire risk assessor sub-committee to develop a fire risk assessor competency standard.
I am clear that the initiatives I have set out represent the most effective approach to further professionalising the fire risk assessor sector at this time, and it is right that this work continues to be led by industry. I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for raising these important issues, but I must ask them at this point not to press their amendments.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her final amendment in this group, Amendment 136. I am happy to reassure her that the Government believe that this amendment duplicates many of the existing provisions in the Bill. Clause 10 requires the building safety regulator to establish the industry competence committee and provide support as necessary. The committee’s activities could include overseeing and monitoring the industry’s development of competence frameworks and training, undertaking analysis to understand areas that need improvement and working with industry to drive gap-filling. We expect the committee to provide reports of its work to the regulator periodically.
As a precursor to the statutory committee, the Health and Safety Executive has already established an interim industry competence committee, which is developing its strategy and work plan for supporting the industry’s work, including looking to understand its current competence landscape. It is for the industry to lead the work to improve competence, identify skills and capacity gaps and provide appropriate training to upskill its members for the new regime, and it has already started this work. Training and certification of competent professionals is not a function of government or the regulator under the Bill. We and the Health and Safety Executive will continue to monitor the industry’s progress and provide support where necessary.
Clause 135 legislates for the appointment of an independent person to carry out a periodic review of the system of regulation for building safety and standards and the system of regulation for construction products. The review will act to ensure the functioning of the systems and provide recommendations for improvement. The review must consider the building safety regulator and the system of regulation established by Parts 2 and 4 of the Bill and the Building Act 1984. However, the independent reviewer is not limited and may review connected matters at any time. An independent reviewer must be appointed at least once every five years, although the Secretary of State can appoint a reviewer more regularly if necessary. By ensuring that the report must be published, the Government have created a system of public accountability in building safety.
When defining “independent”, we have struck a balance that excludes those with a clear conflict of interest without overreaching and excluding everyone with relevant experience. This clause will help to protect the integrity of the system and ensure that it continues to create a safe built environment in future. Further reporting requirements risk duplication, complexity and additional bureaucracy, and I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Once again, in conclusion, I thank noble Lords for this interesting debate. I hope I have given the reassurances that will allow them happily not to press their amendments.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I thank the Minister for her very full response to the issues raised, particularly on Amendment 136 about workforce reporting. She has obviously had some support in going through all the clauses in the Bill to work out where the reviews and so on will take place. She spoke about competencies being reviewed regularly, and I will look again and read carefully what she said when it is reported in Hansard to see how that works. But on the face of it, it appears that this is covered in the Bill.
That brings me to the other issues that I raised. The first was about the building safety regulator overseeing the new roles of building control inspector and approved inspector. I understand that, but when I read the clauses, no details were given about what competencies and qualifications were required for those new roles. If we are determined to improve building safety, which we all are, some definition of what is expected of each inspector role should be in the Bill—not the detail; I totally accept that one would expect the building safety regulator to define those in detail. However, there should certainly be some indication of that, and it is not there. Hence, the amendments that I have tabled. Again, it may be that discussion with the Minister before the next stage could be of help in that regard.
I turn to the fire risk assessors. I remember the wonderful Fire Safety Bill. The issue of fire risk assessors came up at that stage and my noble friend Lord Stunell had amendments about them. He talked about a register, a lack of capacity, ill-defined qualifications and competencies, and we have not moved forward. That is the problem. We must move more quickly. The point is well made and I know that the noble Baroness has tried to explain and will put something in writing. We will look at it, but I must say that assessors and fire risk assessment is critical, particularly to some of these high-risk buildings.
Lastly, there is the issue of accountability, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. It is one of my themes that I come back to all the time. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who guards the guardians? Who overlooks all this to make sure that people are accountable? Unless we do that, we get into the mess that we are in now, where so diverse is the golden thread of accountability that nobody understands who is going to take control. I am not sure that I totally accept the noble Baroness’s views on this part of the Bill, but I certainly do on the next part in terms of overseeing safety within already-constructed buildings. There is a good point to be made about it being so diverse and unclear who will be responsible for what that nobody will be responsible for anything and we will be in the same mess that we are now.
I thank the Minister again for a detailed response, which has been helpful. I shall read it carefully as we cannot take in all the detail—well I cannot, anyway. Perhaps in discussion with the Minister, we may make some progress before Report. With those comments, I shall withdraw or not move the amendments in my name. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the next amendment, which are consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 56, line 22, provide that new section 58Z7A of the Building Act 1984 applies to a person to whom the regulator has delegated registration functions under new Part 2A of that Act as it applies to the regulator.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the previous amendment in the name of the Minister.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change, with the omitted reference (to section 91B of the Building Act 1984) being inserted by the second amendment in the name of the Minister at page 51, line 28.
( ) section 58Z7A (sharing of information between regulatory authorities);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, which is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 56, line 22, provides that new section 58Z7A of the Building Act 1984 applies to a person to whom the Welsh Ministers have delegated registration functions under new Part 2A of that Act as it applies to the Welsh Ministers.
( ) section 91B (cooperation and sharing of information between Welsh Ministers and other authorities);( ) section 131A (application to the Crown).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, which is consequential on the first new Clause in the name of the Minister after Clause 57, enables a person to whom the Welsh Ministers have delegated registration functions (under new Part 2A of the Building Act 1984) to apply to the High Court under new section 131A(5) for a declaration that an act or omission of the Crown is unlawful.
“Information sharing58Z7A Sharing of information between regulatory authorities(1) The regulator may disclose information held in connection with a function under this Part to the Welsh Ministers for the purposes of—(a) a function of the regulator under this Part, or(b) a function of the Welsh Ministers under this Part.(2) The Welsh Ministers may disclose information held in connection with a function under this Part to the regulator for the purposes of—(a) a function of the Welsh Ministers under this Part, or(b) a function of the regulator under this Part.(3) Except as provided by subsection (4), the disclosure of information under this section does not breach—(a) any obligation of confidence owed by the person making the disclosure, or(b) any other restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).(4) This section does not authorise a disclosure of information if the disclosure would contravene the data protection legislation (but in determining whether a disclosure would do so, take into account the powers conferred by this section).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that regulatory authorities under new Part 2A of the Building Act 1984 (the regulator in relation to England and the Welsh Ministers in relation to Wales) can share information with each other for the purposes of their respective functions under that Part.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is a drafting change.
Lord Young of Cookham
“32A After section 36 insert—“36A Removal or alteration of offending work in contravention of Fire Safety Regulations(1) If any work contravenes any fire safety requirements in the building regulations, or breaches any fire safety duty in any relevant enactment, the appropriate national authority or building control authority, without prejudice to their right to take proceedings for a fine in respect of the contravention, may by notice require the person responsible for the work by a date specified in the notice to—(a) pull down and rebuild the work,(b) remove and replace the work, or(c) effect such alterations in it as may be necessary to make it comply with the applicable building regulations.(2) If a person to whom a notice has been given under subsection (1) above (called a “section 36A notice”) is unable to do the work specified in the notice because the person has no power to carry out the required work to the building and the building manager will not facilitate the required work within a reasonable period— (a) the appropriate national authority or the building control authority may order that person instead to pay to it the amount of the expenses reasonably to be incurred to perform the work specified in the notice;(b) the appropriate national authority or the building control authority shall hold the amount so received to be used by the building manager to carry out the work specified in the section 36A notice; or(c) the appropriate national authority or the building control authority shall serve a section 36A notice on the building manager and subsections (3), (5) and (6) of this section shall apply.(3) If a person to whom a section 36A notice has been given fails to comply with the notice before the expiration of the date specified in the notice the appropriate national authority or building control authority may—(a) pull down and rebuild the work,(b) remove and replace the work, or(c) effect such alterations in it as may be necessary to make it comply with the building regulations, and recover—(i) from the person responsible for the work the expenses reasonably incurred by the authority in doing so;(ii) from the Scheme in whole or in part, on an interim or final basis, the expenses reasonably incurred or to be incurred by the authority in doing so; or(iii) from the person responsible for the work any amount paid to the appropriate national authority or building control authority by the Scheme which if recovered shall be paid to the Scheme.(4) A section 36A notice shall not be given—(a) in respect of work completed before 1 June 1992 or such earlier date as the appropriate national authority may specify in regulations, or(b) in the case of work completed after the coming into force of this section, more than 10 years from the date of completion of the work in question.(5) Work specified in the section 36A notice shall be carried out so as to—(a) reduce, insofar as reasonably practicable, the risk of noise, cold, damp and other hazards to residents while the work is carried out; and(b) maintain, insofar as reasonably practicable, the design, character and amenity of the structure as it existed prior to the notice being issued.(6) Where the person responsible for the work has been taking reasonable steps to complete the work but is unable to do so before the expiry of the date specified in the section 36A notice that person may apply to the person who issued the notice to request an extension of time which is reasonable in the circumstances.(7) Where a section 36A notice has been issued the person responsible for the work shall—(a) be liable for the costs of interim mitigation or safety measures and reimbursement of or compensation for increases in insurance premiums, in either case as may be specified in regulations made by the relevant national authority; and(b) reimburse qualifying tenants for any such costs that they have been or are required to pay, the amount of such reimbursement if not agreed to be determined by the appropriate tribunal.(8) Where the person responsible for the work has not complied with the section 36A notice before the expiry of that notice, or before the expiry of the extension of that notice under subsection (6), the appropriate national authority or the building control authority may—(a) order that person to pay to it the amount of the expenses reasonably to be incurred to perform the work specified in the notice; and(b) require that person to pay a penalty in respect of that failure to comply.(9) Notice of a penalty under subsection (8) must be in writing and specify the date before which the penalty is required to be paid.(10) In fixing a penalty under subsection (8) the appropriate national authority or building control authority must have regard to the length of time that has elapsed since the person on whom the penalty is imposed has known that the work was in breach during which the person has not remediated the work, the seriousness of the infringement concerned, and the desirability of deterring both the person on whom the penalty is imposed and others from failing to comply with notices under section 36A, and—(a) no penalty fixed under this section may exceed 10% of the turnover of the person responsible for the work (determined in accordance with such provisions as may be specified in regulations made by the appropriate national authority);(b) any sums received by a national authority in relation to a penalty are to be paid into the Consolidated Fund;(c) any sums received by a building control authority are to be set off against any expenses paid by that authority under this section, with any remaining balance paid into the Consolidated Fund.(11) For the purposes of this section “the appropriate tribunal” is—(a) in respect of a long lease of premises in England, the First-tier Tribunal; and(b) in respect of a long lease of premises in Wales, a leasehold valuation tribunal.(12) Any person subject to a section 36A notice may not pass on to any qualifying tenant any expense, in whole or in part, arising from—(a) the costs of compliance with any such notice; or(b) the costs of any penalty for failing to comply with such a notice.(13) The prohibition in subsection (12) shall have effect regardless of any provision to the contrary in any agreement made before or after the coming into force of this section.(14) In this section—“building manager” means the responsible person in relation to the building in question, as defined in Regulation 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1541) or any such other person that has the power to carry out the required work;“fire safety requirements” means any requirement in Part B of Schedule 1 to the building regulations in force as at the date of the initial notice or full plans application;“initial notice” has the same meaning as in section 47 of this Act;“full plans application” means the date of any application under section 16 of this Act or an application for building control approval under paragraph 1B of Schedule 1 to this Act, as the case may be;“long lease” has the same meaning as in sections 76 and 77 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002; “parent undertaking” has the same meaning as in section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006;“person responsible for the work” means a person responsible for or a person responsible for commissioning the construction, erection or refurbishment of the work and, where that person is a company, any parent undertaking of that person;“qualifying tenant” means any tenant under a long lease;“relevant enactment” means section 1 or section 2A of the Defective Premises Act 1972.36B Disputes over section 36A notices given by building control authorities(1) The appropriate national authority must make arrangements with a body to establish a committee called the Technical Committee which, if established in accordance with the arrangements, has the functions given by this section.(2) If a question arises between the target of a section 36A notice and a national authority or building control authority as to whether work contravenes the fire safety requirements of the building regulations in force at a particular time, the Technical Committee has jurisdiction to decide that question.(3) The Technical Committee’s decision is binding on the building control authority and any potential target of a section 36A notice who was given an opportunity to make representations, unless the matter is referred to arbitration under section 36C.(4) The Technical Committee does not have jurisdiction to decide a question that has already been decided by a court.(5) A certificate by the appropriate national authority that a specified committee has been established in accordance with arrangements under subsection (1) is conclusive evidence of that fact in relation to the period for which the certificate is in force.(6) Arrangements under subection (1) must, in particular, include—(a) a presumption that the proceedings of the Technical Committee will normally be held in public;(b) a requirement that the decisions of the Technical Committee are freely available to the public;(c) that members appointed to the Technical Committee have appropriate skills to assess issues raised by section 36A notices; and(d) that members of the Technical Committee are independent of—(i) any party involved in the reference to the Technical Committee; and(ii) any other member of the Technical Committee, or panel of the Technical Committee, hearing that particular reference.(7) Arrangements under subsection (1) may, in particular, include requirements about—(a) the composition of the Technical Committee or the appointment of its members;(b) the right of the Technical Committee to form separate panels to give decisions on its behalf;(c) the Technical Committee’s procedure or how its procedure is to be determined (including requirements for its procedures to be approved by the appropriate national authority); or(d) review by the Technical Committee of its own decisions, including by a panel constituted of different members. (8) The Technical Committee’s procedure may, in particular, include provision imposing time limits for making an application for a decision or the taking of other steps.36C Challenging decisions of the Technical Committee(1) If the Technical Committee has decided any question under section 36B(2), any person on whom the decision is binding may, if dissatisfied with the decision refer the question to arbitration.(2) But a person may not refer the question to arbitration until any review process has been exhausted.(3) Any arbitration under subsection (1)—(a) shall be commenced by the person seeking arbitration requesting the President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators to appoint a single arbitrator to hear the dispute;(b) shall be conducted in accordance with the rules of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators; and(c) shall not have the power to award any costs against the Technical Committee.(4) The Technical Committee need not, but may if so advised, participate in any arbitration proceeding under this section.(5) The relevant national authority or relevant building control authority must be given notice of any arbitration proceedings under this section and must be joined as a party to the proceedings if it so requests.(6) Arbitrations under this section are statutory arbitrations in accordance with the terms of the Arbitration Act 1996.(7) The relevant national authority may amend the identity of the arbitral body named in subsection (3) by regulation.36D Notification by person with an interest in the building(1) Any person with a property interest in a building may give notice to the appropriate national authority or building control authority that that person has reason to believe that a building has been constructed in a manner that contravenes any fire safety requirements in the building regulations.(2) Where a notice under subsection (1) has been given the appropriate national authority or building control authority must, before the end of the period of 90 days beginning with the day on which it receives the notice, publish a response stating how it proposes to deal with the notice, and in particular—(a) whether it has decided to take any action, or to take no action, in response to the notice, and(b) if it has decided to take action, what action it proposes to take.(3) The appropriate national authority must make regulations regarding notices under this section, in particular regarding —(a) the manner of giving notice;(b) the calculation of time; and(c) the designation of a proper officer or proper officers to receive the notices;and any notice under subsection (1) given in accordance with regulations made under this section shall be deemed valid.(4) In this section, “property interest” means an estate in fee simple or a term of years absolute (whether legal or equitable).36E Duty to provide information(1) Where an appropriate national authority or building control authority has received a notice under section 36D, or acting on its own initiative has reason to believe that a building has been constructed in a manner that contravenes any fire safety requirements in the building regulations, the relevant authority may by notice—(a) require the person the relevant authority reasonably believes to be the person responsible for the work by a date specified in the notice to provide copies of all such plans, documents or other information as the authority may reasonably require at a time and place, and in a form and manner, and to a person specified in the notice;(b) require any person to attend at a time and place specified in the notice to give evidence to the relevant authority or a person nominated by the relevant authority for the purpose;(c) require any person to supply the relevant authority with such estimates, forecasts, returns or other information as may be specified or described in the notice and at a time and place, and in a form and manner, and to a person so specified.(2) A notice under this section shall include information about the possible consequences of not complying with the notice.(3) The person to whom any document is produced in accordance with a notice under this section may, for the purpose of this Part, copy the document so produced.(4) No person shall be required under this section—(a) to give any evidence or produce any documents which he or she could not be compelled to give or produce in civil proceedings before a court; or(b) to supply any information which he or she could not be compelled to supply in evidence in such proceedings.(5) In this section “court” means the High Court of England and Wales.36F Fees to be paid to relevant authority(1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision for the payment of fees to the appropriate national authority or building control authority in respect of—(a) any notice given under section 36A; or(b) any decision by the Technical Committee under section 36B.(2) Regulations under this section may in particular—(a) make provision as to when a fee or charge payable under the regulations is to be paid;(b) make provision as to who is to pay a fee or charge payable under the regulations;(c) make provision as to how a fee or charge payable under the regulations is to be calculated (including who is to make the calculation);(d) prescribe circumstances in which a fee or charge payable under the regulations is to be remitted or refunded (wholly or in part);(e) prescribe circumstances in which no fee or charge is to be paid; or(f) make provision as to the effect of paying or failing to pay a fee or charge in accordance with the regulations.(3) Regulations under this section may—(a) contain incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional and transitory provision and savings;(b) in the case of regulations made by virtue of subsection (2)(f) or subsection (3)(a), amend, repeal or revoke any provision made by or under this Act or by or under any other Act.(4) A relevant national authority or building control authority determining the amount of fees or charges in pursuance of provision made by regulations under subsection (1) must secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from the fees or charges does not exceed the cost to the relevant authority of performing the function or doing the thing (as the case may be).(5) For the purposes of this section, a financial year is the period of 12 months beginning with 1 April.36G Penalties: failure to comply with information requirements(1) Where the appropriate national authority or building control authority considers that a person has, without reasonable excuse, failed to comply with a requirement imposed on the person under section 36E (Duty to provide information), it may impose a penalty of such amount as it considers appropriate.(2) The amount may be—(a) a fixed amount at level 5 on the standard scale,(b) an amount calculated by reference to a daily rate, or(c) any combination of a fixed amount and an amount calculated by reference to a daily rate.(3) In relation to a penalty imposed under subsection (1)—(a) in the case of an amount calculated by reference to a daily rate, the daily rate may not exceed level 4 on the standard scale;(b) in the case of a fixed amount and an amount calculated by reference to a daily rate, the aggregate amount may be at level 5 on the standard scale.(4) In imposing a penalty by reference to a daily rate—(a) no account is to be taken of any days before the service of the notice under section 36E, and(b) unless the authority determines an earlier date (whether before or after the penalty is imposed), the amount payable ceases to accumulate the day on which the requirement concerned is satisfied.36H Power to make fire safety remediation regulations(1) The appropriate national authority may, for any of the purposes of securing the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or about buildings and of others who may be affected by buildings or matters connected with buildings, make regulations with respect to the matters mentioned in subsection (2) below.(2) Those matters are—(a) when a section 36A notice may be made only by either the appropriate national authority or a building control authority;(b) where there is more than one person responsible for the work, the designation of a lead person responsible and the contribution to be made by other responsible persons;(c) where money is paid under section 36A(2) to the relevant authority, the manner in which that authority shall hold that money and the conditions applied to it.(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) above are known as fire safety remediation regulations.(4) The power to make fire safety remediation regulations is exercisable by statutory instrument, which is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment is consequential on the Building Indemnity Scheme, expanding and improving existing enforcement powers under the Building Act 1984.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 24 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I will also speak to Amendment 130 and touch on my noble friend’s amendments. I begin by welcoming the fact that he and Michael Gove have made substantial advance on the Government’s initial response to the cladding crisis. I am very grateful for that and for the role he has played.
For the leaseholders involved, this group of amendments is probably the most important in the whole Bill. The object of my amendments is to deliver the Government’s policy that, so far as historical defects are concerned, the polluter should pay and not the leaseholder. I begin by reminding the Committee of the explicit commitments given by the Secretary of State that underpin that policy. In his Statement on 10 January, he said:
“We will take action to end the scandal and protect leaseholders … We will make industry pay to fix all of the remaining problems and help to cover the range of costs facing leaseholders.”
When pressed by an opposition MP, the Secretary of State said in reply:
“She specifically requested that we provide amendments to the Building Safety Bill to ensure that there is statutory protection for leaseholders. That is our intention—we intend to bring forward those amendments—and I look forward to working with her and colleagues across the House to provide the most robust legal protection.”
Later he clarified what he meant by statutory protection:
“First, we will make sure that we provide leaseholders with statutory protection—that is what we aim to do and we will work with colleagues across the House to ensure that that statutory protection extends to all the work required to make buildings safe.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; cols. 284-291]
Finally, in his evidence earlier this week to the Select Committee in another place, the Secretary of State said:
“The approach that we have put forward is one that provides them”—
that is, the leaseholders—
“with the maximum available level of protection.”
We need to build on the substantial advance that I mentioned earlier, because the amendments tabled by the Government so far do not deliver the policy I have just quoted: statutory protection that
“extends to all the work required to make buildings safe.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/22; col. 291]
The amendments proposed are not “the most robust”, and nor do they provide
“the maximum … level of protection.”
Why is that? It is because not all relevant buildings, leaseholders and defects are covered. The object of my amendments and those of others is to deliver the policy, fill in the gaps and make the protection more robust.
I have one other objective. I believe that in cases where the Government are unable to persuade those responsible to do the work voluntarily—I suspect there will be many—remedial work should commence promptly, without waiting for the proceeds of the levy to come in or for people to be fined after protracted litigation. It is crucial to make the buildings safe sooner, to lift the blight on sales and to let people get on with their lives. Under the current government proposals, where the developer will not fund the work, nothing happens until all the money is in place, including the contributions that the Government expect leaseholders to pay, which many will not be able to afford. We cannot wait that long.
My amendments are designed to provide a speedy and efficient route to getting buildings remediated at the cost of the person responsible and, when that is not possible, by a levy on the industry. I claim no exclusivity as to how this is done. We may need to pick and mix with some of the other proposals in this group, particularly those in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who brings to this issue the wealth of professional expertise. I am grateful to Sue Bright and Liam Spender, who have given me advice in a personal capacity, and to the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership, which services the all-party group on this subject.
My proposal would operate by inserting provisions into the Building Act 1984 and, as my noble friend reminded me, in an earlier incarnation I put that on the statute book. At some point, I hope that the statute of limitations will kick in and hold me not responsible for all the things I may have done in the past. That amendment, however, would enable an appropriate authority, either the Secretary of State or the building control authority, to serve a notice on those responsible for fire safety defects that are in breach of either building regulations or the “fit for human habitation” requirements in the Defective Premises Act 1972, which I did not put on the statute book. Leaseholders can also start that process and request a relevant authority to act. When the polluter no longer owns the building, the relevant authority can recover the money from the polluter and require the work to be done. If the polluter cannot or will not pay, the resources to do the work come from the building safety indemnity scheme established under Amendment 130.
The amendment also proposes an absolute prohibition on any of these costs being passed on to long leaseholders through variable service charges, filling in one of the gaps I referred to earlier. There are penalties on the polluter for noncompliance with a remediation notice; they are also liable to pay the costs of mitigating measures in the meantime. These provisions incentivise prompt action rather than protracted delay. In the event of a dispute as to whether the work contravenes building regulations, this will be decided by a technical committee, the decision of which will be binding. Any challenge to its decision can be referred to arbitration. I believe this is quicker and cheaper than the complex dispute process in government Amendment 108.
These changes to the Building Act will require money to pay for remedial works while the authorities step in, which brings me to Amendment 130. This would create a comprehensive levy scheme to be established. Contributors to the scheme would include all applicants for building control approval and suppliers of construction products. Leaseholders and a relevant authority, acting under Section 36A, would be able to apply for grants under the scheme. I cannot claim authorship of this part of the proposal; it simply mirrors the Government’s own idea of linking future building control approval to payments into the scheme. The amendment proposes that anyone who does not pay a levy when due cannot receive building control approval for any works.
Those are my proposals, and I turn now to the Government’s amendments, covering some 24 pages of legal text. The Government’s objective, although not spelt out in these terms, is to create what has been called a statutory waterfall. The waterfall is intended to work as follows: develops and cladding manufacturers are expected to pay first; for cladding remediation, government funding then kicks in through the building safety fund, then freeholders are expected to pay next. Finally come the leaseholders, who are expected to pay only a capped amount towards non-cladding costs.
Each layer of the waterfall has to be put in place before you get to the next one. Its aim is to ensure that any contributions from leaseholders become, legally, the last resort. This addresses the conflict of interest inherent in the current leasehold system. At the moment, landlords can spend leaseholders’ money without any effective control. The fact that freeholders will be on the hook to pay will concentrate their minds on the question of cost-benefit analysis. Are the works that they deemed necessary really necessary when they did not have to pay? Are they still necessary when they do?
The current Bill and the government amendments do not have adequate measures to ensure that the developer responsible for the defects must pay. With no voluntary settlement, the only route to recover would be through costly and risky litigation, with the leaseholders or freeholders responsible for pursuing a well-resourced developer through the courts, potentially delaying remediation for years and incurring higher insurance premiums and, in some cases, waking watches. Amendment 24 avoids this.
There are a number of other problems with the Government’s approach. I start with putting freeholders in the firing line. Where the developer is the freeholder, that is wholly understandable, but resident-owned buildings are excluded from the Government’s proposed protection by Amendment 63. That is because leaseholders in those buildings are also the freeholders—they have enfranchised. It is then up to the residents to sort out their claims against those responsible. When there is no one to claim against, this may mean that those residents must finance all the non-cladding remediation costs themselves. This is plainly wrong. Many leaseholders have used legislation—which, I confess, I put on the statute book—encouraging them to enfranchise and buy the freeholds. This is a welcome step away from the feudal system of leasehold, which the Government have pledged to abolish, and towards commonhold. However, those leaseholders who have enfranchised are every bit as innocent as those who have not, yet they are excluded from the support in the government amendments.
Other freeholders now find themselves in the line of fire. Freeholds are often owned by housing associations, charities, local authorities and pension funds, which have bought freeholds and their ground rents—in the case of pension funds, to match their liabilities on annuities. They have found themselves exposed to major costs, although they were not responsible for the defects. It is not clear why pension savers should pay if they did not pollute. These freeholders, like the leaseholders, bear no responsibility for causing building safety defects, and they should not bear the cost. In some cases, the costs of remediation will outweigh the balance sheet of the freeholder, threatening insolvency. Has this all been thought through? A solution would be for the Government to propose to meet any costs not met by the developer, including cladding repairs in particular.
Under the government amendments, a developer must pay only if it is still the landlord. If it has sold the building, it is off the hook, under Amendment 76. If the polluter is to pay, it is not clear why there should be these exclusions, and there must be a direct route to hold polluters responsible that does not depend on leaseholders bringing claims under the Defective Premises Act. Even if the developer is the landlord, it can recover costs from all leaseholders who are not capped by the capping provisions—another important deviation from the policy of protecting the leaseholder. This is the case even though the developer is responsible for the defect and has, for example, failed to install cavity barriers. That is likely to be a common scenario.
There are other important exclusions which breach the policy that the polluter, not the leaseholder, should pay. Where a building has non-cladding defects and is more than 11 metres tall, leaseholders have to pay up to £10,000 outside London and £15,000 in it. Under Amendment 92, these payments can be spread over five years, but that conflicts with the requirement for all funds to be in place before the work can commence. Who will fund the difference? There may be buildings where there are only non-cladding defects. If the bill for remediation is £10 million and there are 250 flats, leaseholders must pay £40,000 each. They are subject to a cap of £10,000, but where does the missing £30,000 come from—£7.5 million for the whole building? I see that I have already caused some consternation on the Front Bench.
A further important exclusion is for buildings under 11 metres. Leaseholders in those buildings, or buildings with fewer than five storeys, get no assistance for cladding or non-cladding remedial works and are exposed to unlimited costs. The Government’s view is that such buildings are not at sufficient risk to justify remediation, but this will be a bitter disappointment when leaseholders in those buildings who are not responsible for the defects face costs. It is incompatible with the principles I set out earlier.
Another exclusion is for those who have invested in buy to let who have more than one such property. The press release that the Government published on 14 February, along with the amendment, said:
“New clauses will also enshrine in law the commitment the Levelling Up Secretary made in the House of Commons last month that no leaseholder living in their own home, or sub-letting in a building over 11m, ever pays a penny for the removal of dangerous cladding.”
Amendment 64 contradicts that assurance for those buy-to-let landlords who own more than one such property, the majority of whom are individuals and not property barons. They bear no responsibility for the defects. I think that Amendment 65 addresses that issue in a later group.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely, and I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to the amendments in this group, particularly in relation to the issue of perpetrator pays for fire hazard remediation—work that must be carried out speedily to ensure the safety of the inhabitants of the building. Amendment 24 and others, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, sets out the removal or alteration of offending work that contravenes fire safety regulations. It is interesting to note that he joins a group of former Ministers who are now trying to remedy the problems that were around during their time as Ministers. I think we should thank them not just for their humility but for their acknowledgment, through their amendments, that change is needed even more urgently than ever.
The noble Lord is right that his and other non-government amendments in this group are critical to delivering what the Government want to achieve, despite their own proposals being inadequate. I echo his point that if the Government think that things can be done more effectively to achieve the objectives that he outlined, I suspect that the Grand Committee would want to hear them.
The Minister spoke earlier of his surprise about the mechanisms of current building work guarantees and the role of insurers and warranties. Insurers have, rightly, made it clear that they are not responsible for this crisis. Insurance is not eligible in the event of defective work, and insurers never sign off work; they rely on the assurances of the companies they are insuring that the work is safe. The practical problem is that too many companies have relied entirely on their insurers. In my former professional life as a Cambridge college senior bursar, I have been that client who has sat in the middle and watched arguments about who should pay for defective work on blocks of flats, including works on a fire hazard in a medium-rise building.
The problems we faced as a college, even though they were with student accommodation, were absolutely nothing compared to the problems that leaseholders and renters in blocks of flats face. Talk to any of the current leaseholders living in blocks known to be unsafe: even with waking watches overnight, families are constantly on edge, and too many face the threat of worthless homes that are unsaleable until the perpetrator pays principle is fully brought into effect. I think “perpetrator pays principle” will be one of the next speech therapist phrases that people have to articulate; it is quite difficult to get your mouth around. The current government proposals do not take into account too many leaseholders who, like those in high-rise cladding buildings, are also not responsible for the defective work done by others.
Amendment 118 makes it clear that those who should pay, in the event of a block of flats having fire hazards, are those who did the work itself. The Government’s current proposals do not go far enough and still leave too many loopholes for those living in unsafe flats. This is the moment that legislation can and should make it absolutely clear that the perpetrator is responsible and must effect the remediation work and pay for it. In the event of a gap between that work being necessary to be carried out and it being agreed that the perpetrator should pay, the Government should indeed step in to help out.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, before I get my bearings, it is always good to have a few Latin phrases. “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”—well, I am just going to say, “Res ipsa loquitur”.
This is the “PP” group of amendments: “polluter pays” if you are my noble friend Lord Young, or “perpetrator pays” if you are the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. Although I will respond formally at the end— I am now speaking to the government amendments—I honestly agree with the sentiment of working with noble Lords and that a pick-and-mix approach is the right way forward. I am very keen to do that between now and Report. That is not in my speaking notes. The important thing is that we need a practical approach. We need one that works in law and in practice, and of course we want the polluter to pay.
I have taken noble Lords’ amendments and sought external counsel opinion, off my own bat, from a leading QC who deals with these issues in the courts to get their opinion. While I know my noble friend has tremendous ministerial experience, he perhaps has not always been in the courts when these things go into dispute. I know the noble Earl has considerable professional experience, but, again, this has to work in law as well as in practice. As the Committee will all appreciate, any scheme that requires government funding is not just a matter for this department; it is a matter for the Government and, in particular, needs Treasury approval.
I have always accepted that, in order for the polluter to pay, we have to have something that establishes liability at the building level. It is not an either/or. That is not to say that the Government’s approach is wrong; I think the Government’s approach is right. We have to have a waterfall effect that goes down the list of the polluters but recognises that not all freeholders are equal—some are “more equal than others”, to quote George Orwell—and that perhaps assignment of liability can be varied in regulation to reflect that. But all that detail is something that happens at later stages of the Bill, as my noble friend will know. Perhaps we will tease out some of those points in due course.
Clearly, if you are a developer like Ballymore that retains its freeholds, it is very easy. But if you are a developer like Berkeley, which often sells off its freeholds to a freehold investor, it becomes slightly more complex. But the intention of the Government is certainly not to let the Berkeley Group off the hook because it took another £20 million or £30 million by selling its freeholds off to another group to manage. It is still in the frame for the buildings that it built. I mention those developers just as examples, because we are obviously talking about a crisis that affects all the major housebuilders, as they freely acknowledge—not just the large ones but the medium and small ones, which have all contributed to a crisis that has brewed up over decades.
Let us move to the government amendments. Following my 11 January repeat of a Statement to this House, we have been clear on our expectations that developers should commit to self-remediate all unsafe high and medium-rise buildings for which they are responsible. They should agree contributions to fund the remediation of all cladding on buildings of 11 to 18 metres. The department has been in discussions with industry leaders on this matter and is making good progress towards a solution. I have had discussions with the medium-rise developers and have been alongside the Secretary of State in all those substantive discussions. However, should we need to take action against those unwilling to make these commitments, amendments tabled in my name will make it possible to impose a solution in law and make sure that developers and manufacturers take responsibility for rectifying building safety defects. I will now outline these important government amendments.
The first measure we are proposing as part of our package to ensure that the burden of paying for fixing historical building safety defects does not fall on leaseholders or taxpayers is a group of amendments to the building safety levy. They are an important part of the solution as they allow the building safety levy to be imposed in relation to building work going through the building control process on all residential buildings, not just buildings over 18 metres or seven storeys. This will enable the Government to raise funds to remediate cladding should the industry fail to step up and pay for the problems it has caused. It is our intention to set out in secondary legislation the levy rates and the details of who the levy applies to. By then negotiations with industry should have been concluded.
I now turn back to the package of government amendments and outline the further amendments that we are proposing to ensure that developers and manufacturers take responsibility for rectifying building safety defects. This package of amendments addresses many of the concerns highlighted today. They introduce measures to allow us to distinguish between companies that commit to shouldering their share of the blame and those companies that do not. The measures will incentivise industry actors to take responsibility in resolving issues with unsafe buildings, through firms committing to remediate buildings with which they are associated, and to contribute towards the funding of remediation of other unsafe buildings.
The first two amendments in this package would give the Secretary of State a power to establish a scheme or schemes for the building industry. This would act as a means of identifying which industry actors, including developers, and cladding and insulation manufacturers, have done the right thing and committed to act responsibly. Regulations will set out which persons in the building industry may be members of the scheme. In the first instance, the Government are minded to focus this measure on major developers of residential buildings and manufacturers of cladding and insulation. We are keeping this under review as talks with industry continue. Industry actors will be considered “responsible” if they meet published membership criteria for a scheme for which they are eligible. The membership criteria for a scheme will be set out and will include a commitment to rectifying building safety defects. The distinction between responsible actors and actors who have failed to do the right thing will be taken into account by the Government and regulators in their interactions with firms that are eligible for inclusion in a scheme.
The third amendment would give the Secretary of State a power to block developers that have failed to act responsibly from carrying out development for which planning permission has been granted, and to make sure that any breach of this block would be subject to enforcement action. The amendment would also allow the Secretary of State through regulations to require a developer to serve a notification of proposed development commencement and to prevent the grant of certification of lawful development for affected developers, should they seek it.
The fourth amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to prevent developers that have not committed to act responsibly, as set out in regulations, obtaining building control sign-off on their developments. This will make selling developments difficult for these developers, as building control approval is in most cases a prerequisite to occupancy and sale. The building control prohibitions will be imposed by regulations that will also set out details such as prescribed documents.
These new measures will help to make sure that while responsible industry actors can go about their business freely and with confidence, others will face significant legal, commercial and reputational consequences. They align with two of the principles set out by the Secretary of State: that the industry must pay for remediation and that the burden should not fall on leaseholders or the taxpayers. These measures will ensure that the burden is shared among the relevant industry actors while protecting leaseholders and the taxpayer. We cannot continue to allow those who are unwilling to commit to resolve the building safety crisis to have a role in building homes of the future. These amendments are being tabled to ensure that we have the legislative provision to help us to do this. I beg to move.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, as your Lordships will know, I have three amendments in my name in this group. I will speak first to Amendment 115 and then to Amendments 118 and 119, collectively now branded the “perpetrator pays” amendments. I was very pleased to hear the Minister’s prefatory comments, because he is absolutely right. The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra, and mine come from fundamentally the same hymn sheet. I impress on the Minister: never mind the differences in approach, there are core, fundamental principles that lie behind them all and which, I would like to think, we hold in common. Those principles must be carried forward into the Bill. At the very least, the Minister must come back, not later than on Report, with a version that will hopefully attract some consensus.
I was very glad that we agreed on the earlier point that non-compliant construction is simply unlawful. It is just a real shame that this has been going on for 30 years. One of the problems is that building inspectors are not on site full-time but call to check at certain stages only, so nearly the entire process of receiving good, compliant construction is based on the trust placed in those who direct matters on the site, plan the work, procure materials and labour and oversee standards. I am so glad that my noble friend Lord Thurlow referred to clerks of works. I totally agree with him. The progressive decline in their use is part of a cost-cutting philosophy.
According to the fire chiefs’ council, whose representative was, I believe, giving formal evidence to a parliamentary committee in December, the failings are still ongoing, so the matter is urgent. It appears that many of the approved inspectors are in far too close association with those whose works they oversee.
The problem we have here is one of weak claimant and powerful defendant, and it is that fundamental imbalance that prevents things such as acting against defective workmanship that may amount to unlawful activity. That is why we have to do something to redress that.
My amendments were reworded with “the perpetrator pays” on the advice of the parliamentary clerks—I am very grateful to them for that, because it is a much snappier title than “polluter pays”. Amendment 115 inserts a new schedule, which outlines a remediation scheme. I use the word “outlines” advisedly, because my amendments do not seek to drill down into the administrative detail; that is a job of work for the department to take forward. The amendment tries to set certain principles.
Amendment 118 sets the principles of “the perpetrator pays”, and Amendment 119 is simply consequential. I am indebted to parliamentary counsel Daniel Greenberg for his unstinting efforts in drafting them. With respect to the Minister’s comment, I am indeed a chartered surveyor and no lawyer, but this has come not from my pen, as it were, but from that not only of Daniel Greenberg but of leading construction counsel. They have checked both the construction contractual arrangements and ECHR law and tried to proof the amendments against the risk of sequential legal action and, in particular, judicial review— all of which could effectively unseat the entire process and render anything that we might try to achieve of no effect simply because of the costs that would be faced by anybody trying to exercise it.
I also thank the huge number of leaseholders, who have been appallingly affected, for their patience and stoicism—but also those who have written to me, expressing their support for this group of amendments. I am especially glad that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, added his name to Amendment 118. I thank him for that, because this is not a partisan matter but a question of morality and justice, preventing contagion from irreparably damaging a market sector. That is the other piece of the equation at risk here. This is not anti-developer; my belief is that there are many conscientious developers, but a number of significant players have allowed standards to drop. It is those latter that I wish to single out and attach responsibility to, where it properly lies.
I say to all those responsible in that respect that, with all the plethora of information about cause and effect, the advice and case studies and their long experience and their own knowledge of the contracting world, what is it that they did not understand about all this? It really beggars belief that we have got to this stage. My purpose is to make the developer strictly liable for demonstrable failures to meet the regulatory standards at the time of works. I seek to deliver on the sentiments voiced across the House at Second Reading and expressed by Ministers in parliamentary proceedings and elsewhere that leaseholders should not pay the remediation costs arising from fundamental construction failings—and in connection to my amendment, that relates to fire safety. I am holding the Minister to that express promise.
Just to go into the amendments in a little more detail, noble Lords will of course note the salient characteristics set out in principle. I shall run through it as a summary. Leaseholders should not be responsible or liable for fire safety remediation costs, not even to the extent of Florrie’s law capping. It just is not appropriate. They have been led to believe that they would be relieved of paying for things for which they were wholly innocent—points consistently made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and points still ringing in our ears from the passage of the Fire Safety Bill onwards. Secondly, the taxpayer should not foot the bill, other than as an extremely limited last resort—and I mean extremely limited—and for interim funding to get a remediation scheme in place, as bridging finance. The fallback under my amendments is not the taxpayer but the industry that allowed these practices, and what amounts to a gross breach of trust, to take root. The burden should fall on those with involvement in these practices, directly or indirectly, and not attach to wholly innocent and diligent operators. That is a matter of straightforward fairness.
The amendments are tightly focused on originating fire safety hazards in residential blocks—not any wider construction faults or building types. This is deliberate, because of the sudden, unplanned and catastrophic nature of building fires, especially when occupants are off-guard and possibly asleep, with the custody of minors and even with disabilities, and thus at their most vulnerable. It follows the thread set in place by Dame Judith Hackitt. Expanding beyond that focus would be unhelpful at this juncture.
The proposal covers residential buildings of all heights. As I observed at Second Reading, when a low-rise building in Worcester Park burned down in 2019, as was referred to last time, it could so easily have cost lives. Building height is not the sole determinant factor of high risk.
I intend to attach blame firmly to the perpetrator in a manner that is inescapable liability following the establishment of defect as fact. The perpetrators may be numerous, but the claim will be made against the developer or lead contractor on a joint and several basis, leaving them to pursue the wrongdoers in satellite litigation, if they choose, after making the payout or fixing the defect. These liabilities should not be a wider industry or societal collective responsibility; that is what bad people like to achieve—spreading their risk among the rest of us. I say no to that, and no to any amendment to this Bill that has that effect. I consider it also as a factor that leads to uncertainty and unconstrained risk response in insurance terms. In other words, it allows the contagion to spread where it should not.
The parties should be on even playing field, not one where there is trial by bank balance or a gravy train for litigators. A scheme has to be straightforward and transparent, not mired in complicated process, even less labyrinthine administrative hurdles. It should be operable by individuals or their agents on a per-building basis, and I was pleased that the Minister referred to the per-building approach. It should not discriminate between types of owners, for reasons we have already heard. It is indefensible that liability for defects should depend on the status of the injured party or the nature of their tenure, as if wrecking somebody’s pension pot or a social landlord’s finances is in some way acceptable, when for the homeowner it is not.
Landlords have moral obligations towards their tenants as well. There is that trickle-down effect of responsibility, so I say no, not even by reference to supposed wealth nor by dint of some anti-freeholder prejudice. You either subscribe to the rule of law for all or you deny credibility and confidence in government, and potentially an entire market sector, as well as evading the proper exercise of justice. I would make only one slight exception: my amendment would also protect housing associations which have purchased in good faith. The only situation where that might not pertain is where the housing association was itself the developer. However, I defer on any of that to my noble friend Lord Best, because I suspect that there are different structures within housing associations that deal with the development on the one hand and the housing association function as a quasi-charity on the other.
Just to make sure that everybody is focused on matters, the idea in these amendments is to propose a public register of determinations so that everybody knows what is going on. I hope that, going forward—this is critical—it should serve to eliminate the perverse incentives and poor culture in the race to the bottom on cost-cutting and safety, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to.
I think it will be found that the amendments are clear, written in plain English and perfectly understandable. As I say, they do not set in place detailed definitions or administrative schemes but seek to establish principles. I consider that they would greatly simplify what I and, I believe, other noble Lords and the Government are seeking to achieve. They would, I hope, minimise the administrative burden on government and the attendant risks of action on defects and their enforcement, but a clear statement of principles must come first.
I do not think I have ever received such a volume of correspondence on any matter in which I have been directly involved in this House as has happened here. This has come in personal emails from innumerable leaseholders and from residents’ groups, management groups, mortgage lenders, property consultants, professional bodies including the RICS and ARMA, and the British Property Federation. Even a former Australian state premier, Ted Baillieu, who now heads that state’s cladding taskforce, thinks this is a game-changer that it will look to as well. The eyes of many people in this country and elsewhere are on us.
In particular, I had an email yesterday from a Mr O’Connell, vice-chair of the Lancaster West Estate Residents’ Association—the estate that includes Grenfell Tower—in support of this. The Mayor of London has also indicated his support. I thank them all, and the social media have been absolutely buzzing. I hope the Minister will be able to repeat his previous support for the principle and that we can move on with this. I would like to make one or two comments on some of the other amendments in this group, if I may be given the time to do so.
Amendment 24, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Young of Cookham and Lord Blencathra, is one that I would have contemplated tabling, because I felt it was so important for the debate. I am very glad that the two of them have tabled it. I understand that it was drafted by Professor Susan Bright and her husband. I have had the opportunity and the pleasure of meeting both of them virtually, at an online meeting. Professor Bright is an academic of absolutely unimpeachable principles and a stalwart campaigner for leaseholder justice, so nothing I say about this amendment or anything else should detract in any way from the high regard in which she is rightly held. I feel that both she and the noble Lords are very much on message about the necessity of freeholder redress. If there is a divergence, it is on methodology rather than on the principle, as I have said.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, since it seems de rigueur to start with a quote, I suggest we start with Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr:
“Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose”—
the more things change, the more they remain the same. However, we simply cannot have that quote for this Bill; we do not want things to remain the same. That is why I prefer the quote from Heraclitus the Obscure of Ephesus: “panta rhei, ouden menei”—all things change, nothing remains. That, I suggest to my noble friend, should be the strapline of this Bill, if he cannot put it into the Long Title.
As my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham said, this group contains probably the most important amendments in the whole Bill, along with government Amendment 114 on the cost schedule. That is why we will probably spend more time on it than any other. We have four major groups of amendments here, and we are all seeking to do the same thing. We have the Government’s amendments, my noble friend Lord Young’s amendments, those of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and mine. I am sorry that I have about half the amendments in this group. The sets from us Back-Benchers are all complementary. We are all in the same boat; we may have slightly different strokes, but we are all rowing in the same direction as we seek to toughen up the Government’s position, which is a very good start.
First, my noble friend the Minister said on Monday—when I was unable to be present—that he found my speeches priceless. I take exception to that. He is wrong; they are not priceless. If the Government accept my amendments, they will have a huge cost attached, starting at £15 billion. Every penny will be paid by the builders and developers, and that sum is just the excessive profits they have made in the last few years. They are not priceless—there is a good cost attached.
I am very pleased to be able to support my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham’s amendment and the excellent way he has introduced it today. I will not repeat his arguments, since I cannot improve on a single word of them. I also commend Amendment 115, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. He is also an expert in these matters, as we heard just now. I particularly like his introduction to the amendment:
“The purpose of the FHRS must be to ensure that residential blocks of flats with fire hazards are made safe … speedily, efficiently, effectively and proportionately … without recourse to lengthy and expensive legal proceedings … without cost to leaseholders or occupiers, and … in accordance with the perpetrator pays principle.”
He replicates those principles in Amendment 118, which I am also pleased to support.
Now that your Lordships have heard from the experts, this enthusiastic amateur will attempt to explain his amendments in this group. Like my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I agree that my noble friend and the Minister, Michael Gove, have transformed the landscape of fire remediation works, and the government amendments to this Bill go a very long way to delivering on the pledge that no leaseholder will pay a penny and that the perpetrators will pay. But as my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham pointed out, not all relevant buildings are covered, not all leaseholders are covered and not all defects are covered. The object of my amendments—and of others—is to deliver the policy, fill in the gaps and make the protection more robust.
Two weeks ago, a noble Lord following a speech I made in the main Chamber said that I had, in my usual way, set out an absolutist position, but that I was nevertheless right to raise the issue, et cetera. So, like the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, I have attempted in my Amendment 148 to set out some key building safety objectives to which the Secretary of State and everyone else exercising functions under the Bill must have regard to when making regulations.
I do not like these EU or UN regulations which begin with dozens of meaningless “whereas this” and “whereas that”, et cetera, and our Office of the Parliamentary Counsel does not like declaratory objectives which do not actually make substantive law. Nevertheless, when I was chair of the Delegated Powers Committee, I and my committee heavily commended my noble friend’s boss, Michael Gove, on the Fisheries Act—which has now passed—because it began with a series of objectives, which we had never really had before in legislation. We said that it was a wonderful way to start the Act, and that got universal approval from all the countries of the union. My noble friend should go back to his boss and say that, if it was good enough for the committee and I to commend him then on setting objectives at the start of the Bill, he should adopt either the Lytton principles or the Blencathra objectives and put them at the start of this Bill, setting the scene for what we want to do in future. I invite colleagues to look at my Amendment 148, and I promise then that I will not read it out to them. I will read out my other amendments, however.
The concept behind my Amendment 34 is very important since it relates to Clause 57, one of the most important clauses in the Bill. But the clause has a weakness, in my view, in that it gives the Secretary of State various regulation-making powers to create a levy or levies but does not set a maximum limit on what the levy might be. From my experience in the Delegated Powers Committee and the legal advice we received, any general levy-making power in regulations is highly vulnerable to judicial review and challenge unless the Secretary of State is operating within maxima parameters. It does not matter what those maxima are so long as they are in the primary Act. That means that any levies set by the Secretary of State under that maximum cannot be challenged on the grounds that they are unreasonably high.
The big building companies have already promised— I think I read this in an article last week—to challenge Gove and throw millions at lawyers to sabotage the whole levy system and claim that regulations setting the fees are ultra vires. The levels I have set out in my amendment may seem excessive; I doubt that the Secretary of State would ever need to set a levy at that rate, but it legitimises any levy he sets under that maximum parameter.
My Amendment 39 simply states that
“‘person’ includes bodies corporate including a holding company or special purpose vehicle”.
In reading the Bill and the government amendments, I think that where the Government have used “person”, it includes bodies corporate, so I will not labour that point. I would just like an assurance that in every circumstance where the Bill talks about the obligations on a person or a levy on a person, it would include bodies corporate.
My Amendment 78 seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill setting out what I call the “Fire hazard remediation objectives”. As I said about my Amendment 148, these objectives may not be perfect, but I am adamant that the general concept of them is.
This very important Bill started as a bit of a dog’s breakfast, amending various Acts and introducing the idea of a regulator—not a coherent Bill in itself but one that amends this, that and the other. However, since the Bill left the Commons, the Government have rightly—I approve of it—hijacked their own Bill by introducing all these amendments, which give the Bill a whole new importance. But they are scattered around it, and there is no coherence. That is why I repeat my Second Reading plea that the Bill team and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel reorder this Bill for Report and put all the new clauses relating to leaseholder protection measures and perpetrator pay measures into two new parts at the front of it. It would not just be window-dressing; it would make a statement to all the companies involved in building construction that we, the Government and this Parliament, are taking very seriously all aspects of making the perpetrators pay and protecting leaseholders. I suggest that it would also make the Bill a dashed sight easier to read.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 35. I was expecting others to speak to it first, but I shall address it briefly. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I, too, am an enthusiastic amateur and rise with great hesitation. I also apologise for arriving fractionally late and going in and out, but I have amendments about to run on the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, so I have been trying to balance things in two places.
Whenever a new tax is applied to an industry or business, it is extremely rare that a given organisation simply chooses to absorb that additional cost. In the overwhelming majority of instances, the tax will be passed on to the consumer as a price rise. Businesses rarely undermine their own bottom line when there is little competitive advantage for doing so and where the cost can be simply passed on to the consumer without hurting the demand for their product.
The market is such that there is a massive, chronic shortage of supply of homes in the UK. This undersupply means that, in reality, developers know that demand will not greatly suffer as a result of the building safety levy. They will not absorb the tax. I fear it will simply be priced on top of the cost of new properties. After all, this is the free market, and we cannot escape the fact that that is likely to be the consequence of the levy.
I am not at all opposed to the levy in itself. The aim as outlined by the Government is to recoup money from the industry to part fund the hugely welcome grants that the Government have provided to fund cladding remediation. It is morally right that developers contribute via this charge for their past mistakes. What I am concerned about and object to, which is why I put my name to this amendment, is the idea that social housing providers will also have to shoulder the building safety levy, if I have understood it correctly.
As I said, taxes rarely get simply absorbed. The majority of social housing providers, as in housing associations, are non-profit, so the question is: where will they shift the cost to? As they do not make a profit, they are unlikely to tap into their capital reserves to subsidise the tax. Even those for-profit social housing providers are unlikely to allow it to eat up their presumably slimmer profits compared to those of private developers. So where will it go? As already alluded to by previous speakers, it could be passed on to tenants in the form of increased rents, which would somewhat undermine the purpose of social housing—to have an affordable place to live. Although that alone is a worrying prospect, what concerns me is the effect it could have on the supply of social housing. We already have a major social housing deficit. The homeless charity, Shelter, estimates that more than 1 million households are waiting for social homes. A building safety levy will leave social housing providers with the option of building fewer homes, due to the increased construction costs, or building out at the same rate with the same costs, but shifting the burden of the levy on to construction costs, the result being a lower quality of social housing.
Imposing this levy on councils means council tenants could, in effect, be subsiding the failure of private developers and paying the cost of remediating both council housing and private housing. We desperately need more social housing, and we need it now, which is why we ask the Government: what assessment have they made of the impact of this levy on social housing providers, the supply of social housing and the rental costs faced by social housing tenants?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, want to speak next?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I am happy to do so. I was assuming that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, wanted to speak to the amendment which is in her name. I do not know what the protocol is on all that.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Then I will speak to my amendment, as I stood up first. As noble Lords have said, this has been a really important group of amendments to debate. I will speak first to my Amendment 35 and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for their support.
Clause 57 gives the Secretary of State powers to impose a new building safety levy in England that will contribute towards the Government’s costs for remediating historical building safety defects. This will apply to developers making an application to the building safety regulator for building control approval, which of course is the new gateway 2 process that we have debated throughout discussion on the Bill. The problem we have, which is why I tabled this amendment, is that it will also be imposed on councils—the social landlords. Councils of course already face additional financial pressures, due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
We should not forget that the key role of local government is to serve communities—the Minister will completely understand this—and provide essential services. They are not the same as developers, so the purpose of this amendment is to make social housing providers exempt from the additional financial burden of the Government's proposed levy, to prevent council and social housing tenants subsiding the failures of private developers and paying the cost of remediating both council housing and private housing. We are concerned about what may be the unintended consequences of the Bill as it stands, because if the levy is imposed on local authorities, it will increase the cost of building or refurbishing social housing, or increase rents, as the right reverend Prelate said. Yet the benefits to funds will not be available to the tenants, who would otherwise have benefited from lower rents or better housing.
The money to fund remediation must come from somewhere. Inevitably, it will be at the expense of another critical service, either in housing or through increased rents. To ask for that does not seem the right way forward. Does the Minister recognise the potential impact of the levy on social housing supply? Again, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans talked about our desperate shortage of housing in this area. We do not want anything that will negatively impact that. It is important that we do not pit the objective of providing for those in housing need against the objective of making buildings safe, when both must be delivered.
I turn to the other amendments in this group, looking first at the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, which he introduced clearly and comprehensively. To us, they seem eminently sensible and practical, and the right way forward. As he said, Amendment 130 proposes that the Government establish a comprehensive prospective levy scheme on all developers, the money from which would go towards remediating the defective buildings. As I understand it, his Amendment 24 is consequential on the establishment in Amendment 130 of the building safety indemnity scheme. That means that the removal of building work that contravenes fire safety regulations could be carried out, if his Amendment 130 were accepted.
What came through in both the noble Lord’s introduction and how other noble Lords introduced their amendments is the fundamental principle that it is right that the person who is responsible for breaches and poor building work should be made to put it right. This is a simple, basic principle that I think we all agree with. It should not be that difficult for the Government to accept it; to me, the Bill already accepts it. Why not work with noble Lords who have put forward such important amendments today, take them forward and give us much more robust statutory protection for leaseholders, extending it to all work, as the noble Lord said, that contravenes regulations? We would strongly support any amendment that makes buildings safer and protects tenants properly.
I was also struck that the noble Lord, Lord Young, referenced freeholders. They have not been talked about enough in debate on the Bill, so I thought it was very important that that reference was made and that they are not forgotten.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has a number of amendments looking to make protections more robust. We strongly support his zeal in what he is trying to achieve. His objectives are really important; as he said, they are not exactly perfect in every way, but we are not about perfection here. This is about putting forward the issues that need to be considered to improve the Bill. He has done that very clearly. His aim to pull the “perpetrator pays” and protections for leaseholders together is important, because it makes the objectives and the direction we need to go in really clear.
The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, was right when he said that his amendment and those from the noble Lords, Lord Blencathra and Lord Young, come from the same point of principle—an important principle that we support. He is right that this is quite simply a matter of justice. As the amendment says,
“responsibility for serious defects in the original construction or refurbishment”
rests squarely
“with those who designed, specified, constructed, or supervised the works or made false claims”—
and that is not the leaseholders. It is important that leaseholders feel that their position on this is fully understood and that we are moving forward in this way.
The principle that the perpetrator pays is also really important, but I should like to ask the Minister something, because I am getting a bit confused. What is the difference between a perpetrator and a polluter paying? It has got a bit confusing to have these two phrases.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
I put this amendment forward originally to your Lordships’ wonderful team of parliamentary clerks, who did not like the term “polluter”. They felt that pollution as a term of art meant something different—if you like, involving a release or deposit of something, rather than sticking something together wrong. But they said that they would accept “perpetrator pays”, so I said, “Okay, all right, so be it.” But actually I think it is a better term, so I give them due credit for that. That is the origin of the phrase.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Perhaps someone should table some amendments to change the word “polluter” in the Bill to “perpetrator”, so we can all be in the same place.
Very briefly, I turn to the government amendments in this group. At earlier stages of the Bill, it was disappointing that what it contained fell significantly short of the action that was needed to protect leaseholders, so I put on the record how warmly we have welcomed the new amendments that the Government have proposed to address a lot of the urgent issues raised through debates on the Bill so far. However, there are a number of key questions that I shall put to the Minister for clarification today on the amendments that we have debated. I shall not go into detail, because we have heard an awful lot of discussion around them today—so I shall be brief.
How strongly committed are the Government to using their proposed enforcement mechanisms to ensure that industry plays its part and pays the funds that it has been asked to? How will the Government continue to play their part and pay the funds needed to end the crisis while ensuring that funding for affordable housing supply is protected, regardless of the contribution of funds from industry? How can leaseholders who have already paid remediation costs recover those costs retrospectively? I do not think that that has been properly dealt with so far. How will the Government ensure that new funding responsibilities for social landlords will not undermine their role in providing housing supply? That references back to my amendment.
I am sure that we will revisit some of those questions later in debates on this Bill. I ask a brief question about the new clauses in Amendments 74 and 75, which give the Secretary of State power to make regulations that
“prohibit a person of a prescribed description from carrying out development of land in England”,
and/or imposing a building control prohibition in relation to persons of a prescribed description. Those powers would be for any purpose connected with building safety or building standards. I should like clarification, because it is unhelpful that a
“person of a prescribed description”
is not defined in the amendments, which simply state that it means “prescribed by the regulations” under the clause. This is what I am slightly confused about; does it apply to persons who have been found to be in breach of building safety, or is it the means by which government would prohibit those who do not contribute to the extra £4 billion fund? Some clarification on that point would be really helpful.
I hope that the Minister has listened very carefully to the important points that have been made by noble Lords in this debate, and I end by saying to him, in the spirit of what has been going on earlier, acta non verba.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
I know we have a fuel crisis, but it is bracing in here; I should be used to it, coming from Yorkshire.
We have come a long, positive way since we debated these issues on the Fire Safety Bill. Moving from one or two voices across the House pushing the concerns of leaseholders to reaching a place where there is agreement that there must be a government-led solution to their trials is hugely welcome. I pay tribute to the cladding campaigners, who have never given up and have pushed us all into the position where we are debating this today.
I have a couple of process points first, before I comment on some of the issues raised. First, I agree with the plea from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that on Report we perhaps have a new part to the Bill that puts all these amendments relating to the remediation of defects in one place. That would be hugely helpful, now but definitely in future, as the industry has to respond to whatever is decided. It would create clarity.
The second point to make is that we have again had welcome but last-minute amendments from the Government without a written Explanatory Memorandum. It would be really good to have something we can all have a look at before Report. An impact assessment would help as well. In particular, a very brave amendment is proposed by the Government about blocking developers, even when they have planning consent, if they do not pay up. That is a really radical proposal, and I should welcome an explanation of how it might work and an impact assessment.
The final process question is that we have had before us today three key proposals to try to tackle the question of who pays for the 30 years of fire safety defects and building safety defects. The series of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, tackle the same issue. There surely has to be a better way of trying to find a common, workable solution that we could agree to than debating it in a formal way. If we are all agreed that this is the direction of travel, let us work together to try to find it rather than have a formal debate. I leave it to others who know processes much better than I do to decide how that might be.
I want to make a few comments on what has been proposed. The noble Lord, Lord Young, reminded us that in January the Secretary of State finally made a dramatic change to the debate we have been having and said that leaseholders should not pay. I want to keep to that, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, was intent on doing. He pointed out that there are gaps in what is being proposed. As I have consistently said, the leaseholders are the wholly innocent victims of this debacle. On this side, we will back proposals that can guarantee that leaseholders do not have to contribute a penny piece to fire safety and building safety defect remediation.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for their valiant attempts to seek a means of achieving the justice we are all looking for by providing alternative approaches. The very fact that the amendments have had to be tabled indicates that the Government’s attempt—though it is a huge step forward; I acknowledge that—does not succeed in achieving the aim that I espouse, which is that leaseholders pay nothing. That is going be my new phrase: leaseholders pay nothing. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, pointed out the gaps in the Government’s amendments, and we ought to listen very carefully to that because, as I say, we are all trying to get to the right place here.
The key question is: how do we extract the money from the people who have caused the problem? Unfortunately, we have no indication from the Government whether the levy system and the penalties for failing to pay will, first, raise sufficient funding to pay for it all. Secondly, we have no indication whether it will be watertight. We know that developers are already seeking legal advice as to how these levies and responsibilities can be circumvented, and material manufacturers are going down the same route, as will contractors and subcontractors. Litigation will ensue and the risk is that the work fails to be undertaken because no money is raised. That is unfortunately where this might lead if we are not careful.
I cannot remember if it was the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, or the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who said that time is of the essence for these folk. Some of them have already got cladding off and sheeting up in this awful weather, and the building replacement work has stopped because the funding and who will pay is not clear. Leaseholders have already suffered five years of their lives being on hold and their property having no value while those who caused the problems could well be left to fight it out in the courts. I thought the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Young, dealt quite well with that. Maybe that is something the Government can pick up.
I accept that this is a very complicated issue to resolve, which is why, with my zero technical expertise, I have not tried to resolve it through detailed amendments to this Bill. I am full of admiration for those who have spent time trying to find a way to make perpetrators pay. In the end, I fear that the Government may have to step in, fund the remediation so that we get something done and then use their might to extract the funding from those who caused the problem. I look forward to what the Minister is going to say in response to these critical amendments. I want to hear from him on how the Government will ensure that remediation work will be completed within a tight timescale, whatever that is. “Shortly” is a key word that the Government use, and I always worry about it. “In due course” is another.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
Yes. “Drectly” is what they say in Cornwall, which means “This year, next year, some time never”. I should like a bit of clarity. Timing is key. I should like to hear what the Minister is going to do about trying to get it done. How will we stop the developers and all those who we are going to try to get the money from through a levy wriggling out of their obligations? That is one of my fears in all this. Then there is the rate of the levy. Can we be given assurances that the rate will be of a sufficient level to pay for the remediation? That is key. I know that the Minister cannot give us a figure, but a broad brush assurance that the levy is going to do it would be good.
Retrospective compensation for those leaseholders who have already paid out should be considered. Some folk have gone bankrupt because of this. That is because it took time to get everyone together to deal with the problem. I know that retrospective compensation is hard to do, but we are putting back the clock 30 years in looking at these defects. If we can do that, we can look at retrospective compensation.
Leaseholders should pay nothing—that is where I am. We on this side support an amendment that gets there. As I say, I am full of admiration for people who, with their expertise, have tried to bring the Government to the place where they need to be. If the Minister is going to say yes to all these things, we will all leave happy.
Lord Greenhalgh (Con)
My Lords, this has been a very good debate. I have enjoyed listening to virtually every speech, including that of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. I am not going to pick out any speech that I did not like, but the contributions were very good. I am reminded of when I met someone who worked for Senator Cory Booker when he was mayor of Newark, which is a deprived part of the United States. Apparently, at a Democratic National Convention he came out with a phrase that sticks with me. He said:
“If you want to go fast, go alone, but if you want to go far, go together.”
When it comes to making sure that we get the polluter to pay, this Government are not proud about picking the best ideas that people have put forward today and putting them into the toolbox to ensure that we do precisely that.
I think of my noble friends Lord Young and Lord Blencathra, to whom I will add the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, as the three wise men. I was Faith Minister, so that description is appropriate. I have to say that the prize for the wisest of the wise goes to my noble friend Lord Blencathra, who seems to have that intellectual agility to change his position based on circumstance. He is someone who was a distinguished chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee one week, and the next week says, “Well, that was last week and this is this week. Come on Secretary of State—think about these ‘just in case’ powers”. We will think about them, but I thank him for providing us with that breadth of thinking.
I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Blencathra for suggesting that we look at reordering the Bill or setting objectives, as the Fisheries Act does. He also gave some advice; I will read out a note about why there needs to be a maximum for the levy. These are all great tips. To the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I say that we will look at whether we can produce a written Explanatory Memorandum and of course we need to do impact assessments. These are all jobs of work and we will see how quickly we can get those things done. This is all in the spirit of wanting to be helpful and to have a better Bill, so I take all those points on board.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this long and important debate. I notice that what was the awkward squad last time has now been transformed into three wise men, so we are obviously making progress. On a more serious note, this debate is of enormous interest to thousands of leaseholders, many of whom have bills they cannot afford to pay on the mantelpiece. We have thousands of leaseholders who would like to sell but cannot, because their property is blighted. We have all wanted to come up with a solution this afternoon; I think we are making progress, as I will come on to in a moment.
One issue the Government will have to face is that leaseholders do not read 24 pages of legalese amendments to a government Bill. They remember the soundbites that I mentioned right at the beginning—the polluter should pay, not the leaseholder; the leaseholders are innocent; we have statutory protection. There is a risk that the exclusions in the small print will erode the good will that the Government have generated so far in the progress they have made. We need to do a little more to address those exclusions, which stop us achieving the principle to which the Government are committed—the polluter should pay, not the leaseholder.
The other thing I take from this debate—I hope the Minister will agree with this—is a point that I, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, made, which is that we have to make an early start. We simply cannot wait until the money has come in from the levy to do the work. I will come back to this in a moment, but there was a suggestion from both the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and my noble friend Lord Blencathra that the Government should provide the bridging finance—I think that was the word the noble Earl used—in order to get the show on the road and make an early start, rather than wait for the money to come in after long and expensive litigation.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I know that housing is ring-fenced; I introduced the housing revenue account.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
I think we had better move on from that.
My noble friend mentioned a group that we have so far not mentioned at all: shared owners. I think we need to bear that in mind.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra had a veiled threat that if there was not an agreed solution with the Government, there would be a conspiracy of either the wise men or the awkward squad. I think my noble friend the Minister needs to go back to his Secretary of State and say, “Look, everybody was really grateful for what we have done so far, but, Michael, I am afraid that it’s not going to take the trick. Either we can do a deal and take the credit for making the last step, or we don’t do a deal and we go down in flames”. I think my noble friend could put that proposition in more colourful language than I have used this evening.
Next time I speak, I hope that instead of saying we are nearly there, I can say that we are there, but it is down to my noble friend to enable me to say those words. In the meantime, and in the spirit of amity, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Greenhalgh
“38_ Omit sections 44 and 45 (and the heading before section 44).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first new Clause after Clause 57 in the name of the Minister.
“47A_ In section 56(3) for the words from “, public body’s final certificates” to the end substitute “and public body’s final certificates.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the repeal of section 16 of the Building Act 1984 provided for by paragraph 20 of Schedule 5.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the definition of “the data protection legislation” from new section 91B of the Building Act 1984 with a view to this being inserted into section 126 of that Act (see the Minister’s amendment at page 176, line 8).
“(ea) section 105C;”Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement relating to the first amendment to Clause 57 in the name of the Minister. This amendment provides that references in inserted section 105C of the Building Act 1984 to work include a material change of use and may include any other specified matter.
“““the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, which is consequential on the Minister’s amendment at page 56, line 22, inserts a definition of “the data protection legislation” into section 126 of the Building Act 1984 (general interpretation).
“89_(1) The Sustainable and Secure Buildings Act 2004 is amended as follows.(2) In section 3 omit subsections (8) and (9).(3) In section 4 omit subsection (4).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment of paragraphs 38 and 39 of Schedule 5.
Lord Greenhalgh
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and other amendments of this clause extend the power to impose a levy to work other than higher-risk building work, if it relates to residential or mixed-use buildings, and to initial notices, amendment notices and public body’s notices (as well as applications for building control approval).
Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement relating to the first amendment to this clause in the name of the Minister.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement relating to the first amendment to this clause in the name of the Minister.
Lord Greenhalgh
(a) may not take a specified step in relation to the application or notice (for example, may not grant an application, accept a notice or give a specified certificate in relation to works connected with the application or notice), or(b) must take a specified step in relation to the application or notice (for example, must reject a notice).(5A) A notification under this section is a notification given by the Secretary of State or designated person—(a) that the levy payable in respect of the application or notice has been paid, or(b) that no levy is payable in respect of the application or notice.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement relating to the first amendment to this Clause in the name of the Minister.
“(7A) In this section “relevant application or notice” means—(a) an application for building control approval,(b) an initial notice,(c) an amendment notice, or(d) a public body’s notice,relating to a relevant building or proposed relevant building (including any such application or notice relating to work that causes a building to become a relevant building or causes a relevant building to cease to be such a building).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement relating to the first amendment to this Clause in the name of the Minister.
““amendment notice”, “initial notice” and “public body’s notice” have the same meaning as in Part 2 (see section 58);”Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement relating to the first amendment to this Clause in the name of the Minister.
Lord Greenhalgh
““relevant building” means a building in England consisting of or containing—(a) one or more dwellings, or(b) other accommodation,(and “accommodation” here includes temporary accommodation, for example in a hotel or hospital);”Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement relating to the first amendment to this Clause in the name of the Minister.
Lord Greenhalgh
“Crown application
In Part 5 of the Building Act 1984 before section 132 insert—“131A Crown application(1) The following provisions bind the Crown—(a) Part 1 except sections 35B to 37, 39A and 40;(b) Part 2;(c) Part 2A except sections 58I to 58K, 58U, 58V and 58Z4 to 58Z6;(d) Part 4 so far as it relates to a provision within any of the preceding paragraphs.(2) No contravention by the Crown of a provision within subsection (1)(a) to (d) makes the Crown criminally liable.(3) Subsection (2) does not affect the criminal liability of persons in the service of the Crown.(4) Subsection (5) applies where—(a) a contravention of a provision within subsection (1)(a) or (b), or of Part 4 so far as it relates to such a provision, occurs in relation to a building or proposed building for which a local authority is the building control authority, or(b) a contravention of a provision within subsection (1)(c), or of Part 4 so far as it relates to such a provision, occurs in relation to Wales,and the Crown would, but for subsection (2), be criminally liable under this Act in respect of the contravention.(5) The High Court may, on the application of—(a) the local authority (in a case within subsection (4)(a)), or(b) the Welsh Ministers (in a case within subsection (4)(b)),declare unlawful the act or omission constituting the contravention.(6) In this section a reference to a provision includes any instrument made under it.(7) For the application to the Crown of Part 3, and Part 4 so far as it relates to that Part, see section 87.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision about the application of Parts 1 to 2A of the Building Act 1984, and Part 4 of that Act so far as relating to those Parts, to the Crown.
“Application to Parliament
(1) The Building Act 1984 is amended as follows.(2) In section 95 (power to enter premises) after subsection (4) insert—“(5) This section does not apply in relation to the Parliamentary Estate (as defined by section 131B).”(3) After section 131A (inserted by section (Crown application)) insert—“131B Parts 1 and 2 etc: application to Parliament(1) In their application in relation to the Parliamentary Estate, Parts 1 and 2, and Part 4 so far as it relates to those Parts, have effect with the following modifications—(a) sections 35B to 37, 39A and 40 (enforcement etc) do not apply;(b) any reference to the owner or occupier of a building or of any premises is be read as a reference to—(i) the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords,(ii) the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons, or (as the case may be)(iii) the Corporate Officers acting jointly.(2) In the following provisions—“Corporate Officer” means—(a) the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords,(b) the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons, or(c) the Corporate Officers acting jointly;“relevant provision” means—(a) any provision of, or of an instrument made under, Part 1 or 2, or(b) any provision of Part 4 or of an instrument made under Part 4, so far as the provision relates to Part 1 or 2.(3) No contravention by a Corporate Officer of a relevant provision makes the Corporate Officer criminally liable.(4) Subsection (3) does not affect the criminal liability of relevant members of the House of Lords staff or of the House of Commons staff (as defined by sections 194 and 195 of the Employment Rights Act 1996).(5) Where a contravention of a relevant provision occurs which, but for subsection (3), would result in a Corporate Officer being criminally liable, the High Court may, on the application of the local authority, declare unlawful the act or omission constituting the contravention.(6) In this section “the Parliamentary Estate” means any building or other premises occupied for the purposes of either House of Parliament.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause makes provision about the application of the Building Act 1984 to Parliament.
House of Lords
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oaths and Affirmations
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Royal Assent
Thursday 24th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 January 2022 - (25 Jan 2022)
Ukraine: NATO Membership
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking, if any, (1) to encourage Ukraine to apply for membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and (2) to build support among other members of NATO for any such application.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom strongly condemns the appalling, unprovoked attack that President Putin has launched on the people of Ukraine. President Putin has chosen a path of bloodshed and destruction by launching this unprovoked attack on Ukraine. The United Kingdom remains firmly committed to Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. We fully support the partnership relationship between NATO and Ukraine, and we remain committed to the 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration in which all NATO allies agreed that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance. In 2020, NATO welcomed Ukraine as an enhanced opportunity partner as a means of enhancing its interoperability and co-operation with the alliance in order to support Ukraine’s continuing programme of internal reform.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, those of us who have tried to help Russia through the Council of Europe, the Russia APPG et cetera, are bitterly disappointed that the categorical denials of any intention to invade Ukraine have been torn up, and we were not told the truth. I support the work of the Minister and ask whether, as a first step, he would consider recalling our ambassador in Moscow for consultations and suggesting that the Russian ambassador in London might also return to Moscow to find out why he was ordered to lie to us.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his remarks, and I can share that, as I was coming to your Lordships’ House, the Foreign Secretary announced that she will summon the Russian ambassador to the Court of St James today. These are fast-moving events. I cannot comment on the specifics of what my noble friend raises, but we are working with key partners in NATO and our colleagues in the European Union. I have just this morning returned from the United Nations, and I think I speak for every single member of your Lordships’ House when I say that we unequivocally condemn the actions of the Russian state and of President Putin. Even at this juncture, it is time for him to withdraw. Peace over war is always a better option.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am taking the unusual step of intervening straight away just to echo the comments of the Minister. He knows that the Opposition fully support the Government in all their actions to ensure that the democratic sovereignty of an independent nation is protected. We should do everything in our power to support Ukraine and to ensure that we work with all of our allies to bring this to an end. He knows that later today the Prime Minister will make a Statement, and I know that we will have an opportunity to consider that ourselves. So I am not going to pose a question to the Minister; I just wanted to express our support for the Government’s actions to ensure that Russia is defeated on this matter.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. He and I spoke earlier this morning, when I updated him on key parts of the situation as it unravels. He is of course correct; I believe that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will be addressing the country as I speak. There will be further opportunities during the day to raise questions on elements of our response to this unwarranted, unnecessary and unprovoked aggression of the Russian state against Ukraine and the Ukrainian people.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister not agree that this demonstrates what some of us have said all along: that the question of Ukraine’s NATO status has always been a smokescreen and a pretence by Russia, which is in fact determined to destabilise Ukraine and prevent it becoming a stable democratic country? If that is the case, I hope that we will hear tomorrow from him and other Ministers how we will respond to what is after all a war of choice and a war of aggression, and thus a war crime.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord speaks with great insight and experience. I assure him—indeed, all in your Lordships’ House—that the whole purpose of my being at the United Nations yesterday as part of the General Assembly debate was, again, because of the brinkmanship that was being shown by President Putin. He went to the brink and has now stepped over the line. We will of course outline further action and further details during the course of today. I understand from my right honourable friend the Chief Whip that a debate on Ukraine is also scheduled for tomorrow, and I am sure that we will be discussing further details of statements that will be made during the course of today.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches also support the Government in their reaction to the invasion of Ukraine, but we wonder whether it would be possible to go further; obviously, we will be discussing sanctions later. For example, one of the issues that has faced Ukraine for months is the attack on its cyber system. To what extent might NATO be able to give support from its Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, which is based in Estonia?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness for her support. Again, it is important that there is a single unitary voice from your Lordships’ House and across both Houses of Parliament against this unprovoked Russian aggression against a sovereign state. On the issue of cyber, I was in Estonia about 10 days ago as part of our engagement on broader issues. I met our forces on the ground there and looked at our capabilities, including cyber. We are, not just through NATO but directly, offering the Ukrainian Government and Ukrainian people our full support. However, I would add that cyber is a challenge that is being met and felt not just by the Ukrainian people; we have felt it right here in the UK as well.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Will my noble friend keep reminding his colleagues that Russia is in some senses half an Asian nation as well as a European one, and that we need not only a united NATO, which I think we are moving towards, but the strong and full financial and commercial engagement of the great powers of Asia to establish the pariah status of Russia in Mr Putin’s mind?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and can assure him that, later today, I will host a meeting with the ambassadors of the UN Security Council members in the Court of St James. It is important that we see unity. Of course, we fully expect any resolution to be vetoed by Russia in the Security Council, but there will be further debates in the General Assembly in which we will look to show the maximum level of support across all nations.
The other thing that is often forgotten is the point made by my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary: around 1/16 of Russia’s border faces countries that are members of the NATO alliance. So we need to put this into context and perspective as well.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I join the Minister and my noble friend Lord Collins in their condemnation of what is a crime against the peaceful people of Ukraine. It ought to be condemned at every turn. Suddenly in these circumstances we are talking about and debating the issue of NATO expansion, when it was not an issue at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, this plays exactly to Putin’s playbook. It is of advantage to him only because it distracts from urgent matters—namely, Russia’s problems, which are driving his criminal behaviour. President Biden, who, over the course of two decades of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, has grown sceptical about expanding US military commitments, has been open and honest with the Ukrainians about the unlikelihood of them meeting the current criteria for membership. Will the Minister do likewise and help to put this issue to bed now, so that we can concentrate on what is actually happening?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I have already outlined the Government’s position on Ukraine’s NATO membership, as and whenever that might take place. Of course, there are certain criteria, which have been detailed and shared with the Ukrainians. If they meet those criteria, it is a choice for Ukraine to join NATO and for other member states to agree its membership. However, at this particular juncture, I agree with the noble Lord that our focus should be very much on the situation as it is unravelling. We offer Ukraine our full support in every respect and are working, together with our NATO allies and our partners across the European Union, in the context of the United States and others, to ensure that this message is received in Moscow very clearly: its actions were not just unprovoked but are an act of aggression against a sovereign state. Pull back, and pull back now.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the Minister spoke of the importance of a unitary voice; of course, he is absolutely correct as far as this place is concerned. However, in his initial response he also touched on matters relating to the European Union. Is he aware that, yesterday, both Italy and Austria prevaricated in their support for sanctions? Indeed, Hungary is directly opposed to sanctions. What will the Minister do to encourage these states to come in line with what is the right thing to do?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I can share that, among my meetings at the United Nations yesterday, I met the Foreign Minister of Germany. We welcome the decision made by the German Chancellor to pull back on Nord Stream 2. That shows the real sense of unity prevailing across Europe. It is my understanding that, later today, there will be an EU Foreign Affairs Council meeting, which will discuss the very issues that the noble Lord raises.
Higher Education: T-Levels
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the acceptance of T Levels by Higher Education institutions for candidates for admission to universities via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) in the current application cycle.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, we recently published a list of higher education providers that will accept T-levels. Some 118 higher education providers, of which 78 are English universities, have so far agreed to accept applications from T-level students. This overall figure has increased from 75 since December last year, and we expect it to continue to grow.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her very helpful response and the progress that has been made. Given the importance of students and parents having every opportunity to find out about T-levels, alongside other routes into intended careers, what further steps are the Government considering to better ensure that parents and students receive the right kind of information and advice at the right time? Might the Minister consider bringing together those with a specific contribution to make in addressing these and other issues to ensure the success and full take-up of T-levels in advance of the next admissions cycle?
Baroness Barran (Con)
In response to the last part of the right reverend Prelate’s question, I say that we would be delighted. We are already hosting a number of round tables, particularly with higher education providers, and would be glad to widen that circle and learn from his expertise and that of others like him. We are working hard to engage with the sector directly. We are providing support and resources so that students can find the course that is right for them.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we need a better picture of universities— 115 is the figure I had found as well—that might sometimes offer only one or two courses? Students need a better picture of what they are signing up to and what they are removing themselves from if they take the T-level option. Will the Government look at how A-level options can work with the T-level, as they currently do with BTECs?
Baroness Barran (Con)
To the best of my knowledge there are no plans to look at the noble Lord’s second proposal, because a single T-level is equivalent to three A-levels, so it would perhaps be unrealistic to do that. We are obviously in the very early stages of T-levels. We currently have 11 T-level options, I think. There was some confusion in the early stages about some of the content of those courses and how that translated to universities. However, we remain optimistic about the potential of T-levels.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the most important aspects of T-levels is that students have to spend nine weeks of work experience with a local firm? This is quite difficult to find even in the great metropolitan areas, but in areas of deprivation and in rural areas it is very difficult indeed to find such placements. What inducements will the Government provide for firms in those areas to take part? I remind your Lordships of my interest as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend about the value of work experience and the whole philosophy of T-levels—that students undertaking them will be work-ready. I am aware that there has been disruption to opportunities for work experience—caused principally by the pandemic—but, having designed the qualification with employers, we remain confident that those opportunities will emerge.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My question follows rather well from the previous question. In the information to employers, the Government say:
“At the heart of each course, a 45-day industry placement will give you early access to the brightest talent entering your market”.
How are we going to ensure that this happens? The Minister has responded to that point, but what oversight will there be to ensure that this really is good-quality work experience?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am happy to write to the noble Baroness and send more details on the oversight. We know that local colleges are working closely with their employers so that the framework and aspirations of T-levels will be delivered most effectively.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will appreciate that further education, technical education and engineering have had a devastating time over the last decade, with the failure of the Government to sustain anything like the resources which colleges needed. If we are to make a success of the qualifications, let us make no bones about it, that is what students and their parents and those who look after them will look at closely. They will be keen to see what credibility is attached to this development. Will the Government give the assurance that it will be a high priority?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is absolutely a high priority for this Government. Within the department, we have three key areas of focus: skills, schools and families. I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that we are all very focused on this issue.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, it is important that we make the T-levels the success that they should be for vocational education as a whole. I am not sure the Minister properly answered the question about rural areas, where there will be a much narrower choice of options and students will struggle to find employers who will give placements. Could encouragement be given to those employers through financial incentives?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will gladly take the noble Lord’s suggestion back to the department. Obviously, the colleges can deliver the T-levels that they believe will be most relevant in their community and where work experience exists.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, closely tied in with the emergence of T-levels is the fate of BTEC qualifications. Are the Government confident that the range of opportunities aside from A-levels that will be available to all students once T-levels have been phased in will be wide enough to encompass the many students who may have special needs or special abilities—sometimes those things go together—which are best served currently by BTEC? I ask particularly, given that the Government declined to extend the life of BTECs by more than a very short amount in the Bill.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I understand the noble Baroness’s concern. Of course we want to make sure that young people in this country have the range of opportunities that they deserve, and that the industries and employers get the range of skills they need to be able to deliver. The Wolf review and the Sainsbury review were clear that things needed to change in terms of technical and vocational qualifications, and we are addressing those recommendations.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Will my noble friend give the House a little more information about what the Government are doing to try to secure opportunities among employers, in rural areas in particular, to which my noble friend Lord Lingfield referred?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will try to answer that question twice. I can only reiterate what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Storey; namely, that local colleges will choose the courses most appropriate in their communities and work with employers to deliver those experiences.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, if T-levels are to be a success—we on these Benches very much want them to be—there are two issues. One has been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Lingfield and Lord Storey, which is the question of placements. The other is the question of recognition by universities. The list on the DfE website of the 118 higher education providers, which the Minister referred to, that will accept T-levels for entry is welcome and encouraging, but only 10 of the 24 Russell group universities are on that list. What are the Government doing to encourage more of these institutions to recognise T-levels, as a means of widening the access for young people from less well-off families to the more selective universities?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I will answer the noble Lord in two parts. First, we are working closely and engaging actively with a number of universities, including those in the Russell group. I am sure that he will share my pleasure in seeing that the number of applicants to universities in England from the most disadvantaged backgrounds rose by 10% year on year in January 2022, which is perhaps not an outcome we would have expected. Equally, the point of T-levels is to give the students who take them choice. For some students that will be university, for some it will be Russell group, for others it will be going straight into employment, and for others it will be further qualifications at different levels. Choice is essential.
National Food Strategy
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Boycott
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will publish their response to the National Food Strategy.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my various interests in this field as stated in the register.
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 forthcoming government food strategy will set out the Government’s ambition and priorities for the food system, considering the evidence set out in Henry Dimbleby’s independent review and building on additional topics. We are actively collaborating across government to cover the entire food system, to consider the unforeseen challenges that the agri-food sector has faced in this last year since the independent review was published. We expect to publish the Government’s food strategy very shortly.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I thank the Minister, but I am disappointed that I did not get an answer as to the date, since it is now already two weeks since the agreement. I am glad that the Government agree that the food system is in urgent need of reform. There are many major risks to not acting. Our health is worsening, supply chains are fragile, and the climate and nature commitments cannot be met without more action on food. The NFS has created a rare moment of consensus across the board, which should be grasped by the Government. Do they agree that part of the food strategy White Paper will demand a commitment from the Government to follow through with a good food Bill which will set this stuff up as a framework for the future?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The food strategy is an attempt for the first time to draw together all different aspects of the food system. I am very admiring of the noble Baroness’s work, not least with the Food Foundation. I assure her that the Government will take any measures necessary, legislative or otherwise, to implement this very well thought-through piece of work. I regret that it was not published exactly within six months, but it will be published very shortly.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on their work on the food strategy, and the noble Baroness and Henry Dimbleby on their work. Bearing in mind that we might be facing a humanitarian crisis in Ukraine, will my noble friend update the House on what measures we are taking to increase our self-sufficiency in food and our general food security? What measures are the Government taking to tackle the immediate pig crisis that we face with the difficulty of manning abattoirs and their slaughterhouses?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Government have gone to great lengths to ensure that the latter problem has been resolved. As things stand, we have imported enough people to help with the processing of pigmeat, although there are still problems. It is too early to assess the issue concerning Ukraine. Some 75% to 80% of our seasonal workers come from Ukraine. It is uncertain at this stage whether the current situation will have any effect on that, but we are watching it very closely and talking to other countries as well.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister guarantee that in the context of the national food strategy, those companies—I am sure he knows which ones they are—that have sought to manipulate meat and chicken products in various markets are excluded from trying to do the same in the United Kingdom’s markets. They have been very heavily prosecuted in other countries. Nevertheless, will he ensure that they are not allowed the freedom to exploit, in some cases illegally, the market opportunities in the United Kingdom?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The food strategy sits within the wider intention of the Government, with cross-party support, to ensure that we have the most sustainable and highest standards in all areas of food production. That requires the corporate organisations such as the ones that the noble Lord recognises to understand that there is no safe place for them if they break those rules in this part of the global economy.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, will the Government’s response also include a land use strategy, which was recommended recently by your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee, in its report on nature-based solutions to climate change? Given the increasing pressure on land use, is it not important to recognise the pressure to grow more foods and fuels sustainably, and build houses and land for industry and infrastructure, alongside the need to set aside certain land for conservation of biodiversity? We need a land use strategy. Will the Government come forward with one?
Lord Benyon (Con)
This is a moment of almost revolutionary change in agriculture, not only in how we support and incentivise farmers but in how we produce food. What was so impressive about Henry Dimbleby’s work, and what will be reflected in the food strategy, is that we are looking at the entire food system—yes, the impact that our food production has on the environment but also the effect it has on people and diet, so the whole food chain.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
It is this side. The national food strategy recognises that farmers need greater help to transition to more sustainable land use. Does the Minister understand the frustration of Minette Batters, who said at the NFU conference this week that rather than having a clear plan and vision for sustainable and productive farming, the Government are “repeatedly running” into short-term crises in the sector which they could have foreseen and pre-empted if there had been a proper food strategy backed up by the proper resources?
Lord Benyon (Con)
We are putting enormous resources into supporting farmers, incentivising them in a different but less prescriptive way than under the common agricultural policy. We are supporting an industry-wide attempt to ensure that we are eating better, healthier, more sustainable food. There will always be problems, but we have a remarkably resilient food supply system in this country which has ridden out some very difficult bumps in the road recently. We are not complacent. We are putting enormous resources, human and financial, into ensuring that we have a sustainable, long-term, well thought-through food system in this country.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I apologise; I did not realise that it was the Opposition Front Bench speaking. The national food strategy is a fantastic piece of work, but it concerns me that the Government are pressing ahead with a ban on what they pejoratively call “junk food advertising”, which will damage our public service broadcasters, before they have published their comprehensive response to the national food strategy. Will the Minister put these proposals on hold until he comes forward with what will no doubt be an excellent and comprehensive strategy?
Lord Benyon (Con)
The Government have consulted widely on this and there is significant evidence that banning junk food advertising at certain times of the day on certain channels does have an effect on the younger elements of our society who are partial to junk food. I respectfully disagree with my noble friend. This is an opportunity to take a small step as part of a much bigger picture to protect people from unhealthy diets.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I chaired the London Food Board, which produced the first London food strategy. In that, the biggest win for people and planet was to eat local food. This Government are not supporting our UK farmers but are buying food, which we can produce, from half way around the world. How is that helping our UK farmers?
Lord Benyon (Con)
Quite to the contrary, we want people to eat good-quality, sustainably produced food with high welfare standards. The intention is to enable farmers to produce that successfully in a global marketplace. Ultimately, it is the consumer who makes these choices. We want to ensure that we are giving farmers every support they need to continue producing the high-quality food that our consumers benefit from.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, Dimbleby’s strategy referred to the rising levels of food allergies, particularly among young children but also among adults. Given the increasing importance of support needed for those affected by food allergies, what discussions has the Minister had, or will he be having, with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care, regarding the establishment of a national allergy lead?
Lord Benyon (Con)
I will write to the noble Baroness with details of that. The food strategy is a comprehensive piece of work which looks at a lot of health-related matters. It is across government, and the Department of Health has been very closely involved in putting it together. I cannot tell her exactly whether there will be reference to food allergies in it, but there is certainly a lot of work going on in government on that subject.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, last week’s “Countryfile”, which has great influence, was very disturbing. It indicated that we were not giving proper encouragement to our own sugar beet industry but bringing in cane sugar from thousands of miles away. This supports what was said by the splendid noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Is this the case? If it is, we have got it wrong.
Lord Benyon (Con)
It is the Government’s intention to sustain a viable sugar beet industry. That involves not just farmers producing sugar beet but the four factories that we have in this country continuing to do so. If one or more of them were to close, we would be reliant on sugar produced in less environmentally sustainable ways from much further away, and my noble friend is entirely right to point out that it would be at a much higher environmental cost as well.
National Tutoring Programme
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress of the National Tutoring Programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, more than 300,000 tutoring courses began last term, nearing the total figure for the whole of the previous academic year. We remain confident that the National Tutoring Programme is on track to deliver the ambitious target of 2 million courses this academic year. We are particularly pleased with the uptake of the school-led part of the programme, and we are working closely with Randstad to address the challenges in the tuition partner and academic mentor elements.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, has something not gone wrong with this immensely important programme? Is it not attracting criticism from experts, many of whom regard it as unduly bureaucratic and insufficiently resourced? Why have the Government not done more to involve independent schools? They want to play their part in this programme, in the spirit of the partnership between the two sectors of education which we all want to encourage. I declare my interest as president of the Independent Schools Association.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend makes a fair point about ensuring that the programme is as unbureaucratic as possible. I know that colleagues are working very closely with Randstad to try to simplify elements of the programme, and that work is happening at pace. I am also aware that a number of partnerships already exist between the independent sector and state-funded schools. We have very much followed the advice we were given by state-funded schools about structuring the programme.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, Neil Armstrong, the astronaut, was once asked what frightened him most about going into space. He said it was the idea that a thousand different component parts had been put out to the lowest possible tender. This is what has happened with the National Tutoring Programme. Is it not time to stop the complacency, put children first and cancel the contract?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I had not thought about Neil Armstrong for a while. I thank the noble Lord for the reminder, but I do not think that that is an accurate reflection. There is absolutely no complacency in the department about this contract. We are committed to delivering 2 million courses, and we are working extremely closely with Randstad to make sure this happens.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, what would the Minister say to Garry Ratcliffe, the chief executive of an academy trust of primary schools in a deprived community in Kent? One Saturday morning, 20 or so pupils were gathered together for their tutoring session and 10 minutes beforehand, it was cancelled. We hear from school leaders up and down the country about the poor quality of tutors, their lack of punctuality, “no show” and lack of specialist knowledge. Surely it is time that the financing of this programme be given directly to the schools. Independent schools could be involved to make this a really successful programme.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I remind the noble Lord that the bulk of the programme is being directly delivered by schools; that is what they recommended to government, and we listened. Some 230,000 tuition courses started through the school-led pillar, 52,000 through tuition partners and 20,000 through academic mentors. There is a reason for the blend of approaches. It is clearly unacceptable for a tutor not to turn up, and I hope that Mr Ratcliffe has been able to resolve that.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the government figures are for courses which have started, but as the noble Lord pointed out, many of these courses cannot be completed because of no shows by tutors. Does the Minister have any figures for how many courses have been fully completed?
Baroness Barran (Con)
It is relatively early days. I do not have those figures with me, but I am happy to share them with the House if they are available. We will obviously be evaluating the programme, but I reiterate that the vast majority of the courses have been delivered in schools by school staff, so I am surprised at the suggestion that they have not been completed.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, what monitoring of outcomes and attainment has taken place with the current scheme? If this has happened, has it been broken down into categories, such as black and minority ethnic—including Gypsy, Traveller and Roma—disabled, girls and boys, so that we can see the real picture?
Baroness Barran (Con)
As I say, it is relatively early in the academic year. The programme started in September and if the noble Baroness looks at last year’s data, she will be aware that, even though there were no exams, the numbers taking these courses picked up very strongly ahead of the summer term. As I mentioned, we will be publishing the first stage of the evaluation in autumn 2022.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister be sure that wherever the programmes are being delivered, there is sufficient emphasis on oracy—on speaking and listening? In many communities, particularly deprived ones, there may well have been a loss of confidence in speaking and even much slower language development. Of course, this underpins literacy and numeracy. It is clearly important that oracy should figure significantly in these tutoring programmes.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness about the importance of oracy. My understanding is that there is some discretion, so that tutoring can be tailored to the individual needs of the child.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister give us some indication of the bureaucratic costs of delivering these courses outwith the schools? Surely, it would be better if the schools were co-ordinating these from their own resources?
Baroness Barran (Con)
To repeat myself, 230,000 out of almost 300,000 tuition courses are being delivered by the schools themselves.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister’s bold attempts at boosterism cannot disguise the fact that the element of the National Tutoring Programme entrusted to Randstad is a car crash. I take no pleasure in saying that Labour warned of this last June, when the contract was awarded to a foreign company with little tutoring experience and no knowledge of our education system. The real tragedy is that the pupils who need it most are those who, in many cases, are being denied it. This was made clear by school heads when they gave evidence to the Education Committee last month, when they described the bureaucratic nightmare involved in trying to access the scheme. In words rather lengthier than those of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, will the Government now accept that this element of the National Tutoring Programme is failing and redirect its resources direct to schools, so that they can buy in resources to bolster their pupils’ recovery?
Baroness Barran (Con)
To reiterate, the Government are absolutely committed to this programme—the tuition and support should go to the children who need it most. We are working on a weekly basis with Randstad to address these issues. We have already made some changes, and improvements are coming through. We will not shy away from our responsibility to these children.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Government like to talk about being “world leading”. However, a survey by the National Association of Head Teachers found that one-fifth of those questioned rated the quality of tutors in the Randstad programme as low or very low, and 39% rated them as average. How can we possibly be achieving world-leading standards of education with such a low base, based on this privatised Dutch company?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I am surprised at the implicit criticism of a company being Dutch; the last time I looked, I think Randstad was pretty global, and I am sure that the noble Baroness would support a global outlook. I can only repeat that we are working with it on a weekly basis, and we are not going to accept second best. This contract, as is normal with many government contracts, is on a one year, plus one year, plus one year basis, with break clauses for both sides. Our priority is delivering for children.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, global companies are not always best placed for local delivery. I recall that one of the major outside contractors for test and trace was a company headquartered in Miami, whereas local health officers might well have known what they were doing much more quickly. The Government seem to have an overall bias in favour of outsourcing rather than insourcing, despite the clear evidence that outsourcing very often ends up more expensive and less effective. Is it not time that we began to look at the public sector, particularly local authorities, can deliver services, rather than constantly outsourcing them to more expensive external providers?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I just cannot agree with the noble Lord in this case. If we step back and think about what children need, there is more capacity in some schools and less in others to deliver tutoring support, which is happening incredibly effectively, but it is also clear that, in some areas, additional support is required, for example, where there are particular requirements for special educational needs or a particular intensity of this support. This programme was designed to be flexible and to address those needs. We are working with the provider to ensure that happens.
Arrangement of Business
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, before we move on to the main business, I will update the House on business today and tomorrow in the light of events overnight in Ukraine. In doing so, I express my thanks to the usual channels for their co-operation. The current plan is that the Prime Minister will make a Statement in the House of Commons at around 5 pm. On that basis, the Leader of the House will repeat the Statement here at a convenient moment after 7 pm. The rest of the business will proceed as planned. The business tomorrow will be changed to a general debate on Russia/Ukraine, starting at 10 am. Members can sign up now on the Government Whips’ Office website. That list will close at 6 pm this evening. The three Select Committee reports that were due to be taken tomorrow will now be debated on Friday 11 March. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Lipsey and Lord Ricketts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, whose reports were due to be debated tomorrow, for their timely assistance this morning to allow this change to happen.
War Powers Bill [HL]
Thursday 24th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate War Powers Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all War Powers Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Nationality and Borders Bill
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 8, Schedule 1, Clauses 9 to 22, Schedule 2, Clauses 23 to 28, Schedule 3, Clauses 29 to 41, Schedule 4, Clause 42, Schedule 5, Clauses 43 and 44, Schedule 6, Clauses 45 and 46, Schedule 7, Clauses 47 to 84, Title.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Post Office: Horizon
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat an Answer to an Urgent Question given in the other place earlier this morning:
“I will update on Horizon matters since I last provided a Statement in December. I met with the BEIS Select Committee last month and last week the Select Committee published its interim report into the Post Office and Horizon IT scandal. The Government will consider the Committee’s recommendations and will respond in due course.
People need to know how this scandal came about and what protections are in place to avoid history repeating itself. That is why the Government established the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry to investigate what went wrong. The evidence from postmasters who have participated since the inquiry hearings began last week has been harrowing to hear. I thank these postmasters for their courage and willingness to revisit the trauma they have experienced. Compensation cannot take away the suffering affected postmasters have experienced, but we are determined that each eligible person gets what is due to them and that it is paid as quickly as possible.
Of the 72 postmasters whose convictions have been overturned, over 95% have so far applied for an interim compensation payment of up to £100,000, of which 63 offers have been accepted and paid. The Government are pushing for final settlements for quashed convictions to follow as quickly as possible. Negotiations on the first two have begun. The Government are determined that all unjust convictions are quashed. The Post Office is reaching out to affected postmasters. The Post Office is also in discussion with other public prosecuting bodies responsible for the convictions of postmasters which may have relied on Horizon evidence to ensure that those postmasters are also contacted and enabled to appeal.
Offers have been made to over 40% of applicants and compensation has been paid to 764 postmasters who have applied to the historical shortfall scheme. Twenty-eight postmasters so far are proceeding through a dispute resolution process aimed at achieving acceptable settlements. At least 95% of cases should have been dealt with by the end of this year.
With compensation for overturned convictions and the historical shortfall scheme both well under way, the group of postmasters on whom my attentions are now focussed are those who exposed this whole scandal by taking the Post Office to the High Court. I know many honourable Members support the Select Committee’s view that it is unfair that they should have received less compensation than those who were not part of the case. I sympathise with that view too. I cannot yet report a resolution of that legally complex issue, but we are doing everything we can to address it.
The compensation which postmasters are due will exceed what the Post Office can afford. The Government are therefore stepping in to meet a good deal of the cost of that compensation. I recognise that this is an unwelcome burden on the taxpayer, but the House will agree that the alternative is unacceptable.”
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the response in the other place. The Horizon scandal is the UK’s biggest miscarriage of justice. The Minister has partly answered my question, but I will push him a little further on it because we are really keen to ensure that the 555 litigants who originally exposed this do not receive a lesser amount.
The judge-led inquiry into the scandal began this week, as the Minister said. He is right that we have heard some extremely moving testimonies. Can he confirm that the 555 litigants—the group who exposed this issue—will be able to claim full compensation and that the Government will spend some time and resources looking specifically at that? I appreciate that the Government are trying to achieve 95% by the end of the year, but now only 30% have had their claims processed. What pressure are the Government putting on the Post Office to speed the process up?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his excellent questions. On this, I agree with many of the points he made. Regarding the 555, who he rightly highlighted, as I said, they have been pioneers in this area. My honourable friend the Minister for Small Business is working at speed on this issue. They exposed the scandal by taking the Post Office to the High Court. They performed a huge public service by doing so, and I know that many noble Lords will support the Select Committee’s view that it is unfair that they have received less compensation than those who were not part of the case. I know that my honourable friend shares that view, and he has said that resolving that is the most important issue he currently faces. It is important to recognise that this is a legally complex issue because the case was settled in the High Court, but I know that officials and my honourable friend are working at pace to try to resolve it.
With regard to the historical shortfall scheme, things are slightly better than the noble Lord suggested; we are now up to 38% of the cases having been resolved. The Post Office’s best current estimate is that the scheme will cost £153 million across about 2,300 claims. It is important that we work through them as quickly as possible. Some of them are complex but they need to be worked through and resolved.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I know the Minister has been working hard on this issue and he should be commended by all sides of the House on the effort that he is putting into it. The Statement says the Government are stepping in and that that is unwelcome. We should remember that the genesis of this problem came with faulty software and a system that did not work; it was made worse by the events that followed. We should also remember that Fujitsu, the company that provided that software, had revenues last year of over £20 billion, and we calculate that since 2013 the Government have awarded it a further £3 billion in contracts. Does the Minister share my surprise and indeed incredulity that Fujitsu has not been asked to provide some of the money that the Government are now unfortunately having to step up and pay?
Lord Callanan (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his praise for me, but it is slightly unjust; it is the Minister for Small Business who is responsible for the Post Office and is putting in the hard yards on this issue, and I will certainly pass on the noble Lord’s commendations.
I have considerable sympathy for the view that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, outlines. A public inquiry is taking place and that is the proper place for blame to be apportioned. We all have our suspicions and views, but let us wait for the outcome of the inquiry to see exactly where fault lies—whether with Ministers, officials, Post Office executives, Fujitsu or whoever—and then we can take the appropriate action.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pity that my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot cannot be here today because we all owe him an enormous amount for his work. That should be firmly on the record. My noble friend Lord Arbuthnot himself raised the point about Fujitsu the last time we discussed this issue. While it is of paramount importance that those who suffered are properly compensated—in so far as they can be, because they can never be fully compensated—that money should come not from the public purse but from those who supplied deficient goods, with anything that is left topped up by the public purse. I want to press a point that I have made several times to the Minister: it really is in everyone’s interest that we get this concluded as soon as we possibly can. People are still suffering and indeed still dying.
Lord Callanan (Con)
Again, I find myself agreeing in large part with my noble friend. I am happy to join him in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, and to the many other noble Lords on all sides of the Chamber and indeed Members on both sides of the House of Commons as well who have campaigned for many years to draw attention to this outrageous situation. Again, I do not really want to apportion blame until we have the results of the inquiry. The job of the inquiry is to find out who or what was responsible for the case. We all have our suspicions but let us wait and see what the inquiry comes up with and then draw the appropriate conclusion.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I wholly endorse everything that has been said about Fujitsu and the possibility of applying the “polluter pays” principle in this area, as in others. Will the Government also consider the potential dangers of large bodies corporate—be they local authorities, the Post Office or others—abusing the ancient right for individuals and families of private prosecution? I urge the Minister and his colleagues to consider whether it is really appropriate for these bodies to be prosecuting serious crimes in their own interest in future.
Lord Callanan (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point. Certainly the Post Office has said it will not be conducting any further prosecutions. This is a wider question than this particular case, and it is not an area with which I am overly familiar. I know the question has been asked and other people are looking at it, but I will take it back to the appropriate department.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Have serious and sincere expressions of contrition been made by those who held senior management positions when this scandal took place? Have any of them offered to dip into their own not insubstantial financial resources to assist the process of reparation for those who have suffered so much?
Lord Callanan (Con)
My noble friend makes a very good point. Again, let us wait for the outcome of the inquiry to see exactly where the blame lies and what suitable redress can be provided.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister remind the House whether the compensation that is due to the people who have suffered this terrible injustice extends to the consequential effects on the lives of those who have been declared bankrupt?
Lord Callanan (Con)
It is a complicated picture. There are a number of different compensation streams. There are the original GLO participants who took the case to the High Court. The problem there is that that case was settled—the point that I was making earlier—although there is considerable pressure, with which I sympathise, for them to be compensated further. There is the historical shortfall scheme and then there is the compensation due to those who probably suffered more than anyone, in that they were prosecuted, found guilty and often jailed or bankrupted accordingly. So there are a number of different compensation streams, and we need to make sure that everyone receives the compensation they deserve.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that we have previously raised the question of the powers of the inquiry. Obviously, the inquiry has got going, and quite significant information has already been released. My concern was—I think the Minister has answered this before, but I would like to get him to repeat it—whether the inquiry, although not being held under the Inquiries Act, has the powers to call all the evidence that it may require in order to get to the bottom of this. That includes not just Fujitsu but Ministers.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My understanding is that, yes, Sir Wyn has all the powers available to him. We would be happy to look at any further powers that he needs if he does not have them, but my understanding is that Ministers going back over the relevant period, officials, executives of the Post Office and Fujitsu will all be playing a part in the inquiry and giving evidence to it.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Thursday 24th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 View all Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 51-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (7 Feb 2022)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, has consented to place her prerogative, so far as it is affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Motion
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I thank your Lordships’ House for its expertise and careful work on the Bill. It has again demonstrated the constitutional, legal and political expertise that makes this House such a remarkable revising Chamber. The Government have valued those exchanges, as have I. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Butler of Brockwell, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the Front Benches for their co-operation and discussions.
We disagreed on the question of whether there should be a role for the other place over Dissolution. However, although we do not believe it is good practice for this place to seek to dictate procedure in the other place, we will of course now properly await their further opinion on this point. The Government will oppose your Lordships’ amendment in the other place, for all the reasons that I set out during the passage of the Bill. Our intention was to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, and that remains our intention.
In conclusion, I thank the dedicated Bill team for its hard work over so many months, which I am sure was appreciated by colleagues on all sides. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part for their dedication in scrutinising the Bill and for their courtesy in our many meetings. It has been an honour to assist the Bill’s passage and serve your Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, who is unable to be with us this morning as she is having a briefing at the moment, I thank the noble Lord for his usual courtesy in dealing with the House and for taking this Bill through it. I also thank the Bill team for the meetings that took place. As he said, we have had scrutinised the Bill well and made one change. We have sent that back to the other place, and we will wait for it to come back to us, and then we will have further debates on that. I know my noble friend is very grateful for the co-operation we have received on the Bill going through. I sat in on many of the debates, and the other Benches were fascinating to listen to. I think we have done our job well and properly, and we await the decision of the other place. I give our thanks to the noble Lord, other Members, the officials and the team in the Labour Whips’ Office for what they did.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks. It is important that we conduct legislation in the House, and off the Floor in between the different stages, in the way we did on this Bill and I hope will do also on the Elections Bill—a much longer and more complex Bill. Indeed, we discovered on Second Reading of that Bill yesterday that abolishing the fixed terms for Parliament has knock-on effects for third-party campaigning—a point made in yesterday’s debate. We in this House often deal with the complex interdependence of different aspects of the rules that govern our democracy. There will be a rising tide of opinion inside and outside Parliament that we need to look at some of these things fairly soon together, rather than in one chunk after another. I regret to repeat—the Minister will hear it yet again—that I did agree with the part of the Conservative manifesto that said there should be a constitutional commission. I hope it will be in the next Conservative manifesto, and I hope it will be in the manifestos of other parties and that it will then happen. Having said that, I look forward with interest to how the Commons will respond to the Lords amendment, and perhaps it will return here.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I join in thanking everybody. I have two points, one serious and one less so. One is an entirely private thought, so nobody is listening to me saying this: I hope the Commons has enough time to look at the issues that arise in relation to this Bill. The other is of particular thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who is not in his place, for reminding me of a lesson I learned when I did English language grammar—gosh, does that still exist? I was taught the auxiliary verbs “shall”, “should”, “will”, “would”, “may”, “can”, “must” and “do” and to appreciate the difference between “shall” and “must.”
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I have just a small observation on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord True, that we were somehow telling the Commons to alter its procedures or advising it on its procedures in relation to this Bill. What we have done is say to the House of Commons that we are an unelected House, but we want it to think again whether it is wise for it, the elected House, to say, “No, we don’t want these powers of Dissolution at all. We think it is important they are carried out by the monarch.” I think that is a development without precedent anywhere in the world—the legislature saying it does not want these powers and wants to give them back to the monarch. That does put a slightly different construct on what we are asking the Commons to consider.
Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the Regulations laid before the House on 10 February be approved.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we laid this instrument to strengthen our response to the grave situation that we face today in Ukraine. Sadly, the need is now greater than ever. As stated by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, we will be tightening the ratchet in response to Russia’s aggressive actions. Noble Lords will be aware that my right honourable friend will make a Statement in the other place at 5 pm today, where he will set out in further detail the work of this Government on this important issue. As noble Lords will also be aware, the Statement will be repeated here at a convenient time after 7 pm. Therefore, at this point in time, I cannot go into any further detail on the specifics of our response in advance of those Statements being made.
We are seeing the situation playing out as many of us feared it might. President Putin has used disinformation, lies and false flag activities to justify his unprovoked and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine. Later today the United Kingdom, working with international partners, will bring forward an unprecedented level of sanctions to punish this aggression and persuade those around Mr Putin that this is frankly the wrong thing to do. We will continue to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people.
Sanctions announced by the UK and our allies are already having an impact, as we have seen today with direct impacts on markets and the rouble, which has stooped to a record low. These sanctions are impacting and will impact Russia. The institutions that prop Mr Putin up and the people around him should take note. The decision to invade a sovereign territory, Ukraine, is unjustified and will be met with an unprecedented and universal response, which is already under way.
Mr Putin has been clear that he wants to recreate a Russian empire and claim back places he defines as Russia, but these places he describes are sovereign states in their own right. Let us be absolutely clear: Ukraine is not part of Russia. The fantasy Mr Putin is trying to play out of tsarist expansionist Russia must be stopped now. I assure your Lordships that we will bring forward an unprecedented, co-ordinated sanctions response to punish this appalling decision.
For your Lordships’ information, I say that the G7 will meet later today to discuss the severe co-ordinated sanctions we will be imposing on Russia. Ukraine, of course, is not a NATO country, but we will help it with self-defence. We are talking with other leaders to co-ordinate our response, as well as our response when it comes to sanctions. The solidarity of NATO is clear. We stand together. That is why the UK and other NATO states have been moving troops to our NATO allies. We will continue to support the legitimate Government of Ukraine and, importantly, the people of Ukraine in their self-defence against this attack by Vladimir Putin. We will use every lever under our control in pursuit of that end.
The legislation follows the “made affirmative” procedure set out in Section 55(3) of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The statutory instrument amends the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. It allows the Government to impose sanctions on a much broader range of individuals and businesses who are or have been involved in
“obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia”.
These include those that, first, carry on business as Russian Government-affiliated entities; secondly, carry on business of economic significance to the Government of Russia; thirdly, carry on business in a sector of strategic significance to the Government of Russia; and, fourthly, businesses that own or control, or act as a director, trustee or equivalent of, one of these entities.
It is very clear from the events of last night that Russian aggression against Ukraine is part of a long-term strategy. If we give ground now, or we try to accommodate illegitimate Russian demands, Russia’s strategy of aggression—we fear—will not end here. Who will be next? Russia, if we were to give way, would be emboldened. President Putin’s focus would simply move on to the next target. What is being done is an attempt to turn back the clock to years gone by, and perhaps a mythical past, to rebuild the Russian sphere of influence. We must be absolutely firm in our response.
As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will set out in more detail to the nation later this afternoon, what we do today will shape European security for many years to come. Together, we must rise to this moment, and we must stand united with Ukraine and with the people of Ukraine. In the Revolution of Dignity, it was the Ukrainians who risked their lives to choose freedom; they fought for democracy. I am determined that we will continue to support them in that choice which they made for themselves. I therefore commend the regulations to the House and would also share once again that it is our intention, as I said at the start, to go much further.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
“As an amendment to the above motion, at the end insert “but that this House (1) regrets that the sanctions are inadequate, and (2) calls on Her Majesty’s Government to lay more powerful and effective sanctions before both Houses.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I sincerely thank the Government and the Opposition Whips for agreeing that there should be some extra time for this important debate, in light of the current situation. I also thank the Minister for his introduction and for the helpful conversations we have had informally. I hope that he will take the opportunity of listening to the debate—I know he always does—and then passing on some comments and suggestions to his colleagues in the FCDO and to the Prime Minister—and I hope he may be able to answer some questions without pre-judging what the Prime Minister might say later.
The situation is unpredictable. Today is a really dark day for Ukraine, and for Europe and the world as a whole, because the future is now terribly unpredictable. I know some Ukrainian MPs who are delegates to the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, as my noble friend does as well, and I fear for them. They will be among the targets if things go wrong in Ukraine, because they have stood up at the Council of Europe and elsewhere and fought the cause of Ukraine very valiantly.
It is clear that the current sanctions have not deterred Putin. The Foreign Secretary said—I think rather infelicitously—that some sanctions had to be “left in the locker”. It is now clear that, while they have been in the locker, they have had little or no effect. So we must now immediately extend our sanctions, and I am glad that the Minister has indicated that that is the intention. We must intensify our co-ordination with the United States, the European Union and other countries.
First, I suggest that we need to expand the list of Russian oligarchs subject to sanctions. The European Union unanimously agreed to target 27 individuals and entities who are playing a role in
“undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine”.
Yet, so far, we have sanctioned only five banks and three Russian billionaires. We must extend to at least the European Union’s 27—and beyond, I hope.
The Minister has indicated in a letter to us all that the Government are planning to introduce legislation to prevent the Russian Government from raising finance. This needs to be done urgently. I ask the Minister: can he confirm that this legislation will be brought before both Houses of Parliament at a very early opportunity, so that it is not allowed to drag on?
We should also introduce export controls on Russia, stopping shipments to Russia of microchips, computers, consumer electronics, telecommunications equipment and other items made anywhere in the world if they were produced using US, UK or EU technology. Most importantly of all, we must disconnect Russia from SWIFT. Russia is heavily reliant on SWIFT due to its multibillion exports of hydrocarbons denominated in US dollars. The cut-off would terminate all international transactions, trigger currency volatility and cause massive capital outflows. In my view, and the view of people far more expert than me, it would probably be the most effective action we could take—yet it has not even been mentioned by the Government so far.
We should also sanction luxury property in the United Kingdom.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I am grateful for that support from the other side. Russian businesspeople and officials accused of corruption or links to the Kremlin own at least 150 huge properties in the UK, worth £1.5 billion, according to Transparency International. I accept that there would be some difficulties in doing this, and it would require significantly more resources for our law enforcement agencies, but it should be looked at and I think it should be done.
I also agree that we should target the members of the Duma, the Senate and the Presidential Council. The Minister has indicated that they are compiling evidence, but I hope they will do it quickly because, unlike the oligarchs, they actually advise Putin. Sanctioning the western luxuries they all enjoy—I have seen them enjoy property, schooling and holidays in Europe and the US—will cause a groundswell of discontent. I see some of them as Russian delegates at the Council of Europe. They are parroting the words of Putin; they are his voices in the Council of Europe. I will come back to that in a minute. Mr Tolstoy and Mr Kalashnikov —strange names, but they are very familiar—are hardliners and people we should be dealing with. The only likely way that Putin can be replaced is by people in Russia, and I hope we can make sure that pressure is put on them to do that.
We should also look to provide further lethal and non-lethal aid to Ukraine and neighbouring nations such as Poland, Latvia and Lithuania. We could assist further with intelligence surveillance reports. I know from my time on the Intelligence and Security Committee how good our intelligence agencies are. We can do that without directly entering the conflict and sending troops.
Finally, the leader of the UK delegation to the Council of Europe, John Howell MP, has suggested that we should now expel Russia from the Council. That is a move I would support, as one of the UK delegates to the parliamentary assembly. I hope the Minister, who has the Council of Europe in one of his many and increasing responsibilities, will look at this, because it needs to be done in a co-ordinated way— not just by the parliamentary assembly but by the Governments of the 46 other countries.
Putin needs to know that we are going to take these strong actions and take them now to stop him in his tracks and prevent any further aggression and the inevitable bloodshed that will result. I move this amendment.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly. I take comfort from what my noble friend the Minister has said and pay tribute to the resolve being shown by the Prime Minister and the Government—but they need to do more, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has said.
This is not new. Litvinenko was poisoned in 2006 not a mile from here; Salisbury, Skripal, et cetera, took place in 2018; the invasion of Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia, took place in 2008, and Crimea in 2014. We must understand the pattern here. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I think my noble friend the Minister agree, we must take action now and it must be really dramatic.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his opening statement. We all believe that sanctions must be tougher and go much further. I agree with everything that my noble friend Lord Foulkes has said, particularly in relation to SWIFT. That is a very good mechanism for bringing Putin and the rest of his mob to reality.
Having visited Ukraine pre pandemic, and having worked with NGOs there, which have wrought such wonderful, positive changes, I urge the Minister, through his department and others, and the embassy in Ukraine, to work very carefully and closely with these NGOs. In particular, might I make a plea for those NGOs working on LGBT issues? When we look at the history of Russia under Putin, and its views and treatment of minorities—particularly the LGBT+ minority—they and we have much to fear, so anything the Minister can do in this regard will be welcomed, not only by friends and sympathisers in this country, but by those NGOs and individuals who currently feel vulnerable and under great threat in Ukraine.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I always think about the inadequacies of the Government’s response to the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report. I recall the paragraph that talks about the penetration of our society and politics by people from these autocratic states, which, to some extent
“cannot be untangled and the priority now must be to mitigate the risk”.
We now need some much more decisive action from the Government to mitigate that risk and to see how far we can untangle this.
I was very struck by the inadequacy of the Government’s response to that report in the following respect. The Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that the Government should publish the evidence that they had collected on foreign penetration of British politics. We know that that has happened on the right and on the left: on the hard right and on the hard left. The Government’s response was that they had
“seen no evidence of successful interference”
in British politics. That is a phrase that I would love to have drafted if I had been a civil servant: it lets them completely off the hook. There clearly is evidence of foreign penetration, whether or not it has been successful, and the Government should now publish that in full.
I will ask the Minister a question about the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. We are now extending—and there are more to come—sanctions against Russians close to Putin, and their money. Much of the money that has come through the London laundromat has gone on to the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories. When the British Government, as the sovereign, enforces sanctions, what happens to the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories? Do we ask their permission? Do we suggest that they might possibly consider that it is desirable to follow within the next few months, or do we, as their sovereign, say that on a matter as important as this, they must now follow?
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to ask one very specific question about the impact of sanctions, but before I do that, I would like to associate myself with the earlier remarks commending the Minister on his introductory description of where we are and why we should roundly condemn Russia’s actions. He got the tone of that exactly right, and we need to continue with that.
I am conscious that, later today, we will take the Statement from the Prime Minister and have an opportunity to debate that, and we will have a long debate tomorrow. I therefore intend to restrict myself to sanctions, although I share all the ambitions of previous speakers that we will be able to extend our influence on a legal basis against the interests of people who are supporting this dreadful and inexcusable criminal behaviour that is taking place as we speak.
Here is my question. These sanctions need to be meaningful. I carefully read the debate on them in the other place, and I have read the letter that the Minister sent to us all thereafter, which deals with a number of the technical and legal points that were raised in that debate, some of which have been repeated here today. I am clear that nowhere in that debate did the Minister say at any point what the three persons mentioned in the sanctions on Tuesday—Gennady Timchenko, Boris Rotenberg and Igor Rotenberg—are not able to do today that they were able to do on Monday; nor did anybody say what impact these sanctions would have on any of those relatively small banks. They may be very important, but what are those banks not able to do today that is within our jurisdiction that they were able to do on Monday?
I raised this issue with the Leader of the House when that Statement came on Tuesday to your Lordships’ House. I said specifically that I recognised that this was a framework for the sanctions to be made, but the implementation of them depended on a suite of legislation, not only for their existence but for their actual use properly for the purpose for which they were designed. She gave me a very comprehensive answer, but the answer was all, “We have plans to”, “We intend to”, “We are working on”, “We are looking at”. I am not quoting her exactly, but it was all prospective.
We need to put into position a suite of powers that will then allow us to do what we need to do, so as we debate these sanctions, we should not kid ourselves that we are having an impact on Putin or any of his acolytes today, but we may have in the future. Interestingly, today, before the Prime Minister makes the Statement to the House of Commons, it is being reported that he is promising massive sanctions designed—and this is the interesting phrase—“in time” to hobble the Russian economy. Why do we not already have the ability to change the way in which Companies House practises and its ability to pour out shell companies that people can use to hide their assets? Why do we not have anti-money laundering legislation that is used in an impactful way to prevent the sort of stuff that is going on? Why do we not already recognise that we have people in the City of London who make a significant living out of facilitating all of that sort of behaviour, and they do it openly, with nameplates on the door that tell people that that is what they are doing?
It is important that the Government recognise that what we are doing here is legislating for potential, but it is not potential that will be impactful, although it may, for a couple of days, affect the sentiments of the stock exchange.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, a few days ago, I was in the House of Commons at a meeting of the All-Party Parliament Group on Russia at which the ambassador said quite clearly that Russia had no plans to invade. That can lead to only two conclusions: his Government do not tell him what they are doing or he was not telling us the truth. There can be no other conclusion in the middle.
I am very sorry that we are where we are today because, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, will know, I worked pretty ceaselessly in the Council of Europe to try to get the Russians back on side. I worked in the legal affairs committee with them and said to them “Look, if you want to be in the Council of Europe, you’re very welcome, but basically you have to underline and support what we are trying to do”. In a very short temporary period as chair of legal affairs, I was instrumental in getting a couple of rapporteurships allocated to the Russian delegation. I spoke to it about the need to reflect the values of the council in producing the report. In other words, being a rapporteur was not a licence to print Russian propaganda but an opportunity for members of the Russian delegation to show that they were prepared to produce reports reflecting the views of the council in a legal and human rights situation.
What has happened overnight is absolutely dreadful—there is no other word for it—because it destroys many months of work that has taken place, particularly outside the United Kingdom. Members may have noticed that on numerous occasions I have urged the British Government to work with their French and German counterparts because I thought that the French and German foreign ministries were trying very hard to lead Russia to a place where it would settle its disputes with Ukraine through the Minsk process, negotiation and talk.
I am sure that it is recognised today in Berlin and Paris that that has failed. At the beginning of this week, I had lunch in this House with some German politicians who were hopeful of it working. They pointed out to me that Nord Stream 2 had been put on hold, not cancelled, and it could be revived. We talked about it, and one of the points that was made was that, of course, it goes two ways: it can bring gas from Russia and, once it is in the European gas network, it can pump it back. Indeed, some of my German interlocutors said that one of the guarantees that they could give would be that, if Russia threatened Ukraine’s gas supplies, Germany could supply it with gas. I mention that because it shows that, right up to the last minutes, the foreign ministries in Europe were trying to find a peaceful solution.
However, we now have to be firm because, as the peaceful solution has not worked, it cannot be said that no consequences flow from what has happened. So, clearly, we not only have to have sanctions, but if we are going to have sanctions that work, they have to be agreed among the larger players in Europe. That, frankly, means that we have to do what has been suggested about the overseas territories and we also have to stand up and be quite firm with Hungary and Austria because countries that are making large profits out of Russia have to realise that they are either in a European solidarity pact or on the other side. They cannot be on both sides at once.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I will make a short contribution. In this very interesting debate, mention has been made of Russians who have obtained funds by corruption and who come to this country and buy property or otherwise invest. Is the Minister confident that these regulations confer power to act against such persons? As he said, the only change that is made by these regulations is to give power to take action against those who have obtained
“a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia”.
As the Minister rightly said, that concept is narrowly defined in new Regulation 6(4). The fact that you have obtained vast wealth by corruption in Russia, and you have come here and bought property or engaged in other economic activity, is not necessarily sufficient to bring you within the scope of these regulations, as I read them, but I would be delighted if the Minister tells me that I am wrong.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s statement, and will be brief. I am also very grateful to the Government and the usual channels for enabling us to have a debate tomorrow. However, it is true that the regulations we are discussing today—which I think the whole House supports—are out of date. Indeed, I do not know when my noble friend drafted his amendment, but my guess is that everything has been overtaken by the events we woke up to find this morning.
What is going on is not just war of a kind that many of my generation never thought we would see, but also a battle of ideas and information. This morning, I watched Russia Today. I am not in favour of banning it, because it is interesting and important to know what the other side—as it were—is saying about this conflict. To give it credit, I saw a report from Berlin which listed the overwhelming criticism by European leaders on what is happening. However, I am sure that the Foreign Office and the Government are monitoring what the Russian people are being told. I put it to the Minister that we should do more to influence public opinion, because sanctions, if they are to work, are not going to work just on the people at whom they are aimed. The world is a rather more sophisticated and international place than it used to be. There will be people in Russia who are eager to understand more about what we are saying has happened and for us to use our power of information to counter the disinformation that they are being fed.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Could I ask my noble friend what assessment the Foreign Office has been able to make about the extent of internal opposition to President Putin? Were there any signs that sanctions have strengthened that internal opposition to him?
Viscount Waverley (CB)
I wish to be identified with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the Minister in particular, and all other noble Lords who have spoken today. I am prompted to ask a question in response to a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes: that it is up to the people of Russia to determine the country’s future. Of course, he is right. However, I am tempted to ask the Government whether nothing short of regime change would be a practical solution. The Minister might wish to at least consider that point at some stage.
I think that a message ought to be passed to the British ambassador in Moscow that the time has possibly come when her husband might wish to relinquish his post as the executive director of the Russo-British Chamber of Commerce, both in Moscow and London. It probably does not stand well with the issues with which we find ourselves in today’s world.
Is the time now coming when we should prepare the people of this country for war? What action, therefore, are the Government taking to protect the security of the UK’s energy, cyber networks, food and general defence, given the complete breakdown in relations with Russia?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I have a quick question for the Minister. It is a little wide of the regulations but related to it: the hole in the dyke could be Switzerland. Have we had conversations with Switzerland, and are we going to close any holes there?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Following on from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, I rise briefly to ask my noble friend the Minister a question. The hostilities against Ukraine started with cyberattacks. There have been multiple cyberattacks and ransomware attacks on at least one firm of which I am aware in North Yorkshire, but FatFace and a number of other companies as well. What advice are the Government giving to companies, local authorities and, not least, the infrastructure network—to which the noble Viscount referred—to ensure that we can keep ourselves safe from such cyberattacks at this time?
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief. Of course I support the comments from my noble friend Lord Foulkes. However, in relation to the Council of Europe, I hope the Government, in doing what they are currently doing—although they need to go a bit faster, as many noble Lords have said—are thinking about an exit strategy. We need one. While we are cutting ourselves off from Russia because we are almost at war, it is still important that the dialogue continues between us. It is also important that we understand the feeling from the people in Ukraine—as well as the people in Russia, as the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, said. I hope that the Minister will keep the dialogue open as long, and as widely, as he can, because getting out of a war is extremely difficult.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like other Peers, I welcome the introductory remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. Clearly, from these Benches, we stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine. Like the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, I intend to focus my remarks almost exclusively on the question of sanctions and the statutory instrument before us. However, I also want to touch very briefly on the issue of the Council of Europe.
These Benches support the views of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and his amendment because, while the passing of the statutory instrument is necessary today for sanctions to be effective, there is a very real question about whether the sanctions go far enough. In his opening remarks, the Minister said that the Prime Minister is proposing to give a Statement this afternoon and he will go further, so the Minister cannot pre-empt that. This is fully understood. However, if your Lordships’ House were to support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, then it might be the quickest time in history when the House of Lords has voted on something. If we hear the Prime Minister doing something rather more effective and expansive, we might all be able to celebrate the fact that swift action has been taken.
Overnight, we received the letter from the Minister which has been referred to and in which he says:
“Since announcing the package on Tuesday, both the speed and level of co-ordination between the UK and its allies on these sanctions has taken the Russian elite by surprise.”
If the Russian elite were taken so much by surprise, and we went from potential mobilisation to full-scale invasion of Ukraine, what does that tell us about the way that they have responded? Do the Government really think that the elite have been taken so much by surprise that they have acted precipitately, or have they not really been taken by surprise? The sanctions proposed so far by the United Kingdom seem very limited. Other countries have done far more; as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, the European Union imposed much wider sanctions overnight.
Yesterday, at Questions, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, stressed that the UK was acting
“in lockstep with our allies”.—[Official Report, 23/2/21; col. 218.]
If that is the case—without pre-empting what the Prime Minister will say this afternoon—could the Minister reassure the House that the UK will indeed work with our European Union allies to ensure that our sanctions are at least as broad and deep as theirs?
Could the Minister perhaps reflect on the question of Russian membership of the Council of Europe? Some of the criteria for Council of Europe membership relate to human rights and the rule of law. What on earth is Russia doing in the Council of Europe? Should we not be at least considering suspension of its membership? It might not be a sanction which falls within the statutory instrument, but it would be a sanction. Have the Government thought about it?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, of course these sanctions were laid in a different context. Earlier today, I said that the Opposition fully support the Government and will continue to support them in all their actions against Russia. We should be in no doubt, as the Minister said, that this is an assault on a democratic and sovereign European nation. It is an act of war in no one’s interests. We will fully support all the necessary action.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their support for the position of the Government, but to be frank it is the position, and rightly so, of our country, which stands united against the aggression of Vladimir Putin in terms of what has happened overnight. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made a specific point about what is in front of us—with his legal prowess, I know that is what he is focused on—but as I said in my opening remarks, events have superseded where we are today. While this was tabled, rightly, as a debate on what had already been laid before us, equally, as I have already alluded to, there is more to be done in this area. Statements that will be made later by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will certainly detail the extent to which further action can be taken.
I can share with the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Pannick, and others that we are also looking closely at the economic crime and corporate transparency Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, knows that I have advocated strongly for this, and my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have recently reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to bringing it forward. This legislation will, of course, significantly enhance our ability to clamp down on dirty money in the UK by reforming Companies House, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It will also require foreign companies that own property in the UK to reveal their beneficial ownership, a point made by my noble friend Lord Robathan. As we heard from the Prime Minister on 2 February, we are committed to bringing this legislation forward; however, as I said at the start, there are certain things I cannot pre-empt, so I will not go further, but I assure noble Lords that that is very much on our agenda.
My noble friend Lord Balfe rightly raised various issues concerning people of Russian origin. I say at the outset that we need to be very clear that our argument is not with the Russian people. There are people in our country who are dual nationals—British nationals of Russian origin who are British citizens. Many of them are critics of Mr Putin, and I am sure I speak for every Member of your Lordships’ House when I say that it is completely wrong to in any way put everyone together. This is a clear action by President Putin, and that is what we should be calling out.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, spoke about the implications for those individuals already mentioned. Of course, we are in the process of freezing assets and imposing travel bans on the individuals already named. He raised a wider point about the impact that our sanctions have had under various regimes. We have sanctioned 81 individuals and entities—for example, those involved in human rights violations. I think sanctions do have an impact. They send a very strong message to different parts of the world—whether in the context of human rights or as we broaden the issue to include corruption and illicit finance—that we are ready to take action, particularly on the assets of people who may be resident here in the UK, or indeed by restricting their travel. This does have an impact.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the issue of members of the Duma and the Federation Council. We are looking closely at those who voted in support of annexing parts of the two republics—the illegal annexation—and I will share information with noble Lords on specific names and institutions as we move forward. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked whether the statutory instruments will apply to the OTs. I can confirm that they will automatically apply to the OTs and Crown dependencies, and we will be co-ordinating with them. The noble Lord knows from our time spent considering the Sanctions and Anti-Money-Laundering Bill the importance of pursuing public registers, as they have all now committed to doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, my noble friend Lord Balfe and others said that action must be co-ordinated in order to be effective. This has become part of my own mantra, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, knows well: sanctions are only good enough when they are co-ordinated with our partners, and I assure noble Lords that we are working very closely with them. Yes, because of certain legislative extensions and broadening of legislation, there are certain sanctions we have not applied, but we are working very closely with our European partners, the United States, Canada and Australia to ensure that there is co-ordinated activity in this respect, and that international co-operation will remain at the heart of UK sanctions policy. We will continue to work very closely with the EU and other international partners to tackle these shared objectives. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that, as I said in answer to a question earlier this morning, I recently discussed this specific point with the German Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, asked about the Russia report, to which the Government have published their response. I listened carefully to his concerns, and he is right that we have seen the impact of Russian interference around the world and the cyberattacks that have been generated, to which my noble friend also referred. My noble friend also asked about support to Ukraine. Of course, we are working with them, but to be clear, when I met the Ukrainian Foreign Minister yesterday, as well as the physical intervention—which turned from an incursion into what is now an invasion of the sovereign territory of Ukraine—the issue of disabling all communications in Ukraine and how best we can mitigate such action was very much part of our discussions.
The noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Collins, and other noble Lords raised the issue of SWIFT and what could be imposed and what that would mean. What I can say at this juncture, without going into detail, is that, simply put, we have not ruled anything out in terms of sanctions. What we are proposing, and certainly what will be heard later, will be a toughening up of our sanctions regime. We are very conscious to identify all those entities and individuals with strong links to the Kremlin.
The issue of disinformation was also mentioned briefly. The Russian Government are—and since the events of last night continue to be—conducting an aggressive set of information operations against Ukraine and, indeed, NATO. It was that particular disinformation that they used as a trigger to launch the invasion into the sovereign republics of Ukraine.
The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, raised an important issue about human rights. He knows how central this is to my own thinking. On Monday, I hope, events prevailing, to be at the Human Rights Council, where I will have various discussions with key partners on what more we can do within the context of the multilateral system. The noble Lord is, of course, right that the issue of human rights within Russia has been a particular challenge. Indeed, my noble friend talked about the opposition within Russia. We do not need to go further than the appalling treatment of Mr Navalny to see how Mr Putin has first suppressed internal opposition and has then moved, as we saw last night, to suppressing democratic progression in other near neighbours.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, that we are using our sanctions regime. Indeed, in December 2020, we announced designations of Russian individuals and entities responsible for the torture and murder of members of the LBGT community in Chechnya specifically. In that regard, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Collins. We have worked very closely on these issues, and they remain very much at the forefront of our mind.
On the broader issue of freedom of religion or belief, we have again seen the appalling suppression of the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, in Russia, and we will continue to focus with our international partners on how we can act further in this respect.
I said at the start of this debate that events had overtaken us. Rightly, we need now to look at the here and now. In doing so, what my right honourable friend will detail later today will reflect many—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I wonder if the Minister can just deal with the question laid by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and me about the Council of Europe.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
I was very much coming to that. I met John Howell and discussed what our approach should be. Again, this was in advance of recent events. As the noble Lord and noble Baroness will know, I regard the Council of Europe as an important way of engaging with those countries which perhaps we would not normally engage with through other institutions. The issue of whether Russia should remain part of it will, of course, be a matter for the Council of Europe. I have noted very carefully what the noble Lord has said in this respect.
One thing that I have always retained from my own experience of diplomacy is the importance of continuing to communicate in some shape or form. What was very clear to me with Russia yesterday at the United Nations was that when the Secretary-General of the United Nations rightly—I am sure noble Lords agree—condemned Russian actions, and this was in advance of what happened last night, even he became the subject of extreme criticism from the Russian representative. That was coming from a P5 member of the Security Council of the United Nations, which was set up to ensure that we address the scourge of aggression and conflict.
Let us not forget in particular the aggression and conflict that took place in Europe. Sitting there in the chamber and listening to what was unfolding in front of us, it was very clear. In my later meeting with the Secretary-General, he again reflected that this was perhaps the biggest challenge he had faced during his tenure, not least because it was being initiated by a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a body that was created to address conflict and sustain peace.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his, as usual, comprehensive and very helpful response. While I am tempted by the suggestion from the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, to press this so that we are ahead of the game, as it were, my head has not been turned by my successful vote earlier this week. In light of the Minister’s very helpful response and the assurances that he gives privately as well as publicly, and the fact we will have the Prime Minister’s Statement repeated at 7 pm this evening and a whole day’s debate tomorrow, I think it will help to express the way in which this House, this country, is united against the Russians if I withdraw my amendment.
Judicial Review and Courts Bill
Thursday 24th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 View all Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 102-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (22 Feb 2022)
“(1) Before this section may come into force, the Secretary of State must—(a) commission an independent review of the potential impact, efficacy, and operational issues on defendants and the criminal justice system of the automatic online conviction option and penalty for certain summary offences;(b) lay before Parliament the report and findings of this independent review; and(c) provide a response explaining whether and how such issues which have been identified will be mitigated.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the potential impact of Clause 3 before it can come into force.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, Clause 3 of the Bill sets out a new code, which is to become new Sections 16G to 16M of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, which provides for a new procedure. I will summarise it relatively briefly. First, it enables those accused of certain summary non-imprisonable offences to be offered an automatic online conviction option; secondly, it enables such an accused to plead guilty online; thirdly, it provides for such an accused to be convicted as a result of such an online plea; fourthly, it provides for the penalty for such a conviction to be determined at a figure to be specified in regulations; fifthly, it provides for the endorsement of a driving licence with points, as appropriate; sixthly, it provides for compensation to be payable up to a maximum specified figure, the amount to be determined by the prosecutor; and finally, it provides for the payment of prosecution costs and a surcharge of the amount specified for the offence. That is not defined but is to be specified in regulations and could vary for different offences and circumstances. As to the question of appeal, it is intended by new Section 16M that a magistrates’ court may set aside a conviction or penalty under the procedure if it is unjust.
My Amendment 24 calls for an independent review of the potential impact, efficacy and operational issues on defendants and on the criminal justice system of these provisions. That is not prompted by unqualified hostility to the idea of a simple, streamlined online option to deal with low-level offences that are voluntarily admitted by offenders. On the contrary, if that is properly introduced, with suitable safeguards, I see considerable benefits to these provisions.
Rather, my amendment is an expression of concern that the full personal consequences for people likely to be convicted and penalised by these new means have not been sufficiently considered. They need to be fully considered before the new procedures come into operation.
There have been several impact assessments on the Bill, one of which was targeted on its criminal procedure measures, including these—but it is limited in scope. That is not a criticism of the MoJ; it is in the nature of such impact assessments that they explain what the measures proposed will do and consider what they call the “monetised” and “non-monetised” costs and benefits of the measures proposed. But the assessment is, if I may so describe it, extremely clinical.
The non-monetised costs of measures in Clause 3 are described in the impact assessment in fairly stark terms. The first part of the measures, the online pleas, are described as having the following non-monetised costs for legal aid agencies:
“There is a cost for the LAA associated with changing their service design to ensure that legal representation is available for defendants indicating a written/online plea, where duty solicitors will no longer be engaging with defendants at the first magistrates’ court hearing. Currently this cost is not monetised, as the LAA are exploring a number of different change options.”
For the CPS:
“There may be additional administrative costs … as the new processes will mean more activities are moved online. However, until the future service design model for the CPS has been finalised, these costs cannot be quantified.”
On the online conviction and sentence provisions, the assessment states:
“There will be IT costs to HMCTS for the development, operation and maintenance of the online system. However, as it is not possible to isolate these costs from the wider costs of digitisation and modernisation under the HMCTS Reform programme, they cannot be monetised … There may also be a perceived lack of fairness in the new system insofar as it is no longer means-tested, allowing those with higher incomes to reduce the imposition they receive.”
That last paragraph is the only real mention of the personal non-monetised costs of these provisions.
Right at the outset, I accept that a great deal of the impact will depend on the regulations and the way in which the system operates in relation to offenders. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pick out some of the possible pitfalls. He addresses the difficulties faced by disabled and unwell defendants; those with vulnerabilities or disabilities. He addresses the need for legal representation, which might of course mitigate many of the difficulties for defendants involved in this procedure. But will simple legal representation and its availability address not just the question of cost but the difficulty in accessing legal aid? There is also the rather more nebulous question of whether defendants will take the trouble to get representation or land themselves in difficulties by proceeding without it until it is too late. They may decide not to get representation because the new procedures are online and relatively simple.
There are also wider problems of the defendant’s understanding of not just the process but its consequences. How will digitally excluded offenders deal with the process? Later, we will come to the question of digital assistance in civil proceedings, but those who are unable to access online proceedings easily will find this extremely hard. How many people will be accused and plead guilty for convenience only, because they are faced with an online procedure, when they might not plead guilty were they better informed? How far will defendants understand the consequences of the online conviction that will follow a plea of guilty, and how far will they be aware of the financial consequences? At the moment, it is entirely unclear how far defendants pleading guilty will do so without knowing the financial implications of conviction. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate whether the regulations will require that all the financial consequences of conviction will be spelled out when the option of online conviction is offered, given that penalty, prosecution costs, compensation and surcharge are likely to be determined only after the plea.
There are other consequences that need consideration, which online processes may make more difficult. The court will lose the opportunity, which I regard as valuable, to identify and address problems for the defendants it penalises. In personal proceedings, justices can see the defendant and can consider for themselves any difficulties and consequences. How do we address that?
There will also be problems with how fines, compensation and costs will be paid. How far have the consequences for families been considered? The impact on defendants and their families of having to pay even relatively small sums can sometimes be underestimated. Another issue that arises is the effects on families of enforcement measures when fines have been levied and compensation and costs have been ordered to be paid. These can amount to quite significant sums which, for people in want of means, are very difficult to raise. Enforcement measures can be far more severe than the financial penalties originally imposed.
How far will the convictions, penalties and consequences reduce or eliminate the opportunity for defendants to get assistance from local authorities and other agencies for them and their families? Perhaps the Ministry of Justice has in mind to ensure that these issues are thoroughly addressed before the regulations come into force, but I fear that they may not be addressed at this stage or even then, and this work needs to be done. I invite the Minister to address these issues not just in his response now but over the period pending Report.
Lord Pannick (CB)
Perhaps I might raise a point with the Minister. As I understand the scheme of Clause 3, this automatic online conviction procedure is going to apply only to those offences which are set out in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor, as in new Section 16H(3). The Lord Chancellor has a discretion as to which offences are here relevant. That is by contrast with the provisions set out in Chapter 2 for online procedures generally in relation to civil proceedings, where under Clause 21 the Lord Chancellor may make regulations determining which proceedings the online procedure applies to. But under Clause 21(6) he or she may make regulations only with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice, or the Senior President of Tribunals.
Noble Lords in this Committee may recall—certainly the noble Lord, Lord Beith, will recall—that this was the consequence of amendments which we tabled as a result of a report from the Constitution Committee which stated that it was appropriate for the Lord Chancellor, in the civil context only, to provide for particular matters to be subject to the online procedure if there was the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice. My question to the Minister is whether it would not be more appropriate in this criminal context, in order to provide added protection for individuals for the sorts of reasons indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, if the Lord Chancellor was required to have the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice before specifying the appropriate criminal offences. I say that with the understanding that we are talking only about summary offences, as in new Section 16H(4). Nevertheless, it may be more appropriate to require the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am struggling to remember as far back as Second Reading of this Bill, but I did say at the time that Clause 3 was designed to save money in the courts system, and that the main savings would arise from people who pleaded guilty but who should have pleaded not guilty. The risk is so obvious that I am surprised that there are no safeguards or legal protections included in Clause 3. People need to have legal advice; they need to know whether they have a valid legal defence prior to deciding whether to plead guilty or not guilty. Whether someone has a legal defence is not obvious or straightforward; if it were, we would not have lawyers and judges—including lawyers of the huge talent that we have here in your Lordships’ House. The mishandling of all those Covid prosecutions shows how badly the system can get it wrong when things are not clear: there were thousands of wrongly issued fines and wrongful convictions by magistrates.
Defendants need independent, quality legal advice prior to deciding their plea, and the lack of any such safeguards in Clause 3 makes me wonder how it has got so far without this problem being exposed by the Minister, because the risks are even greater for vulnerable groups, such as those with learning disabilities. The pressure of avoiding going to court might make pleading guilty online feel like the safer option, and the cost of getting a lawyer might make the online guilty plea seem like the best option. There is nothing in these proposals to ensure that vulnerable people are supported in making informed decisions. So the potential for disaster is huge, and there should at the very least be signposting by the Government to independent legal advice, screening for vulnerabilities, and checking whether people are eligible for legal aid. I ask the Minister whether the Government are going to bring amendments along these lines on Report. It is potentially a sensible idea, but I would like to see it work well for defendants, and for that there will have to be some changes.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with the final sentence of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. We all want to see this system work well, and we all want to see adequate safeguards. It seems to me that the safeguards may be built into the regulations, but of course we can build in further regulations and safeguards through the process we are going through now. We are not hostile to these procedures as such; we are just concerned that proper safeguards are built in, either through primary legislation or the regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, set out fully the broad gamut of issues relating to these types of online convictions, where people plead guilty and receive a computer-generated sentence based on certain summary, non-imprisonable and relatively minor offences. All noble Lords who have spoken raised the point about the ramifications of people making guilty pleas because it seems easier to just get it out of the way, and that the possible consequences of having that criminal conviction, even though it is a non-recordable conviction, are not readily known.
I spoke about this point when I had a meeting with the Minister last week. The wording in the Bill is “recordable offences” and I made the point that there are plenty of offences which are recorded, but they are not recordable in the sense of going on the Police National Computer. For example, when I sit in court as a magistrate and deal with people who have non-recordable offences such as evading train fares, the information is available to me that they have previous convictions for avoiding train fares. I am aware of that information, even though it is not a recordable offence, and that will obviously have an impact on the sentence I give to the person who has not paid their train fare for a second or third time. So there is a distinction between offences which are recorded and offences which are recordable.
I will briefly run through the amendments in my name. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, they are trying to mitigate the possible problems with this approach, to which all noble Lords have spoken. Amendment 26 would require all accused persons considered for automatic online convictions to be subject to a health assessment and that only those who do not have any vulnerabilities or disabilities are given the option of being convicted online. Under Amendment 27, the automatic online conviction option would be available only if the prosecutor is satisfied that the accused has engaged a legal representative. Amendment 28 would exclude any recordable offences from the automatic online conviction option. Amendment 29 would raise the age of eligibility for written procedures for entering guilty pleas from 16 to 18 years old.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, those four amendments in my name attempt at this point to probe the Government’s response to the potential pitfalls of this approach, to put in adequate safeguards for vulnerable people and children and to make sure that people do not plead guilty out of a sense of convenience. I was particularly taken by the argument used by the noble Lord about ensuring that, when people plead guilty, they know the full ramifications of the possible costs of their guilty plea. As he said, there is the cost of the fine itself, the cost of the prosecution and the cost of the victim surcharge, and all those numbers add up. When one sits as a magistrate, one has discretion over the fine and the costs but no discretion over the victim surcharge, so it is not a straightforward calculation. Depending on the means of the person one is dealing with, one would make a suitable adjustment.
After one has put the fine in place, one puts in place a collection order. This is where you give a specific and direct warning to the person you have just fined that, if they do not pay the money, there is a power for debt collectors or bailiffs to come to their house to collect goods to the same value. I go on and warn them that that makes things more expensive because the bailiffs also charge their costs. So there is quite a bit of procedure that one can adjust when one is sentencing, according to the nature and means of the person in front of you. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, asked a good question: how will this online procedure have the flexibility that the in-court procedure has to make sure that a fair disposal is reached?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I will first deal with the general argument for Clause 3, not least because the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, gave notice that she would oppose the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.
As we have heard, Clause 3 creates an alternative new automatic online conviction and standard statutory penalty procedure for some single justice procedure cases. I should say at the outset that it comes with a number of safeguards. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, fairly said, we all want to see the system work well. This is about putting in place a system that is appropriate and fair.
The procedure would provide defendants aged over 18 and companies that wish to plead guilty to specified offences the additional option of accepting a conviction and pre-agreed standard penalty online without the involvement of the court. Importantly, prosecutors will offer this to defendants only in cases that they consider can be dealt with appropriately through this procedure. It is unlikely even to be offered in cases where, for example, there are aggravating factors or the defendant is a habitual offender.
The procedure is entirely optional on the part of the defendant. Defendants can choose to have their case heard in court at any time before they accept a conviction. Defendants who opt in to using this procedure will be guided through the process and provided with all the information they need to make an informed decision, including—the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made this point—the consequences of accepting a conviction and the full details of the prospective fine. I will say a little more about that in a moment.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. That was the point that I was seeking to make. The last time the online procedure Bill came before Parliament, in 2019, this Committee debated very carefully whether it was appropriate to allow the Lord Chancellor to determine which civil matters should be dealt with online. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee recommended that it was inappropriate for the Lord Chancellor to decide such matters. This House debated and the Government gave way. The Minister’s predecessor —not quite his predecessor—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, who was speaking on behalf of the Government, accepted that it was appropriate for the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice to be required. Why does the Minister think it is different in the criminal context? I suggest that there is even greater sensitivity in the criminal context than in the civil context and that the concurrence of the head of the judiciary is required.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that further explanation of the point and will happily reflect on it. At the moment, I stand by the point I made a moment ago, which is that it is right in principle for the Government to be able to decide which offences are included under the new procedure. Of course, we discuss with the Lord Chief Justice and other elements of the judiciary how these offences will be managed in practice. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, knows, the operation of the courts is run essentially under a concordat agreement between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary. I will look again at Hansard and go back to the discussion which somebody who was not quite my predecessor was involved in. For present purposes, that is my answer to the noble Lord.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Just on that—and by the way, I did not speak earlier because the case was made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and I think it is a kindness to the Committee at this stage not to duplicate concerns and comments—to develop the point from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and to comment on his conversation with the Minister, it is not for the Government to decide, is it? It is not actually the Government’s position that it is for them to decide which offences are covered by the new procedure, because mercifully the Government have said that there will be parliamentary procedure and regulations. It is for Parliament to decide.
Is not the point that when Parliament looks at these regulations that are made in the future, by a future Lord Chancellor who may not take such a measured approach as the Minister is taking now in relation to which offences are to be included, Parliament would benefit from regulations that come with the advice and endorsement not just of the Government of the day but of the senior judiciary?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I should say, first, that when I mentioned the noble Baroness in my speech, I was not making the point that she had not risen. I wanted her to appreciate that I had taken on board that she was opposing the clause. When I say “the Government”, of course I mean “the Government with the authority of Parliament”. We are looking at a Bill and that is taken as read. Ultimately, the question is: is it necessarily right for Parliament to say that we cannot proceed unless we know that the LCJ is on board? I suggest that it is quite proper in this case for Parliament and the Bill to say, “This is a power which can be exercised by the Lord Chancellor and no concurrence is necessary.” As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am happy to look at this point, but that is the current position which I adopt.
I was going to make one more point on Clause 4 and Amendment 29, which seeks to raise the age of eligibility for the Section 12 procedure—often referred to as “pleading guilty by post”—from 16 to 18. This procedure has been available as an alternative method of summary-only prosecution for defendants aged 16 and over since 1957. I am not aware of any issues of concern being raised in relation to under-18s during the whole of that time.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
Before I consider our position, can I just ask when the cooling-off period is likely to kick in. In other words, does it start immediately upon the indication of a plea of guilty or will it be following the conviction that is a consequence of the online plea?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will give an answer, but I will check it and if I get it wrong I will write to the noble Lord. I think the way it works is that it will be immediately after conviction. The conviction is almost instantaneous with submitting the online form because it is an online procedure. Therefore, the cooling-off procedure would start immediately after conviction and would run from that time. Indeed, I have just received a message to say that that is correct.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification; I will consider it.
I will of course withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I see the process that we have had today as calling for continuing discussion. Although it is helpful to know from the Minister that the financial consequences will be spelled out precisely in the offer, he did not address the non-financial consequences—the personal consequences—in enough detail. Of course I take his point that, at this stage, this procedure will apply only to travelling on trains without a ticket, what used to be called riding on trams without a ticket or unlicensed fishing. In those circumstances, limited to those three offences, the consequences might not be as serious as they otherwise might be, but since the statute refers to all summary-only, non-imprisonable offences, it potentially goes very much wider. It would be very helpful if, during continuing discussions, we were assured about the criteria that would be applied in much more detail for its application to future offences because one can see the distinction simply from the offences that he mentioned and we cannot be sure what will happen.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, seems to have a great deal to commend it. He raised it as a query to the Minister. If there were an amendment to that effect on Report I rather expect that it would have a lot of support in the House. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Review of the single justice procedure
(1) Within two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of the single justice procedure.(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—(a) the transparency of the single justice procedure in line with the principle of open justice,(b) the suitability of the use of the single justice procedure for Covid-19 offences,(c) prosecution errors for Covid-19 offences under the single justice procedure and what redress victims of errors have.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in introducing this group, I thought I would tell the Committee about my experience of sitting as a single justice magistrate dealing with Covid emergency legislation about a year ago. I dealt with fixed penalty notices handed out to people who broke the emergency legislation. The fine was £60, but if it was paid within 14 days it was £30. If that was not responded to the defendants received a letter saying that they should either turn up to court or respond to the letter or the matter would be dealt with by the single justice procedure.
I sat at my dining room table as a magistrate and I dealt with 30 trials in the morning. I convicted 29 of the 30. The prosecution case was the police officer’s note, which I had up on my screen so I could read it. There was no defence case because the defendant had not turned up. I then went on to sentence, which was a £100 fine, £100 in prosecution costs and a £34 victim surcharge, so £234 to pay and a collection order. That is what I did 29 times out of 30 last summer. It was a special time. It was a difficult procedure to go through, but we need to be very conscious of the difficulties and potential pitfalls with these types of procedures. Having said that, and given that example, I believe there are occasions and types of cases where it is appropriate.
Both my amendments make the same point in trying to build in suitable reviews of the procedure to ensure it acts fairly. Amendment 30 states:
“Within two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of the single justice procedure.”
My noble friend will speak to her Amendment 37. Amendment 54 says:
“Before section 43 may be commenced, the Lord Chancellor must—
(a) undertake a consultation with relevant stakeholders regarding the proposed abolition of local justice areas under that section, considering in particular the impact on the principle of local justice,
(b) lay before Parliament the Report and the findings of such consultation, and
(c) provide a response explaining whether and how such issues which have been identified would be mitigated.”
To say a few words on Amendment 54, magistrates arrange themselves in local justice areas. There are nine local justice areas in London. It is a historical way of organising magistrates, if I can put it that way. I understand that there are arguments on both sides. I also understand, from talking to the Minister and his officials last week, that there will be extensive consultation and further legislation on this matter if it is taken forward. Nevertheless, I beg to move.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 37, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on everything that his public service outside this Committee and your Lordships’ House brings to our deliberations about criminal justice. The Committee needs no reminders from me of all that the eminent silks, retired Law Lords and former members of the senior judiciary bring to your Lordships’ House. The magistracy is a very important part of the criminal justice system. My noble friend brings an experience, a humility and an anxious scrutiny of the system to our deliberations which is incredibly helpful and always illuminating.
Amendment 37 is purely a probing amendment, and I hope the Minister received that message via his office. I have unashamedly taken this opportunity to put issues concerning women and girls in the criminal justice system on the map. As the Committee and the Minister will know, this is ultimately a shared responsibility with his noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford and her department. These two great departments of state—the Home Department and the Ministry of Justice—are responsible for the whole system, including matters well beyond the scope of this Bill, such as the police and the CPS. They also have responsibilities that are dealt with in this Bill, such as for the court system.
Just last year, both Secretaries of State felt the unprecedented need to issue a public apology to women and girls for their experience of the handling of sex offences in our criminal justice system. To some extent, that has led to the resignation of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. Perhaps more importantly still, it has led not just to terrible attrition rates for sex offences in particular, but to a real crisis of trust and confidence in the system on the part of women and girls that none of us on either side of your Lordships’ House wants to see.
I do not want to say that there should be an inquiry on the narrow grounds that happen to fit into the scope of this Bill. Rather, I want to give the Minister the opportunity to update the Committee and therefore the country on where the Government are and where they propose to be, and how quickly they can rebuild trust and confidence in relation to sex offences in particular and criminal justice in general for slightly more than half of the population.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I will make two separate points. First, Amendment 54, tabled by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, relates to Clause 43, which abolishes local justice areas. It says that the Lord Chancellor must,
“by regulations, make consequential or supplementary provision in relation to the abolition of local justice areas.”
I assume that the thinking behind this is that it would be convenient if all justices were appointed, say, for England and Wales and not to a local justice area, and training, deployment and other issues should be dealt with on a national basis.
I do not know what is planned, but I do know from my experience as Lord Chancellor that being a Justice of the Peace in a particular area is of very considerable importance. I also know that people are appointed as magistrates because they are committed to their local community, and that people being trained and deployed together over a period of time in a particular area is also incredibly important to local justice.
This looks to be a very wide-ranging provision which may well have been thought out in full, but I should be grateful if the Minister explained the thinking, and what is being done about recruitment, deployment and training.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, as a former magistrate, I warmly support the first point made by my noble and learned friend. The differences in offences, their nature and conduct vary enormously in general, from area to area and region to region. To understand not only the offence but its cause and, therefore, what a suitable disposal might be is really important.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the amendments in this group seek reviews or consultations in three quite disparate areas. The first, in Amendment 30 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, concerns the single justice procedure. The second, in Amendment 37 from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, concerns a call for an inquiry into the treatment of women and girls in the criminal justice system. The third, in Amendment 54 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, concerns local justice areas.
First, as to the single justice procedure, there is no reason in principle to oppose Clause 5, which is the related provision in the Bill. It simply extends the procedure to corporations—and it is probably an anomaly that it did not apply to corporations in the first place. Many of the points that I made during consideration of the first group, relating to a review of the new online procedure, also apply in respect of the single justice procedure. It would be sensible for the single justice procedure to be the subject of the same review, consultation and consideration as the new online procedure.
I join the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his helpful account today, and the help that he gives to the House generally as a practising magistrate and with his very important experience in the magistrates’ court. The magistracy is an extremely important part of our criminal justice system. I forget the precise statistic, but magistrates’ court deal with some 96% of all criminal cases. They are a crucial point of disposal.
I accept, as he did, that the single justice procedure has been of considerable use in minor cases generally, but he also pointed to the impersonality of that procedure and the lack of flexibility that it has in dealing with particular cases. It is valuable in minor cases and in cases such as television licence evasion, which I understand is one of the areas for which it is used. It has been particularly helpful with Covid regulations during the pandemic. However, we should not forget that imposing financial penalties remotely—for example, in the case of television licence evasion—can end up with people being severely penalised for failure to pay and even sent to prison. There is also significant evidence that that particular offence and its enforcement affect women disproportionately.
This brings me to the second area in which a review is sought in this group, Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which seeks a judicial inquiry into the criminal courts’ treatment of and service to women and girls. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, spoke to it too. In debates on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, now back in the other place for further consideration of our amendments, I moved an amendment seeking the establishment of a women’s justice board. It had significant and widespread support around the House, and for me it is a matter of great regret that despite having the personal support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the Labour Party was not prepared to vote for the measure. If the measure had been supported by the Labour Party, we might have succeeded on that Division. That is a major reform for which I will continue to press. I hope that the support of those who supported it across the House in that Bill will continue to be forthcoming in future attempts, because it is one way to have a significant effect on addressing the difficulties of women and girls within the criminal justice system. Meanwhile, I of course support the noble Baroness in her Amendment 37.
Amendment 54 mandates consultation with relevant stakeholders about the abolition of local justice areas before that abolition under Clause 43 can come into effect. I see the merits of abolishing local justice areas. It will remove the boundaries between such areas, which—as the Explanatory Notes suggest—are largely artificial. That ought to enable magistrates’ courts to work on a more unified or at least a more collaborative basis and manage their work more logically. However, I listened with care to the note of caution introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. If it is intended by the abolition of local justice areas to destroy the local base of the magistracy, that would be a great step backwards. It is very important that magistrates are dispensing, are seen as dispensing, and understood as dispensing, local justice. While I am completely understanding of the proposal to alter the artificial boundaries so that courts can collaborate on wider areas or narrower areas as appropriate, so that the artificiality is removed, it is very important to preserve the local justice principle. I expect that we will hear more from the Minister about the consultations that have already taken place on this issue in response to the amendment, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say. I hope that he will address that point with care.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I strongly agree that the magistracy is essentially a local service built up by knowledge of the area in which magistrates are asked to administer justice. It would be an extraordinary development to cut that out, because the knowledge of what is going on in their area is a source of strength to the magistracy in issuing judgments which, as has been pointed out, are a very high proportion of the total number dispensed throughout the country. On the other hand, I can see that sometimes a technical relief from the particularity of the boundary may be important. Perhaps that can be done without losing the principle of the locality of the magistracy.
I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said about the help that we are getting in this respect, having here a practising magistrate who knows the difficulties that arise and can be dealt with by personal experience. I also support the idea that we must have some system for noticing what the difficulties of different people are in relation to the courts, particularly women and girls. I imagine that this has to do with the treatment given by the courts, not particularly the question of certain types of crime that may not always be getting the result that we might expect in various situations.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, Amendments 30, 37 and 54, all deal with reviews of the criminal justice system or criminal court procedure. I will take them in turn.
Amendment 30 would require the Secretary of State to commission a review and publish a report on the effectiveness of the single justice procedure. The review would consider the transparency of the procedure and its use in the prosecution of Covid-19 offences. Let me begin by allying myself to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his service as a magistrate, and for what that service gives us in these debates: a real, from-the-front-line addition on how things are going. Since that has been raised, I also thank more generally all magistrates. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, they are the backbone of our criminal justice system. During the pandemic, they went above and beyond to keep the wheels of justice turning.
On the substance of the single justice procedure, I should first make it clear that a case dealt with under the single justice procedure is dealt with in the same way as any other case, except that a single magistrate can deal with it and, as we have heard, the hearing need not be in public. The magistrate must comply with the same legislative safeguards as all other proceedings, and the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines apply in the same way. Importantly, as with the previous group, the single justice procedure is entirely optional. Also, all processes are reviewed regularly to ensure that it is easy to navigate and accessible. Following consultation, the single justice procedure notice has recently been revised to make it even clearer for users.
We have also worked closely with the media to ensure that this procedure is accessible and open, because justice in this country is public justice. While the criminal procedure rules require all courts to give certain additional information on individual cases upon request from the media and other interested third parties, courts are currently obliged to give more information on cases prosecuted under the single justice procedure. That would include the prosecution’s statement of facts and the defendant’s statement in mitigation if there was one.
In addition, a list of pending single justice procedure cases is published each day online and is available to the public. The media also receive a more detailed list of these cases so that they can report on them if they so wish. So, actually, the media receive more information about cases dealt with under this procedure than traditional proceedings, where they get the information only if they actually turn up to the hearing. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would confirm, it is now quite rare that local newspapers turn up. So, far from reducing transparency, the online procedure actually increases it, and I am sure that everyone in the Committee would agree that that is a very good thing.
Lord Beith (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister. Does he think that he ought to consider the impact that would flow from removing local justice areas, when we already find that taking cases to the furthest point within a local justice area—because there is a particularly well-equipped courtroom there, say—means that magistrates are finding that most of the cases they will be asked to sit on are taking place 50 or 60 miles away? It is extremely difficult to recruit magistrates who are prepared to accept that distance, and it does not do much for local justice.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Of course I accept that point as a matter of principle. That is why consultation is really at the heart of this. There has to be a balance. For example, there could be a case where you have a number of very disabled witnesses and a particular courthouse is more accessible for them than another one. There could be cases, as in the pandemic, for example, where some courthouses have been more easily adapted than others. But, as I hope I have made clear, we will make sure that there will be full consultation on this. But we want to build in the legislative flexibility to allow that to take place in cases where it is needed. If I may say—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The legislative form that this is taking, in Clause 43(1), is:
“Local justice areas are abolished.”
The Minister referred to things on the edges, such as greater flexibility between areas and particular courthouses being suitable, all of which sound quite sensible. But it is very hard to think that that requires the wholesale abolition of local justice areas. Echoing what the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, said, could the Minister tell us what consultation has taken place already and led to the conclusion that the solution to, and the right way to deal with, what appear to be problems around the edges is to abolish local justice areas altogether?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
First, the legislative architecture, so to speak, is not just Clause 43: I have already mentioned other statutory provisions that require consultation. There has been consultation on this, although I do not have all the details of it to hand. If I may, I will drop the noble and learned Lord a note setting that out.
I was just about to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, and I apologise for standing up when he was about to speak. I respectfully say that he summed up perfectly the balance that is required between the need for a local link and for flexibility when it is useful.
Finally, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, explained—I received the message—Amendment 37 essentially a probing amendment for me to explain what is going on. It would formally require an inquiry into the adequacy of the criminal courts in relation to women and girls. We are doing significant work in this area, both to improve the experience of women and girls in the criminal justice system—or, in some instances, the justice system more broadly—and to better scrutinise the agencies involved. As she said, a number of agencies are involved, and this is a cross-government issue.
We are already taking specific actions. I shall set out some of them now, although it is a non-exhaustive list. We know that pre-recorded cross-examination can help to improve the experience of victims, so we are rolling out the use of this measure, known as Section 28, for sexual violence and modern slavery complainants to all Crown Courts nationally. We have introduced a single source of 24/7 support for victims of rape and sexual violence. We are working with the police and the CPS to reform approaches to disclosure, and I am sure that the noble Baroness has heard the DPP talk about that in particular. In July last year we launched a violence against women and girls strategy that contained a number of commitments to keep women and girls safe. I will not read those into the record, but I know the noble Baroness is familiar with them.
On a cross-government basis, we have cross-system governance structures to hold criminal justice system partners to account. We published the first criminal justice system scorecard for adult rape in December last year. Publishing and monitoring that data will enable us to improve how adult rape cases are handled at each stage of the criminal justice system, focusing on key metrics such as—I apologise for using this phrase because I hate it, but it is the phrase that is used—“victim attrition”. It sounds terrible but we know what it means.
Finally, there are reviews and inquiries, similar to the one proposed in this amendment, already in place. On 5 October last year the Home Secretary announced the Angiolini inquiry to investigate the issues raised by the conviction of Wayne Couzens for the murder of Sarah Everard. Among other issues, the inquiry is looking at what police forces are doing to identify and deal with misogynistic and predatory behaviour.
In October last year, the Metropolitan Police announced that it had commissioned the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to lead an independent review of its culture and standards following Sarah Everard’s murder. The review will assess the extent to which the force’s leadership, recruitment, vetting, training, communications and other practices effectively reinforce the standards that the public should expect. Finally, the Victims’ Bill consultation, which recently closed, explored how to amplify victims’ voices, improve the accountability of criminal justice agencies and generally improve support for victims, and we will of course be responding to that in due course.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the issue. I hope she will forgive me for not mentioning everything in response, given that her amendment is a probing one, but obviously I can assure her that this is right at the top of our priorities across government. Formally, though, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I have to admit that Amendment 54 provoked more comment than I was anticipating. I particularly thank my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for his observations about the importance of local justice areas, and my noble friend Lady Whitaker for her experience of local justice areas. The same point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay.
I understand that there needs to be a balance between getting rid of artificial boundaries and recognising the importance of locality. While the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about rural local justice areas is absolutely right, where people have to travel a great distance, in a big conurbation such as London I personally feel very much connected to the area where I sit as a magistrate.
I want to add one extra point to this debate, which I understand will be going on, about the importance of the pastoral role of the Bench chairman. I sit as a chairman for the Greater London Family Panel, and quite literally every day I deal with pastoral matters for my magistrate colleagues. It is a very important role and one that my colleagues appreciate. I think it is important that that role should continue in some way, because it is a way of maintaining the morale of magistrates within a particular area. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“and has received the advice of a legal representative prior to submitting a plea.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in this group of amendments we are dealing with offences triable either way and determining the mode of trial. I will go through all the amendments one by one and then make some rounding-up comments at the end.
In Amendment 31, the provisions in Clause 6 would apply only to persons charged with an offence who had received the advice of a legal representative prior to submitting a plea. In Amendment 32, the provisions in Clause 6 would apply only if the court had been provided with a physical and mental health of the accused, confirming that the written procedure would not impede the ability of the accused to understand or effectively participate in proceedings.
Amendment 33 would ensure that an accused person was informed about not only the consequences of giving or failing to give a written indication of a plea but the potential legal and practical consequences of pleading guilty. Amendment 34 would remove cases involving children and young people from the provisions of Clause 9. In Amendment 35, Clauses 6 to 9 would expire two years from when the Bill was passed, unless Parliament passed a resolution to retain those clauses.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 36 in my name. I also support Amendment 36A in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. I declare an interest as a member of the council of JUSTICE, the all-party law reform organisation, and a British agent of the International Council of Jurists, along with many other Members of the Committee and your Lordships’ House.
Notwithstanding the praise that we all rightly heaped on my noble friend and his fellow magistrates in the earlier group, I am a passionate believer in the right to jury trial. I suspect I am not alone in that in this Committee. Juries are not perfect; however, I have defended jury trial, sometimes against Governments of both stripes, for at least 20 years. I hope I do not need to rehearse for too long why it is such an important right. It is not just because people believe in it. People want to be tried for serious matters that will send them to prison for a long time and destroy their reputations, and lives in many cases, not just because they want to be convicted by their peers; it is also important for trust and confidence in the justice system that it is not always seen as primarily about more-deprived and working people in the dock being adjudicated over by middle-class professionals like this Committee. As a third point, my experience of people who have served on juries is that it is a really important part of public service and engagement that people from a broad range of communities can ideally participate in. It is a very important glue for our country and the rule of law. I hope that did not need rehearsing, and I will stop on it there.
I note that in more controversial debates, for example around the Human Rights Act and its survival or not, some of the Minister’s colleagues—and indeed the current Justice Secretary—have said that one of the ways in which the Human Rights Act might be improved on would be with greater entrenchment of the right to jury trial. That is said on the one hand yet, on the other hand, provisions are taken to extend the sentencing powers of magistrates, which is ultimately a significantly broad back door to undermining jury trial.
I understand that the Government are concerned about the backlog. I certainly understand that the backlog in the system has been exacerbated by the pandemic. But if the Government did not share some of my concerns, they would not have added the so-called off switch in the other place that is now to be found in Clause 13. I am concerned not just in principle because of my belief in jury trial, but in practice as to whether the measures in the Bill will actually do what the Government are hoping. First, will these measures really save 1,700 sitting days in Crown Courts by enabling 500 jury trials to be switched to magistrates? Is that really a credible figure? Even if it is, we think that it would represent a saving of only 1.6% according to recent courts service estimates. Secondly, there is a presumption that defendants will not exercise their right to opt for a jury trial, which they are more likely to do if the benefit of a lesser sentence is not a temptation to take the magistrates’ court option. Thirdly, I am really concerned about whether there will be sufficient and appropriate training for magistrates if we are to double their sentencing powers. That is the rationale behind Amendment 36 and, quite possibly—I will not speak for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby—part of the rationale for Amendment 36A as well.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I express my support for Amendment 36A. When I was a member of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee we looked into the impact of the pandemic on the criminal courts. What was striking about our activity was the difficulty we had in extracting from the Ministry of Justice any valuable, reliable statistics on what was happening in the criminal justice system. To have a specific statutory obligation to produce data on this important subject is essential if Parliament is to know what the impact of these new provisions will be.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. My support comes from my experience as a magistrate, and I appreciate the endorsements of the role of the magistrate from all around the Committee. As those who frequent magistrates’ courts will know, they are places where invariably vulnerable and some other defendants are simply not able to understand or cope with the requirements of the legal system, as my noble friend Lord Ponsonby described, so effectively they do not have a fair trial. With regard to increasing the powers of magistrates in Clause 13, magistrates too are not experts, and that is partly the point of them. In my view, the safeguards in Amendments 35 and 36 would be very useful against inadvertent injustice.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I have very considerable concerns, which have also been expressed by the Delegated Powers Committee, about the Secretary of State being able in effect to double the length of time that a prison sentence can last in relation to both summary offences and either-way offences. How long a person goes to prison for as a result of a magistrates’ court sentence is a considerably important factor in determining which cases are tried by a jury and which are tried by the magistrates’ court. If there is to be a change in the powers of the magistrates’ court of this dimension, it should always be done by primary legislation and not by regulatory powers. I oppose the proposal that the Secretary of State could in effect double the sentencing power of the magistrates’ court and think that should be left to primary legislation. For that reason, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, as a non-lawyer, I have listened to much of this debate before and today and I think this Government are going too far in taking into ministerial powers decisions which should come before Parliament. This is another example of that. I do not want the Secretary of State to be able to do this without Parliament discussing seriously what it means. Parliament ought to be much tougher about its powers being taken into the Executive.
I was first elected to the other place in 1970. Since then, Parliament has become increasingly less powerful and increasingly the Executive have increased their power. I do not believe that the Secretary of State should have this power. I believe it should be Parliament. What is more, I believe that the public think it should be Parliament. Only with the consent of the public does the legal system work.
I usually come here to ensure that lawyers do not do things a bit on their own in legal matters, and I think I am the only non-lawyer here, but I wish to say—I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, a fellow recalcitrant individual. It seems to me that we have to be much tougher about things that look small because, in aggregate, they become very dangerous, because the public will lose their belief in the fact that the legal system is independent except that it is dependent on the good sense of the elected Parliament and the House of Lords in ensuring that the Executive do not overstep the mark. I do not want this Government to overstep the mark in this or any of the other things they seem to wish to take unto themselves.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the first two amendments in this group, Amendments 31 and 32 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would add requirements that an adult accused should have received legal representation and had a physical and mental health assessment confirming their capacity to understand the meaning and consequences of a guilty plea in order to participate in proceedings before the court seeks an indication of a guilty plea in writing. Amendment 33, also from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, would require information to be given to the accused as to the consequences of a guilty plea. These are similar to some of the issues we have canvassed before this afternoon. But, again, I support the principle of these amendments. They are directed at the proposition that before a court proceeds to accept a guilty plea, it must be satisfied that the accused has full capacity and understands the consequences.
These are complex proposals, and the consequences of a guilty plea are challenging to understand. They may, for example, include the consequence of being committed to the Crown Court for sentencing under new Section 17ZB of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980. It is important to understand how these points are going to be addressed in practice, and I hope the Minister will help us with that.
As for the next amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I agree with him that taking a guilty plea from children, as proposed by Clause 8, is unacceptable, and I support him in opposing that clause and, consequently, in opposing Clause 14, which would, independently as well as consequently, water down the involvement of parents and guardians in child cases. That involvement is, I suggest, extremely important. There are two principal reasons for my opposition. First, it is extremely difficult to guarantee that a child of whatever age under 18 will fully understand the proceedings or consequences before giving an indication of a guilty plea. Secondly, a criminal charge often brings matters, risks and difficulties that are faced by particular children to the attention of the court when they attend court. That gives the court and other agencies an opportunity to address those difficulties, and that opportunity ought to be available and taken as soon as possible and before any question of indicating a guilty plea arises. For the same reasons, I support Amendment 34 in relation to Clause 9, which would permit allocation hearings in respect of children or young people to proceed in the absence of the accused. That does not seem appropriate.
These are difficult provisions for indicating a guilty plea in writing, and as I have said, it is difficult to see how they will work in practice. While they may prove to be inoffensive if introduced, the sunsetting provisions in Amendment 35 are surely sensible. If our concerns turn out to be groundless, Parliament can revisit the procedures on the basis of evidence of how they have worked out in practice and make them permanent or extend them. Otherwise, they ought to lapse after two years, as is suggested in the amendment.
I turn next to Clause 13, permitting the extension of a magistrate’s sentencing powers. I cannot, at the moment, for the life of me see why the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, are not right to say this is a matter that ought to be considered discretely and independently by Parliament, rather than having delegated powers enable the Secretary of State to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers at a later date by executive action. That does not seem appropriate, and no good reason has been advanced for why that should be right.
As to the threat to jury trial considered by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I share her belief that increasing sentencing powers is likely to lead to more, rather than fewer, defendants opting for jury trial. The greater sentencing powers of magistrates would lead only to defendants taking their chances with a jury trial rather than staying in a magistrates’ court, and forfeiting what has been traditionally the incentive to stick with the magistrates—that they are likely to impose a shorter sentence and unlikely to commit for sentence.
As a matter of principle, I am instinctively opposed to increasing the sentencing powers of magistrates. At the same time, along with many who have considered the evidence, we are strongly opposed to short prison sentences. Against that, there is a serious risk that a move to permit 12-month sentences, when previously six-month sentences were the maximum that could have been imposed, will increase the use of custodial sentences of a longer period where community sentences would be more appropriate. I find that a difficult issue to face. We should be concentrating on increasing the use of community sentences; and increasing magistrates’ powers to 12 months for a single offence is entirely wrong. But I wait to see how the Minister approaches this change and justifies it.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It covers a number of different points, but, essentially, it focuses on the procedure for triable either-way cases and the recent announcement that the Government intend to extend magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers from six months to 12.
Let me start with amendments to Clause 6 —Amendments 31, 32 and 33. They all seek to add further safeguards to Clause 6, but I hope to explain why the Government consider them to be unnecessary. I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to ensure that defendants are able to seek legal representation in criminal proceedings at the earliest opportunity. The central point here is that a defendant is unable to proceed with the new online procedures without the support of a legal representative. That is because the online procedures we are dealing with here are made possible through the common platform, which is currently not accessible by individual defendants. So, as currently, legal representatives would be needed to access the platform, and they will then be able to help identify whether a defendant has particular vulnerabilities or does not understand the process even after explanation.
Defendants, as in a previous group, will be under no obligation to accept an invitation to proceed online. They can choose to discuss these matters at a traditional court hearing if they should so wish. Where a defendant fails to take up the offer of engaging online, the proceedings will simply default back to a normal court-based procedure. Furthermore, the court itself will be able to stop an online proceeding and call an in-court hearing if it has any concern or would like the defendant, for whatever reason, to attend court in a contested case. That would include cases where, for example, the court had concern about a defendant’s mental health or mental capacity, or where, for any other reason, the court considered online proceedings inappropriate.
Amendment 33 would require that defendants are informed about the real-world consequences of pleading guilty to a crime at court and what it could mean to get a criminal record. Of course, getting a criminal record is not something that should ever be taken lightly, but Clause 6 already ensures that the court must provide important information about the consequences of giving or failing to give an online indication of plea.
Where a defendant does decide to proceed with the online procedure, all the communication that would take place between the parties and the court to facilitate effective case management, which would otherwise take place in court, can take place online. A defendant will, for example, still be able to seek an indication of whether a custodial sentence would be likely if they were to plead guilty and were dealt with at the magistrates’ court. Further, any online indication of plea—and that is what we are dealing with, an indication of plea—will remain just that, an indication. A defendant is able to withdraw it at any time before their first appearance at a hearing in court. They will still need to enter a binding formal plea before the court at that hearing and any online indication of plea cannot be admitted as evidence in later proceedings. So I suggest that we have enough safeguards in place to ensure that defendants are appropriately supported.
Given that there has been some recent press coverage of the online procedure, I reiterate the important point I made earlier: the principle of open justice will be maintained for cases dealt with under this new online procedure. Magistrates’ courts will publish the result of these proceedings in the usual way and, and I said earlier, various measures in the Bill will actually mean that the press get more material here than they would from a traditional format.
Amendment 34 to Clause 9 would prevent the courts having a power to proceed with trial allocation decisions for children who fail to appear at their hearing without an acceptable reason and where it would have been in the interests of justice to progress the case. It is important that all cases, but particularly cases involving children, are progressed as expeditiously as possible, so that interventions to tackle offending are not delayed. This provision recognises that with the increased vulnerability of child defendants there will need to be additional safeguards.
Clause 9(5) creates a new, but clearly defined, set of circumstances that would enable a court to allocate a child’s case in their absence. A point to underline is that these conditions are far more stringent than those prescribed for adults, even though children cannot elect for jury trial.
There are essentially five conditions. The first is that the child has been invited, but failed, to provide an online indication of plea and that, in accordance with Clause 14, the court should, where appropriate, have made sure that the child’s parent or guardian was aware of the written proceedings. The second condition is that the child has then also failed to appear at the subsequent allocation hearing. The third is that the court must be satisfied that the child was served with adequate notice of the hearing or had previously appeared at a hearing and was therefore aware of the proceedings. The fourth condition is that the court does not consider that there is an acceptable reason for the child’s failure to appear. The fifth is that the court must be satisfied that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice to proceed to allocate the case in the child’s absence. There are a number of other existing safeguards—I will not go through them all—for example, when a child is arrested, the law requires that a parent or guardian must be notified as soon as possible. For prosecutions initiated by summons or postal requisition, the notice is also sent to the child’s parents or guardian.
Amendment 35 would add a sunset clause, which would essentially switch off the provisions in Clauses 6 to 9 two years after Royal Assent, unless Parliament passed a resolution to prevent it. I understand that the intention is to ensure that defendants are not disadvantaged, but I suggest it is unnecessary for three reasons.
First, as the Committee will appreciate, magistrates’ courts already have powers to allocate in the defendant’s absence. The online procedures are already used effectively in magistrates’ courts; we are simply extending the circumstances in which these powers can be used. Secondly, these measures do not replace current tried and tested procedures; they offer more options to defendants to save time and reduce the number of unnecessary appearances at court. If a defendant does not want to go online, the proceedings simply default to the usual court-based proceedings on their allotted hearing date. Thirdly, as I have said, there are safeguards to protect defendants who need protection, particularly children but also others, recognising that we have a distinct youth justice system.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I find myself in a somewhat invidious situation regarding Amendment 36. I thank the Minister for defending the position of the Government and I speak against my noble friends who questioned the increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers. Having said that, I accept the more general point—or more principled point, if I can put it like that—of the noble Lords, Lord Deben and Lord Marks, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, that the changes should be done by primary legislation rather than in the way in which the Government are proposing to do it here.
I shall just make a couple of points regarding magistrates’ sentencing powers. Magistrates in youth courts sentence up to two years. I have done that once in 12 years as a youth magistrate. Magistrates in adult courts, for more than one either-way offence, can currently sentence up to 12 months. The difference is that it is on multiple offences that you get to the 12-month maximum, rather than on the single offence, which is the proposed amendment. I do that very infrequently: I could probably count on the fingers of one hand in 14 years as a magistrate when I have sentenced 12 months on multiple charges. It really does not happen that often. Nevertheless, the Minister made a fair point when he said that the Government will monitor the impact of this proposed change. I am sure that people will keep a very close eye on whether these sentencing powers are being used in any inappropriate way, but I really cannot see it happening. Nevertheless, I am happy for the Government to monitor the change. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 31.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“Power to make certain provision about dispute-resolution services
(1) This section applies to Online Procedure Rules which provide—(a) for the transfer by electronic means of information held for the purposes of an online dispute-resolution service to a court or tribunal, or(b) for a court or tribunal to take into account, for any purpose, steps that a party to proceedings has or has not taken in relation to an online dispute-resolution service.(2) The Rules may be expressed so that their application in relation to a particular service depends on things done by a particular person from time to time.(3) The Rules may, for example, refer to such services as—(a) appear from time to time in a list published by a particular person, or(b) are from time to time certified by a particular person as complying with particular standards.(4) In this section—“online dispute-resolution service” means a service accessible by electronic means for facilitating the resolution of disputes without legal proceedings;“particular person” and “particular standards” include, respectively, a person of a particular description and standards of a particular description.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause enables Online Procedure Rules to allow things done by third parties to determine the application of the Rules to particular online dispute-resolution services.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that there is another amendment in this group, Amendment 39, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I hope the Committee will find it helpful if I speak to my amendment and then respond in the normal way to the noble Lord’s amendment.
Both amendments relate to the new Online Procedure Rule Committee, OPRC, created by the Bill. Amendment 38 seeks to give, by way of a new clause, greater flexibility to the Online Procedure Rule Committee when it comes to establishing standards relating to dispute resolution conducted online before court proceedings are initiated. This will enable parties who try to resolve their dispute online prior to commencing legal proceedings to then transfer into the legal process in a seamless and efficient way if it proves impossible to resolve some or all of their dispute. The key point is that the IT processes will enable these pre-action dispute resolution processes to roll over into the online legal processes where that is necessary, saving parties time and cost in preparing a new claim. I am grateful to members of the Committee who have taken time to engage with me on this proposed government amendment.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I shall quickly speak to Amendment 39, in the name of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, which seeks some assurances from the Minister on how this will work in practice. We accept the good intentions of the Government in this, and we welcome Ministers making it clear that they understand that not everyone is going to be able to use online procedures and some may feel that assistance in starting or progressing their case is needed. We support the extension of digital procedures, but we think it is very important that users receive an equal service no matter which channel they engage through.
We know that, despite the best intentions of everybody involved, everyday pressures on the ground can sometimes conspire to make unavailable the assistance that, ideally, we would all like to see, or to not deliver it in an appropriate way. We have tabled this amendment because we want assurances from the Minister about provision for digitally excluded people. Research from Lloyds Bank indicates that some 16% of the population do not have the skills to participate digitally. I have colleagues on the Labour Front Bench whom I frequently assist with Divisions, so I do hope they never find themselves subject to these procedures. It is not always obvious, though, who is going to need this support—I am not going to name names. Those who, ordinarily, might be able quite easily to access services online might struggle when dealing with complex issues because they are at a time of extreme crisis in their lives. Others, I am sure, could take great advantage of being able to complete processes digitally. We need to be confident that we are not putting in place systems that leave some individuals disadvantaged.
In Committee in the Commons, there was a long discussion about this issue, whether the definition in the Bill of those who need support was sufficient, and whether paper-based processes should be available on demand. Can the Minister assure us that a user-centred approach will be taken at every stage and in every case, so that the means of engagement is always appropriate to the individual and is offered, rather than that which may be most convenient for the service provider?
I am slightly nervous about the emphasis on the service seeking to direct as many users as possible through primary digital channels and this becoming the priority for the service, even when an individual may not feel completely comfortable with that approach. I know that during earlier stages of the Bill, Ministers have been as reassuring as possible on these points, but we still need more reassurances about the practical reality. Perhaps the Minister can say how he intends to monitor implementation of these measures, so that we can make appropriate interventions should the need arise.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister rightly said that his Amendment 38 is a modest one, but this group of amendments raises more general concerns, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, has just explained.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, may be interested to know, in the light of his earlier observations, that Clause 19 gives the Minister a power to make rules that require that specified kinds of legal proceedings “must” be conducted, progressed or disposed of by electronic means. The Minister could say, in principle, that all cases in the Court of Appeal of a civil nature will not be conducted by oral hearings; they will disposed of by pressing a button on the computer, and the judge will then decide. That is quite a remarkable power, the noble Lord may think.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister draws my attention to subsection (6), which allows a person to choose to do so by non-electronic means, but that is not easy to reconcile with the provision I have just referred to in Clause 19(1)(b). If the Minister can assure me that the person who is the litigant—either the claimant or the defendant—can always choose in all cases to have an oral hearing in the court, then I would be very pleased indeed to hear that.
When we debated provisions in very similar form in 2019 in Committee and, I think, on Report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, assured the House that the Government’s intention was to introduce online procedures only for civil money claims up to the value of £25,000. I ask the Minister whether that remains the intention of the Ministry of Justice. Does it have any plans to introduce these online procedures, including those covered by his Amendment 38, for any other civil proceedings?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
In relation to that point, it is absolutely plain that the wording of Section 19 applies to any sort of civil proceedings, including family proceedings. So it is plainly envisaged that this goes beyond simply money claims. Can the Minister describe the sorts of family proceedings that will be dealt with by the Online Procedure Rules and online processes? In particular, is it envisaged that this is to be restricted to the actual process, for example of getting a divorce or judicial separation, as opposed to proceedings that relate to the division of assets upon judicial separation or divorce, proceedings in relation to wilful neglect to maintain and any proceedings—in both private and public law—relating to children?
Secondly, and separately, I want to make a much more minor point. I understand that one of the things the Master of the Rolls has in mind in relation to Amendment 38 is that dispute resolution services must be used before, or as part of, the online process. The services envisaged by the amendment will themselves be online, so purveyors of online dispute resolution services will become quite significant players in the civil justice system, and perhaps in the family justice system as well. The rules may include a provision that the goodness or quality of those services can be
“certified by a particular person as complying with particular standards.”
To be helpful, in a way, the amendment says that
“‘particular person’ and ‘particular standards’ include, respectively, a person of a particular description and standards of a particular description.”
Can the Minister indicate who will determine whether the online dispute resolution services, which may become something that you as a litigant must engage with, meet an adequate standard? Will it be a judge, an official or some independent body? I would be interested to know what the Government’s intentions are in relation to that.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to rise again, but I want to respond to what the Minister was indicating to me: that, under Clause 19(6), it would be open to a litigant in civil proceedings to choose not to proceed by electronic means even if the rules otherwise so required. What Clause 19(6) actually states is:
“Online Procedure Rules must also provide that, if the person is not legally represented, the person may instead choose to do so by non-electronic means.”
As I understand it, this means that, if the claimant or defendant is legally represented, they can be compelled to proceed by electronic means. So, if the Minister were ever to return to the Bar, which would of course be a great loss to Parliament, and were I to have the pleasure of appearing against him in a case in the High Court, the Court of Appeal or the Family Division, the Lord Chancellor could, by rules, specify that those proceedings are to be conducted by electronic means and that the normal course of advocacy in court—I of course declare my interest as a practising barrister—would not take place. That is why I am particularly concerned that the Minister can assure the House that the ministry has no intention of applying these rules to the Family Division, the High Court and the Court of Appeal other than in small claims cases—that is, cases involving sums of up to £25,000—which is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, told the House in 2019.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to government Amendment 38, which makes provision for pre-action dispute resolution services and procedures to be taken into the overall procedure within the Online Procedure Rules. In principle, we particularly welcome this recognition of the importance of alternative dispute resolution procedures in the civil justice context. We accept the Government’s point that it is even more important in the context of online procedures, where modernisation and simplicity of approach are at the forefront of the Government’s aims, than it is in the context of conventional procedures to make provision for online alternative dispute resolution procedures to be brought into the overall picture.
However, what is proposed is a power only; it is not even really a template, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out, although not in those words. We simply stress how important it will be, in the context of the Online Procedure Rules, to integrate the arrangements to facilitate ADR into online procedures in a clear way. The noble and learned Lord pointed out particular areas where the provisions were very unclear about who would be responsible for those procedures and how they would be authorised, but I would welcome clarification from the Government as to how they propose to proceed in that regard.
Amendment 39 on online procedural assistance in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, and to which I have added my name, is comprehensive. At its heart is the aim in proposed subsection (1) of introducing a statutory duty to provide assistance to those who need help navigating online procedures. That is an adjunct to the importance attached to them in the Bill itself. We of course accept that the Government intend to ensure the availability of assistance with the new procedures and we welcome the introduction of these online procedures. We were also reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, of the limitations of the procedures that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, promised when he was Advocate-General and we last debated these procedures. Our concern is that what the Bill proposes is very much wider and could, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, cover family proceedings, proceedings for injunctive relief—almost any proceedings of whatever magnitude. However that might be, the importance of online assistance becomes greater with the importance of the proceedings to the parties.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, talked about digital exclusion by virtue of skills, but it is not only a question of skills. She is absolutely right that many people are unable to handle digital technology through age, disability or vulnerability, as well as, of course, through lack of education or simply not having kept up with advances in technology. There is also the lack of availability of fast broadband and an inability to access the internet in the way those of us who live in areas of fast broadband are becoming completely used to. There is the availability of technology and computers. The answer might be that people can go to their local library, but for many people in rural areas, local libraries are very distant and lacking in decent equipment. It is not enough to say that anybody can access a computer.
That ties in with the financial abilities and means of people who may be litigants. If they do not have the equipment, as well as not having the skills, they cannot access it. For us, the cardinal principle is that no one, however unable to access digital procedures without help for whatever reason, should be disadvantaged by the new procedures. That can only be answered by a duty upon the Lord Chancellor to provide digital and online assistance. There needs to be assistance to a sufficient level that every litigant understands the procedures and how they are to be implemented and is able to have personal, telephone or remote appointments, whatever is necessary, to enable them to participate in procedures at every stage online. As per our amendment, this also means assistance with language in terms of interpretation or translation for those for whom English is not their first language.
An important part of our amendment is the prescription of an annual evaluation of online procedural assistance and the collection of information about how it is proceeding. I add only this: we are concerned to see that it will remain possible to take all steps in proceedings by paper means. This has been promised by the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out. I am confident that the number of those requiring step assistance by paper proceedings will reduce as time passes. However, the ability to take all steps on paper, at any stage, must remain. This is essential to honour the fundamental principle of our justice system that we preserve universal access to enable people to enforce and defend their rights.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I will first say a word about the amendment which I have put before the Committee. Dispute resolution is fundamental, and it is becoming ever more important. Although the noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to alternative dispute resolution, as he may have heard me say before, we have sought to drop the “A”. We do not call it ADR anymore, we call it DR, because we do not see it as alternative, like alternative medicine. I can see my postbag about to grow, but I am going to say it anyway: alternative medicine is sometimes seen as somewhat outré and whether it actually works is questionable. Dispute resolution is not unusual; it is now a central part of resolving disputes and we know that it works. We want to ensure that people who engage in dispute resolution can do so online and—I will come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in a moment—that they can also vindicate their legal rights online when it is appropriate to do so. I give the example that I have given before: there is a small trader who has a debt of £13,000 and the hearing is going to last for 90 minutes. Do we expect that person to take a day off work and go to the local county court and hang around when, instead, they could continue their job and—I was going to say “dial in” for the benefit for the mystery person on the Opposition Front Bench—go online, engage in the court hearing and vindicate their legal rights.
I will come back to the safeguards in a moment. Properly used, the online procedures are a way of enabling people to vindicate their legal rights. In justice, like in many other parts of our society, we have been forced to go online more during the pandemic and we have seen that it can work. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, talked about when I was previously at the Bar. Before I joined your Lordships’ House, I had to take a three-week trial entirely online. That trial could not—and probably would not—have taken place five years ago, but it took place online. I accept that it was a commercial case, and I will come to the points about family and other cases a little later. However, these proceedings and the Online Procedure Rule Committee are focused on ensuring that the civil justice system can respond to, and is appropriate for, the sort of world in which we now live.
Having said that, the noble Baroness—
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord and am grateful for him giving way. May I draw him back to Amendment 38? I completely accept and take on the chin his criticism of my use of the word “alternative”, but I used it as a distinction from procedures by court. I understand his Amendment 38 to be concerned with out of court procedures, with what I used to call “alternative dispute resolution” procedures, but never will again. Nevertheless, it is concerned with integrating, as I understand it, dispute resolution procedures organised by third parties, which are not applicable to the example that he gave of having your rights vindicated by reference to the procedures that are allowed by Clause 19 of having court procedures online, which is slightly different.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, but I was seeking to make the point more broadly. I will come to the court procedures, but the noble Lord is right: Amendment 38 seeks to ensure that, when people go to pre-court dispute resolution—I think everybody in the Committee wants to encourage that—if the case does not settle in whole or even in part, they can seamlessly transition to the online court procedure. They do not have to repopulate forms or send in new documents. Of course, I emphasise the mediation bit of it remains without prejudice, obviously, that is fundamental to mediation. Amendment 38 is to ensure that there is a set of protocols, essentially, to make sure that we can have that seamless transition. It is part of enabling people to vindicate their legal rights, either by way of an out of court settlement, with which they are satisfied, or by migrating into the online court space.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
May I assist the Minister with an illustration? Four weeks ago, a close relative was owed a significant sum of money and used dispute resolution procedures. He filled in a claim form online, and the debtor filled in a claim form also online. There was a half-hour hearing on the telephone with a judge who reserved his judgment and fortunately found judgment for my relative very quickly after. It shows that it can be done. In that sort of circumstance, it saves days of problems in filling out written documents and attending at court.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. Absolutely, this is about enabling people to vindicate their legal rights. The Government are conscious—we put a clause in the Bill specifically for this reason—that we need to safeguard those who cannot get online, either because they do not have proper broadband or proper facilities or because they are incapable for whatever reason of using computers.
I anticipated that it would be the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who spoke, so I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman for that. She made absolutely the right point. We agree that assistance may well be needed. Although we do not accept Amendment 39, that is because the Bill already places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to arrange for such support. Extensive measures, which I will mention, have been put in place to make sure that assistance is provided to those who need it. We need to distinguish between online procedures, that is, the form-filling applications, and an online hearing. The two things are quite different.
So far as online procedures are concerned, I recognise that some users may find it difficult to use digital services. Therefore, I should make it absolutely clear that there will be no change in the current options to use paper forms and processes. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, says, the cardinal principle is that nobody will be disadvantaged.
For those who choose to conduct proceedings using paper routes, they will be available in the same manner as at present. At HMCTS, we are improving and streamlining the paper routes and are committed to making sure that the level of service is the same no matter whether litigants are engaging with the justice system through online or offline routes. We will therefore be offering substantial support for those who want to use online routes and who can do so with support.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I am increasingly bewildered by these answers. I have obviously misunderstood this clause, but it says that the rules
“may authorise or require the parties … to participate in hearings, including the hearing at which the proceedings are disposed of, by electronic means.”
I thought that meant you could have rules that said this sort of case has to be dealt with at an electronic hearing, which does not give the judge a discretion. Is it the position that this is all subject to an overarching discretion in a judge to say that the hearing can be dealt with in person?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
That is the point I was going to come to. Here we are dealing with the rules set out by the Online Procedure Rules Committee. That is not the Lord Chancellor. I want to show the Committee that the Online Procedure Rule Committee is set out in Clause 22, and in the usual way it is a committee which is not run by the Government but is run in the way that the procedure rule committees are run, which is ultimately under the control of the judiciary. The central point is that ultimate control rests with the judiciary.
As I understood it, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was that two safeguards are in place in relation to the powers to make amendments in Clause 27, which states:
“The Lord Chancellor may by regulations amend, repeal or revoke any enactment to the extent that the Lord Chancellor considers necessary or desirable in consequence of, or in order to facilitate the making of, Online Procedure Rules.”
I cite—this goes back to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in relation to a different issue—subsection (3), which is a consultation requirement with the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, and subsection (5), which states:
“Regulations under this section that amend or repeal any provision of an Act are subject to affirmative resolution procedure”.
I suggest that that is very important. So the architecture here means that, ultimately, judges retain control, in practice, of what is heard online and what is heard in court.
However, there will be increasingly firm directions and defaults as to what is heard online and in court— I make no apologies for this. In my own area, the Commercial Court, although you can ask for an in-person hearing if there is a good reason, it is now the default that, if you have an application for half an hour or one hour in front of a judge, it will be online, because that saves time and money and provides access to justice.
On family courts, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, asked about, I had discussions very recently with the President of the Family Division about this. Again, this is ultimately a matter for the judges, but he was saying that it is actually better to have certain hearings online. For example, if everything has been agreed between the parents and it is essentially a consent hearing, that will be done online. I am sure that it would be inconceivable that a public law family hearing, for example, where the court is taking a child away from parents, would be done online. But, ultimately, that is a matter for the judges.
I regret that, during the pandemic, there were cases where that had to be done, unfortunately, because of the need to protect children—because, when push comes to shove, protecting children is more important than having a face-to-face hearing. But, in normal circumstances, one would certainly expect that that sort of hearing would be face to face—but that is not a matter for Government Ministers or the Lord Chancellor.
These provisions seek to set up the Online Procedure Rule Committee, which will have the same sorts of powers for online procedures as the current rules committees have for the current procedures, whether that is the Family Procedure Rule Committee, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee or the rules committee for the Court of Protection—there are a number of different rules committees—
Lord Pannick (CB)
My concern is not about online hearings, because they do take place and may be convenient in some circumstances; it is that Chapter 2 allows for no hearings at all. It allows for legal disputes, if the Online Procedure Rule Committee so authorises, to be conducted entirely electronically, which means by the submission of arguments in writing. The Minister really needs to recognise that that is authorised by Clause 19. He says that this is only if the independent Online Procedure Rule Committee so decides, but will he accept that, under Clause 22, that committee consists of three people who are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice and three people who are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, so the Lord Chancellor has a very considerable influence over the composition of that committee?
The Minister may be coming to this question. Does it remain the intention of the Government—who clearly have a very influential role in this—that these provisions should be used only for money claims up to £25,000? The origin of that origin, as the Minister will confirm, was the report of Sir Michael Briggs, now Lord Justice Briggs. He investigated these matters and proposed a £25,000 limit which would always apply to this category of case. There would be no hearing. It would be conducted entirely electronically—although perhaps, in exceptional cases, the judge would have a discretion to decide that the matter would be conducted in an oral hearing.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is absolutely right about the three/three appointments, but I would respectfully direct his attention to two features of Clause 22. First, whom the Lord Chancellor can appoint is circumscribed by subsection (4). One of the three has to be a barrister, solicitor or legal executive. The second must have
“experience in, and knowledge of, the lay advice sector”.
The third is somebody
“who has experience in, and knowledge of, information technology relating to end-users’ experience of internet portals.”
The second safeguard is in subsection (7):
“Before appointing a person under subsection (4)(a)”
there is a requirement on the Lord Chancellor to consult with
“the Lord Chief Justice … the Senior President of Tribunals, and … the relevant authorised body.”
So this does not enable the Lord Chancellor just to appoint three friendly faces—although I am sure no Lord Chancellor would do so. They must be people with a particular expertise, and there is a consultation requirement. I accept that the Lord Chief Justice, the Senior President of Tribunals or the authorised body do not have a veto, but, in the real world, it will ensure that we have proper people on the committee.
If I may, I will come back to the £25,000 point in a moment. I am conscious that I want to finish giving the Committee an assurance about assistance, so I will finish this point and then come back to the £25,000 point.
The assistance currently provided by HMCTS is offered over the phone through our Courts and Tribunal Service Centres. HMCTS has also designed and tested a digital support service to ensure that access is available even for those who need more intense support. The contract was awarded to We Are Digital in late 2021. We expect full national coverage by the late spring of this year. Users will be able to attend in-person appointments. It will also be possible for a trainer to attend an applicant’s home for in-home, face-to-face support. If the noble Baroness passes to me confidentially the name of the relevant individual, I might even be able to arrange a home visit. One-to-one video appointments will also be available for those who already have access to online services, as well as the support over the phone. Therefore, I believe that this level of support, combined with the duty in the Bill, is enough to ensure that the digitally excluded receive the support that they need.
Finally, I turn to the outstanding question from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I have been able to check while I have been on my feet. The position is that the legislation is not limited expressly to those claims. I am told that they are first in line to be used under these procedures. The noble Lord’s question went further and asked what was anticipated would be done after that. I will write to the noble Lord once I have an answer which I am satisfied is absolutely clear. I am concerned to make it very clear to the Committee that civil justice in particular is going to change. It has changed and it will change. For example, there does not seem to be any clear reason why a claim of £25,000 would be done online and not one of £26,000. One always has to have a limit but, once we accept that justice can be delivered online, the question then is what cases are suitable. I will write to the noble Lord on that.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
The relative of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is the proof that we all want. We are also aware that the judges will have an incredibly important role in determining the rules. The fact that the judges will have an important role in determining the rules does not mean that Ministers should not tell Parliament what the Online Procedure Rule Committee has in mind. We should expect to be told, for example in relation to money claims, whether, if £25,000 is okay online, £25 million is okay online and required to be online. If that is the vision, tell us, so that Parliament can properly debate it.
In relation to family matters, I am hugely unimpressed by the Minister referring to consent orders, because almost every consent order now is already dealt with online, in the sense that it will be dealt with by emails. We should be told if it will go beyond the sorts of things that I referred to earlier—not because we will necessarily object to it but because we can then debate it. Of course, we are as keen as he is to go towards the future, but we would like to know what the Government’s view of the future is. If the Minister wants to write to us, that is fine, but on Report this might be quite important.
I will say just one more thing. I probably missed it, but I am keen to know who these people were who were going to approve the dispute resolution alternatives to court that are referred to in Amendment 38.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Let me deal with that last point. Amendment 38 is not about approving the persons but approving the process. For example, the Online Procedure Rule Committee will say, “This is the protocol” and there will be Wolfson Mediation Services and Falconer Mediation Services and people can choose in a market who they go to. Of course, those services which offer seamless transition to the online courts service are likely to be better placed in the market, because they will have an advantage. However, it will be up to the providers to set up their services so that people can seamlessly transfer in. The Online Procedure Rule Committee will set up the protocol, so that you know what you are aiming at and the way that you must set up your online procedures so that, if the case does not settle, the data can transfer into the court process.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
What is envisaged in Amendment 38 is that, if it is Falconer Services or Wolfson Services, somebody has to say that they are okay. Who will be saying whether those services are okay?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
That is not what Amendment 38 is aimed at. It is not about accrediting mediation services. It is about saying to mediation services, “If you want people who are using your services, if the case does not settle, to be able to integrate seamlessly into the online court space, these are the protocols to do it”. It is a process point, not a mediation accrediting point. There is a separate issue out there about accrediting mediators. The noble and learned Lord will be aware that there are a number of entities that seek to accredit mediators. There are also a number of bodies such as CEDA in that space. That is an important issue but a separate one to the point of Amendment 38.
I will write about what is online because this is a much bigger point than the Online Procedure Rule Committee. Ultimately judges—I emphasise this point—decide what is online and what is not. At the moment, judges decide whether you get a hearing at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will be aware—to give an example from my background, but it appears in other areas of the law as well—if you appeal an arbitration award to the commercial courts, the judge may say no without giving you a hearing at all, either because you do not pass the permission threshold or because you do but the judge decides to have the hearing on paper. There is therefore no substantive difference between that and what is proposed here.
As to what the Online Procedure Rule Committee will do, I am afraid I will not be able to assist the Committee because the Online Procedure Rule Committee has not been set up yet; there are no people on it and it does not exist. This legislation sets out what the Online Procedure Rule Committee will be looking at. I will, however, look again at what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, and I will write if I can.
Lord Pannick (CB)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. He correctly points out that there are occasions where there is no oral hearing and the judge so decides. Would he not accept, however, that there is a fundamental difference between that and a decision being taken, at the encouragement of the Master of the Rolls and certain others in the legal profession, to do away with oral hearings in categories of case because it is quicker and cheaper to do so?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has made the point but I join with him; it would be a matter of policy and of great significance were a decision to be taken by the Online Procedure Rule Committee that, for example, all civil claims for money are no longer to have oral hearings but to be determined on paper. There need to be some criteria for the exercise of these very broad powers that Parliament is conferring. There is no parliamentary approval of these new rules as I understand it, so it is a matter of enormous concern.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
With respect, of course I understand the point the noble Lord has made, and I will write to try to put a little more flesh on the bones. The last point he makes is in some ways perhaps the most important because I have seen two sides of this coin. The point the noble Lord has just made is that Parliament should have the final say on court procedures because, ultimately, it should not be for judges to decide whether you have a hearing; there should be a parliamentary override.
In a completely separate issue that I have been dealing with, child trust funds, I have sought to have a better procedure in the Court of Protection. It has been quite properly and very firmly pointed out to me that, ultimately, it is a matter for judges, not Ministers or even Parliament, to decide how the courts are run. This is a difficult topic. I take the point the noble Lord has made. I will write to him and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and copy it generally to the Committee.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“(4) After subsection (2), insert—“(2A) The coroner is not to decide that the investigation should be discontinued unless—(a) the coroner is satisfied that no outstanding evidence that is relevant to the death is available,(b) the coroner has considered whether Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights is engaged and is satisfied that it is not,(c) there are no ongoing investigations by public bodies into the death,(d) the coroner has invited and considered representations from any interested person known to the coroner named at section 47(2)(a) or (b) of this Act (“interested person”), and(e) all interested persons known to the coroner named at section 47(2)(a) or (b) of this Act consent to discontinuation of the investigation. (2B) If a coroner is satisfied that subsection (1) applies, and has complied with the provisions at subsection (2A)(a) to (d), prior to discontinuing the investigation, the coroner must—(a) inform each interested person known to the coroner named at section 47(2)(a) or (b) of this Act of the coroner’s intended decision and provide a written explanation as to the reasons for this intended decision,(b) explain to each interested person known to the coroner named at section 47(2)(a) or (b) of this Act that the investigation may only be discontinued if all such interested persons consent, and(c) invite each interested person known to the coroner named at section 47(2)(a) or (b) of this Act to consent to the discontinuation of the investigation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that certain safeguards are met before a coroner can discontinue an investigation into a death and that family members and personal representatives of the deceased are provided with the coroner’s provisional reasons for why the coroner considers that the investigation should be discontinued, helping ensure that family members make an informed decision as to whether to consent to the discontinuation.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am conscious that the Committee is valiant and well into the third hour of today’s proceedings; nevertheless, the next is a very important group. We are now in Chapter 4 and we are not talking even about £25 million; we are talking about life and death, bereaved families and the vital work of our coroners’ courts. We are talking about provisions that will broaden the circumstances in which coroners may discontinue their investigations. We are talking, once more, about the power to hold inquests on the papers, in writing only, and we are talking about the wider use of remote hearings. Amendments 40, 42 and 43 are in my name and I am honoured to share those with my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and maybe even my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington as well—I am doubly honoured. I also have the support, I am delighted to say, of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for the Liberal Democrats.
Further amendments in this group are about providing an appeals process for families who disagree with discontinuance, about ensuring that there are no audio-only inquests, even within the class of remote inquests—no telephone or audio-only inquests—and to ensure that remote hearings are still accessible to the public. Amendment 53 ensures pre-implementation consultation before the remote inquests come into effect. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, supported by his noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has a very important amendment to ensure a right of address for bereaved families. I do not see the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans in his place, but he may appear in the way that only the Lords spiritual can, and his Amendments 50A and 50B contain important provisions in relation to cases of death by suicide. The indefatigable Minister will speak to his provisions on the register of deaths, which will be important; there are things to tidy up there where an inquest has been discontinued.
I turn to Amendments 40, 42 and 43 in my name. Amendment 40 is about ensuring vital safeguards before a coroner can discontinue an investigation into a death. I hope I do not need to go into too much detail about why safeguards are important in such a scenario, but these include ensuring that family members and personal representatives of the deceased get at least a provisional indication of why this is to be the case, so that they can evaluate whether they support the discontinuance of an inquest. Amendment 42 ensures that inquests will not be held without a hearing—in other words, not on the papers only—if this is against the wishes of the bereaved family. Amendment 43 ensures safeguards before there can be a remote hearing, including by giving interested persons the reasons for that judgment.
I say to the Committee that we need to remember the position that bereaved families, in particular, and other interested parties are in when there is an unexplained or unnatural death. I commend the briefing that will have been provided to, I hope, all members of the Committee by the NGO Inquest. It has done vital work in this area for many years. I remind the Committee that legal aid is not available to these families, and it has often been inquests, over the years, that have been the sole source of support and advice to them. Sometimes these will be deaths in custody, deaths in hospital or deaths in other circumstances where people were very vulnerable and looked after, especially by the state to begin with, before that unnatural and unexplained death happened.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, the office of the coroner has evolved over 1,000 years since William the Conqueror introduced it. There were too many dead Normans lying about attacked by Saxon villains. The coroner inflicted a fine called murdrum on a community where a dead body was found. The deceased was presumed to be Norman under the presumption of Normanry, unless the community, by the presentment of Englishry, could avoid the fine by showing that the deceased was English, in which case it did not matter.
The problem is that traces of these ancient procedures continue to dog the present and to provide cover to government not to recognise the realities of coroners’ proceedings today. Coroners today will tell you that their duties are confined to determining who the deceased was and how, when and where they came by their death. But it is not as simple as that. The thread that runs through this chapter on coroners in this Bill is the lack of concern for the interests of the bereaved, particularly the involvement of the family. The Commons Justice Committee reported last year, and Section 3 of its report is entitled:
“Putting bereaved people at the heart of the Coroner Service”.
This Bill does not even begin to do that.
The evidence given at an inquest and the decision of the coroner or a coroner’s jury has many consequences. When the family of the deceased arrive at the coroners’ court, they will frequently find that skilled advocates are representing a hospital, the police if there has been a death in custody, the insurers of a potential defendant in a road accident or insurers where there may be defects in a stadium, a block of flats or other structure. The evidence given on oath before the coroner may be crucial in determining an allegation of assault or negligence or, where the suggestion is suicide, whether life insurance will be paid out to the dependants. A finding in a coroners’ court frequently determines whether the dependants of the deceased can settle a claim for compensation quickly and without stress or whether they have to go through the agony of a court case.
I turn to Amendment 40. Currently, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, the coroner can discontinue an inquest only after the results of a post-mortem have been delivered to him unless he suspects a sudden and violent death or a death in the custody of an organ of the state, such as the police. Clause 38 of this Bill now extends his discretion to discontinue by the use of wide words: if the
“cause of death becomes clear”
before inquest. Under this Bill, all the family receive is a statement of reasons. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that, before the coroner makes his decision to discontinue, he has made all proper inquiries, and ensured that there are no ongoing investigations into the death, such as a hospital inquiry, and crucially that the family have been given the opportunity to make representations and actually consent to the discontinuance.
I think the Explanatory Notes are disingenuous when they suggest that an inquest adds to the distress of the bereaved family. Certainly, there is distress, but a decision to discontinue, taken above their heads and without their participation and consent, may very well cause much greater distress.
I come to Amendment 41. We are all aware of the struggles of many families to obtain an inquest through the courts by way of the discretionary remedy of judicial review. Amendment 41 provides for rules to establish an appeals process for those who disagree with the decision to discontinue. To succeed in the Bill as currently drafted, they would have to establish that the cause of death is not clear. What does that mean? What may seem clear to the coroner may not be clear to the family at all. If Amendment 40 is carried, the need for appeal would be considerably lessened since all interested persons known to the coroner would have been notified of his intention to discontinue prior to the inquest and would have consented to it. Appeals could then be brought only by interested persons who had been overlooked. That is possible but very rare.
I turn to Clause 39 and Amendment 42, where the theme continues. The decision of a coroner to determine that a hearing is unnecessary and may be determined in writing should also involve the consent of the bereaved: put the bereaved at the heart of the coroners service. Proposed new subsection (2)(a), to be inserted by Clause 39(2), requires the coroner to invite representations from known interested parties before he makes his decision, while (2)(b) deals with situations where no representations have been made and (2)(c) deals with situations where there is a disagreement between interested parties. That is what the Bill talks about, but nothing is contained in the clause about the position where all the interested parties oppose the coroner’s notification of his intent to determine the issues in writing on the papers, much less a requirement that they all consent. Amendment 42 would deal with those omissions.
Amendment 43 to Clause 40 again seeks to involve the family in the decision to hold remote inquests. First, they should consent. Secondly, the coroner should be assured that such a hearing is in the interests of justice, in particular that the issues are not too complex and interested persons are able to use to technology involved. Thirdly, the coroner should give his reasons in writing. However, a remote hearing has this disadvantage: the family are not open to the support services that would be available at a live hearing. The Commons Justice Committee recommended at paragraph 66 of its report that
“local volunteers in the Coroners’ Courts Support Service”
use their skills to assist the bereaved and commented that that service is not centrally funded, nor available everywhere.
Amendments 44 and 45 emphasise the public interest in inquests. If held remotely, they should not be held simply by telephone and absent the public. The rules require that inquests be held in public, except for reasons of national security.
Amendment 50, after Clause 42, is an amendment in my name to delete Rule 27 of the 2013 rules, which states:
“No person may address the coroner or the jury as to the facts of who the deceased was and how, when and where the deceased came by his or her death.”
I have been present at a number of inquests and have always found this to be quite extraordinary. Deborah Coles, the director of Inquest, told the Justice Committee about her experience of a culture of “defensiveness” on the part of public bodies:
“Very often, those lawyers are working as a team to try to reduce the scope of the inquest, to try to limit the number of witnesses or argue against questions being left to a jury, if indeed there is one, or argue against a coroner making a prevention of future death report … There is much more concern for reputation management, rather than a meaningful search for the truth.”
In my experience, it is much the same with employers who seek to limit their liabilities. “Well,” you might say, “so much the better if they cannot address the coroner.” However, they often make submissions on facts dressed up as submissions on process. Where both sides are represented, the coroner should be helped by submissions made by both sides to clarify issues of fact and make points about the evidence that has been heard; those points may be crucial to the issue of liability. Whether both sides are represented and there is equality of arms is a matter that we shall come to in the debate on the next group.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I agree with many of the points my noble friend has made. He made a particularly forceful point about addressing the jury at an inquest. It seems an absurdity that the law is in that state; I will come back to the encrusted historical nature of the law on coroners in a second.
I will add to what my noble friend said, although it might seem a slightly conflicting point. It is simply that the circumstances can be very different in so many of these cases. From my experience of inquests and dealing with families going to inquests, I have often come across the circumstances so vividly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, of those who do have any equality of arms and are dealing with a major public sector body or a private organisation with great resources. There are other families for whom an inquest is just another liability they do not want at a time of maximum grief. If there are no grounds for holding an inquest or drawing them into that procedure, we do not want to make life more difficult for them at a time of very real grief.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beith, but I understand that he does not contest any of the propositions put forward by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. They are dealing with cases where people are desperate to find out what happened and want a proper hearing.
I underline the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which is that the key issue here will be in the next group dealing with the provision of legal aid, where appropriate, in cases where there is a dispute. We are not talking about that now, but it is vital to there being a level playing field.
This group of amendments is, in effect, trying to bring the coronial system into line with its current role to allow a proper contested hearing, where appropriate, if there is an issue about the cause of death, rather than it being the administrative process it previously was. There needs to be that change.
The biggest example of why these amendments are right and the Government’s position is wrong is in the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti on what is currently Clause 38. Clause 38 amends Section 4 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The 2009 Act allows the coroner to stop an investigation where the cause of death becomes clear after a post-mortem examination. Section 4 also provides that the coroner can, if asked, give reasons after he has discontinued the investigation. That is not apparent in this Bill, but comes only in Section 4 of the 2009 Act.
Based on not just a post-mortem examination but any other matter the coroner thinks relevant, if he is satisfied that the cause of death has become so clear that he thinks an inquest is no longer appropriate, he can simply stop the whole investigation, without reference to the family, even if they are desperate for an inquest. The coroner’s only obligation is to explain why he or she did that after the event. That is the effect of Clause 38, so my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is absolutely right to say there should be safeguards, and the key safeguard is that proposed in Amendment 40, subsection (4)(2A)(d):
“the coroner has invited and considered representations from any interested person”,
which would include the family. Why do the Government not think there should be such a requirement? What is the purpose of a justice system that can reach a decision without hearing from interested parties, and whose only obligation is to explain why it took that decision after it has been made, without giving the family the opportunity to comment?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for tabling these amendments so quickly; I am pretty sure we would have tabled something almost identical. She is right in everything that she said, and she did so succinctly but effectively. I shall address Amendments 40, 42 and 43 in her name as well as Amendments 41, 44, 45 and 53 tabled by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, there is a theme running through this group: putting families at the heart of this process. There are long-standing concerns about the way that the process often takes place. It is unfortunate that the Government have not taken this opportunity to consider the issue as fully as they could have done. We are worried that efficiency and streamlining of processes should not in any way bring about a sense that these matters are to be treated with less solemnity or seriousness than they should be. We are very nervous that the Government are permanently changing procedures because of a backlog following Covid-19; we understand that that needs to be dealt with, but the needs of families must be central to the Government’s thinking here and at the moment I do not think they are.
We all appreciate that there is widespread inconsistency with coroners and that something of a postcode lottery is developing. I recommend the Justice Select Committee’s report to Members of the Committee. It is a thorough and excellent piece of work; the Government would do well to consider it and implement more of its recommendations. One of the suggestions that the Select Committee made was the introduction of a national service. As I say, the Government have missed an opportunity to go much further than the measures before us, which I am afraid seem motivated predominantly by a need to make up ground after the pandemic.
The current law, the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, holds that where a coroner has commenced an investigation, they must proceed to an inquest unless the cause of death becomes clear in a post-mortem examination. The Government are arguing now that cause of death can be established by what they call “other means”, and they give the example of medical records. They need to be incredibly careful not to create a situation where the justification for discontinuing is based on evidence that cannot be challenged by the family or by others.
My good friend Andy Slaughter in the other place gave a long list of examples, which he probably got from inquest, showing clearly the need for safeguards, particularly the need to allow the family to consent to discontinuation and for such consent to be properly informed. I shall read from Hansard an example that he gave, of Laura Booth. It will just take a minute to read it, but I think it will help us to appreciate the seriousness of the issues that we are considering:
“Laura sadly died on 19 October 2016 at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield. Laura went into hospital for a routine eye procedure, but in hospital she became unwell and developed malnutrition due to inadequate management of her nutritional needs. The coroner overseeing the investigation into Laura’s death was initially not planning to hold an inquest because the death was seen to be from natural causes. However, Laura’s family and BBC journalists fought for the coroner to hold an inquest. The inquest reached the hard-hitting conclusion that Laura’s death was contributed to by neglect. A prevention of future deaths report issued by the coroner to the Royal Hallamshire Hospital noted serious concerns about the staff’s lack of knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and recommended that families should be better consulted in best-interests meetings.”—[Official Report, Commons, Judicial Review and Courts Bill Committee, 18/11/21; col. 334.]
So this really matters. Inquests play a vital role in making sure that loved ones understand the reasons for a death.
Amendment 41 would provide that the Lord Chancellor should establish an appeals process for families who disagree with the decision to discontinue an investigation. We think that is an important safeguard, and it would rightly respect the interests of those whose closest have died. We see it as an anomaly that no right of appeal exists for families in that situation.
Amendment 44 would prevent an inquest being conducted by telephone or other means that were audio-only. We think that audio-only risks hindering engagement with families, and it may be inappropriate in these circumstances.
Amendment 45 would ensure that remote inquest hearings and pre-inquest hearings were still be held in a manner accessible to the public. We think this is important for public confidence, for scrutiny and for challenge. We are worried that measures in the Bill designed to streamline processes will make it more difficult for families to be active participants in the process when all the evidence is that we should be taking steps to help their participation.
We strongly support Amendment 42, which would ensure that inquests were not held without a hearing if that was against the wishes of the family. To do so, as well as being incredibly insensitive, would deprive the family of the opportunity to explore all available evidence and limit their ability to scrutinise the accounts provided by relevant authorities, including by hearing oral evidence and questioning key witnesses. I am sorry the Government are taking the route that they are taking, and I am sure we will want to continue to press them on this as we progress.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group relate to coroners’ inquests, and include government and non-government amendments. I will begin with those tabled by noble Lords who have spoken and then come to the government amendment at the end.
Before I do that, I should inform the Committee that the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St Albans has kindly sent me a note, because his Amendments 50A and 50B are in this group. As he is serving elsewhere, in Committee on the Building Safety Bill, he is unable to join this Committee this afternoon. I do not know whether this is normally done, but unless the Committee objects, I propose to write to him setting out substantially what I would have said had he been here and I will circulate the letter, because even though the amendments are not formally moved, the right reverend Prelate raises points which he has raised in the House on previous occasions.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Subject to the views of the Committee, that sounds eminently sensible. In case it is necessary, perhaps I might say that I support those amendments and would not want to deprive the right reverend Prelate of the opportunity to bring them back to the House at a later stage.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I was not seeking to take any procedural point. Rather than take time this afternoon, because we have not had a debate on the amendments, I will set out the position in writing and copy the letter appropriately.
Before taking the amendments in turn, perhaps I may make an important point which is central to this discussion, which is that coroners—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am sorry, I know that we are pushed for time and there are important matters that we want to get on to. I do not know about other noble Lords, but I would appreciate hearing the Government’s position on Amendments 50A and 50B. Is that possible?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
It certainly is. I had prepared to respond to the amendments and am happy to do so if the Committee finds that more helpful. I see some nodding heads, in which case I will do it that way instead. I will obviously direct the right reverend Prelate to Hansard. I am very grateful.
A central point which is really important is that coroners are judicial office holders—whether they go back to William the Conqueror is not directly relevant for these purposes, although it was interesting. That point is important: they are not administrators or decision-makers; they are judicial office holders. Ultimately, it is therefore up to the coroner, circumscribed by statute, how to conduct their investigations and inquests. I respectfully ask the Committee to bear that in mind when considering a number of these amendments, to which I will now turn.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
The Minister has said we want coroners’ inquests to remain inquisitorial. In practice, they are adversarial. The ancient position of a coroner does not allow the proper adversarial safeguards to be in place. I would like the Government to rethink that position and consider whether it is appropriate at this time.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I can accept two points there. I can accept that I and the Government will reconsider it. We certainly will think about it. This is a bit of a chestnut point, if I may say so; it has been discussed on a number of occasions. But the Government’s current position is that we want coroners’ inquests to be inquisitorial and not adversarial. Secondly, I accept, as a consequence of that, that we do not have adversarial safeguards. But that is consequent on the first point; the inquests are not adversarial.
There is a real problem, I would suggest, in changing the nature of a coroner’s inquest to being adversarial. I accept there will be particular inquests where it is appropriate for people to be legally represented. I do not want to mix the groups up, but we will discuss in the next group the issues of legal aid, exceptional case funding, et cetera. But the central fact is that the inquest is there to determine who the deceased is, where he died—I will say he—when he died and how he died, but not why he died. That is an important point.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are getting to the heart of it, in a sense, because the Government contend that these processes are not adversarial. I understand why they are doing that. However, I am increasingly of the impression that what the Minister has just said has absolutely no grounding in reality. The lived experience of extremely vulnerable people in this context reveals that the processes are deeply adversarial. Their experience does not align with what the Minister has just said. It is unfortunate that the Government do not seem able to appreciate this in their consideration of these amendments.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Of course I understand that point, in the sense that I too have read the material of people who have been involved in inquests. I have read some of the material from the various groups which have been lobbying for changes in this area. I hope that I have set out the Government’s position fairly. As we all recognise, the point being made to me is fundamental. I do not want to keep repeating it in response to each amendment, but I certainly accept that what I have just said underpins the Government’s response to a number of these amendments. Therefore, I absolutely accept and understand the noble Baroness’s position; that is, because she disagrees with me on this fundamental point, necessarily she will disagree with me on a number of these amendments because they are underpinned by the same point—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Whether the process is inquisitorial or adversarial, surely you are entitled to basic fairness. This means you are entitled to having a say on what is going on and an opportunity to make proper representations. This is the case whether you are either a family member saying, for example, that your loved one is the victim of a criminal offence by the police, or you are a police officer being accused of manslaughter. Indeed, the Minister has just said that there would be a coroner at the inquest. Therefore, I am not sure why—whether it is inquisitorial or adversarial —you are to be deprived of that basic fairness.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The fundamental point is: who is the “you”? Who are the parties to an inquest? As I was saying earlier, you do not have “parties” in inquests, in the same way that you do in adversarial proceedings. Of course, there are inquests where legal aid is provided and family members—or, indeed, other people—turn up with lawyers. However, as a Government, we certainly do not want the general inquisitorial procedures, in the normal run of an inquest, to become adversarial. I understand that this is a point of principle between us; this is not a point of detail.
This point will underpin a number of the responses which I am going to give. I turn to Amendment 42, which would require the coroner to obtain consent from interested persons, including bereaved families, before determining whether to deal with an inquest on the papers. Clause 39 has been designed to give coroners the flexibility to conduct inquests without a hearing, where there is no need to hold one. They would exercise that power judiciously, because they are judicial officeholders, in cases where they consider them to be non-contentious, where there is no concern about the cause of death, or where the family have indicated that they do not wish to attend a hearing.
To return to the point I started with: because coroners are independent judicial officeholders, introducing the concept of consent into their decision-making process would cut across their judicial independence and fetter their discretion. The coroner would still be required to hold inquests with a hearing, in cases which require one. The Chief Coroner would issue guidance to coroners on how they should exercise their discretion.
Amendments 43, 44, 45 and 53 all relate to remote hearings. The purpose of Amendment 43 is to ensure that additional safeguards are met before a coroner can hold a remote hearing. The position here is that coroners have always been able to conduct hearings with virtual elements, but the coroner and the jury, if there is one, must be physically present in the courtroom. Clause 40 allows all participants to participate in a remote hearing.
As we have said on previous groups about magistrates and jurors, throughout the pandemic, coroners’ courts have also worked very hard to keep their services running. They have taken advantage of the benefits of remote hearings to keep inquest participants safe. Key witnesses, who often could be front-line doctors, have been able to focus on their primary role and attend remotely. Clause 40 ensures that coroners can continue to operate remotely, when they regard it as appropriate. Again, we expect that, being judicial officeholders, coroners would work with interested persons to address any concerns that they may have regarding remote hearings. Again, the Chief Coroner is expected to provide guidance on any law changes.
Amendment 44 deals with remote hearings. The short point here is that there may be instances where participants might prefer or need to participate in a remote hearing only by audio, without video; perhaps that is the only way that they can participate if they are based abroad, for example, and there are technical limitations to how they can access the hearing. As we understand it, the amendment would exclude those participants from participating in the hearing remotely—
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is not the intention; it is that the hearing in its entirety should not be conducted by audio only. The amendment would not prevent someone participating by audio only.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful for that clarification, but the same point would apply. If the only people who are interested—I am using that word in the technical sense—in the inquest can participate only by audio link, the coroner would have to either not hold the inquest and adjourn it or hold it, so to speak, in a room, despite those interested people not being able to be there. I will consider again whether what the noble Baroness has said resolves my concerns, but I do not think that it does. Certainly, we are concerned to make sure that an inquest can still go ahead when, for some reason, everyone relevant can participate only by way of audio.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that what underpins this and Parliament giving coroners these powers is concern for families. We want people to be able to participate, and we are conscious that some people may only be able to participate through technical means or audio only.
Amendment 45 seeks to ensure that remote inquest hearings and pre-inquest hearings are heard in a manner that is accessible to the public. In this regard, Clause 40 is designed to complement Clause 166 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which is currently in the other place. Clause 166 provides for wider remote participation in court proceedings, under the direction of the court, and it covers a number of courts, including coroners’ courts. So, Clause 166 will ensure that justice remains accessible to the public, regardless of how the hearing is conducted. Again, the Chief Coroner will provide additional guidance on the use of remote hearings to ensure that coroners’ inquest hearings remain accessible to the public, as set out in Rule 11 of the Coroners (Inquests) Rules 2013.
Lord Beith (LD)
It is not just human nature; it is the practical difficulty of registering deaths and making appointments in coroners’ offices, because registrars’ and coroners’ offices have very limited not just opening hours but opening days. This has been particularly marked during the pandemic.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I understand that, certainly from my postbag. I should say that coroners work extremely hard, but the pandemic has caused a real problem. I do not want to go back to the online discussion, but we hope that enabling people to do that sort of thing online will help. I certainly take the noble Lord’s point.
To solve this, the amendments in my name will enable a coroner to provide the registrar with the information required for the registration to take place on the basis of that information. I should make it clear that we are not introducing new duties on coroners or removing the duty on qualified informants to provide information. It is intended to be used in those exceptional circumstances where qualified informants are unable or unwilling—often for good reason, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, said—to discharge their duties. The effect will therefore be that the death will not go unregistered. We think that about 200 of these cases happen a year. They affect the accuracy of records, but there is also the potential for fraudulent use of the identity of an unregistered deceased person, since the identity has not been closed by the death being registered. It is not quite Day of the Jackal territory, but there is potential for fraud there. We want to close that.
For those reasons, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments and I will move mine when the time comes.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to every Member of the Committee who participated, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, for crystallising the fundamental inequality of arms that exists in so many inquests. Regardless of jurisprudence or terminology, that is how it is and how it feels for these families.
I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lady Chapman of Darlington for making it crystal clear that evidence that cannot be challenged is going to be a huge problem, not least for compliance with Article 2, and for reminding us of the tragic case of Laura Booth, which is in the Inquest briefing in case noble Lords want to read it at leisure. There are other tragic cases of that kind, where, but for close scrutiny and the testing of evidence that initially seemed very straightforward, some real public interest problems, whether in our hospitals or elsewhere, would not have been revealed.
I am only slightly disappointed that the very busy right reverend Prelate disappointed my hope that it would be possible for a Lord spiritual to be in two places at the same time. None the less, I am very happy to take care of his amendments and ensure that he has the opportunity to bring them back next time. I think that is the right thing to do.
The Minister will forgive me, I hope, for being disappointed in the 100% defensive rebuttal of every single concern raised in this Committee. He reminds us that coroners are judicial officers and not mere administrators; of course, he is right about that. But he says that in total rebuttal of every safeguard and gentle constraint suggested—for example, the discretion to discontinue these vital investigations.
I cannot help but point out the contrast in the Government’s approach to this part and, for example, to Clauses 1 and 2. In Clause 1 we are told that it is perfectly acceptable for the legislature to constrain judicial thinking and discretion in quite convoluted ways, but here, when we want to put the needs and concerns of families into the equation, we are told that it is somehow an inappropriate constraint on the wonderful, inquisitorial, coronial province. We are reminded that coroners are inquisitorial and not adversarial, as if these terms of art are set not in aspic but in stone. I do not really care whether these are technically inquisitorial or adversarial—you can call them “Doris” as far as I am concerned. There are vital rights and interests being explored in this jurisdiction.
I am sorry to say that I do not know whether the government position is science fiction or space fantasy. In many cases these proceedings are tantamount to very difficult quasi-adversarial proceedings, but one side is silent. One side is silent because it does not have the language and resources to put its side of the picture. This is exacerbated in cases where very defensive public authorities, understandably, are heavily represented by Silks and so on. We cannot say that the full answer to that problem will be a technical, jurisprudential definition of inquisitorial versus adversarial proceedings. That is not reality at this moment in the 21st century.
I gently ask the Minister to consider meeting some representatives of the unrivalled NGO Inquest before Report. That organisation and those working within it have done so much work over the years with a number of bereaved families. I am sure they would at least help illuminate the Minister’s understanding of what some of these most difficult inquests are like for ordinary people. That would be my request to him. None the less, for the moment—but only for the moment, because having heard from my noble friend Lady Chapman and from the Liberal Democrats, I suspect that the Committee will want to return to this group on Report, and I obviously preserve the position for the spiritual Benches opposite—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
“Provision of information to registrar when investigation discontinued
In section 23 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 (furnishing of information by coroner in connection with registration of death), after subsection (3) insert—“(4) Where a senior coroner— (a) discontinues an investigation under section 4 of the 2009 Act,(b) authorises the disposal of the body, and(c) sends to the registrar, on request by the registrar, a certificate stating any particulars required by this Act to be registered concerning the death (so far as they have been ascertained at the date of the certificate),the registrar shall in the prescribed form and manner register the death and those particulars, so far as they are not already registered.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause enables a coroner who has discontinued an investigation into a death without holding an inquest to supply information needed for the death to be registered.
“Publicly funded legal representation for bereaved people at inquests
(1) Section 10 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), after “(4)” insert “or (7).”(3) After subsection (6), insert—“(7) This subsection is satisfied where—(a) the services consist of advocacy at an inquest where the individual is an interested person pursuant to section 47(2)(a), (b) or (m) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 because of their relationship to the deceased; and(b) one or more public authorities are interested persons in relation to the inquest pursuant to section 47(2) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 or are likely to be designated as such.(8) For the purposes of this section “public authority” has the meaning given by section 6(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure that bereaved people (such as family members) are entitled to publicly funded legal representation in inquests where public bodies (such as the police or a hospital trust) are legally represented.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, with the permission of the Committee, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti and I have had a conversation and, in order to move things along, we have agreed that I will speak to her Amendment 49 as well as Amendments 47 and 48.
Having listened to the Minister’s response to the last group, I am incredibly disappointed at the lack of willingness to engage on the issues we were discussing. I really do not hold out much hope on this group, but these are matters that are of such importance. We have tried pushing this issue in the past via other Bills. Perhaps Covid and perhaps just more understanding and the work of Inquest are getting us to a point where the pressure to resolve this problem is increasing substantially. I know that the Minister understands the point we are trying to make. I get that he has a position he needs to defend, but he understands where we are coming from, so it would be welcome if he could try to do something through this Bill to try to improve the situation for bereaved families at inquests.
Amendment 47 would ensure that bereaved people, such as family members, are entitled to publicly funded legal representation at inquests where public bodies, such as the police or hospital trusts, are legally represented. Amendment 48 would remove the means test for legal aid applications for legal help for bereaved people at inquests. Amendment 49 would insert a new clause that would bring the LASPO Act into line with the definition of family used in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
The problem that we are getting at with these amendments is well understood. There are plenty of examples to which we can all refer. This is fundamentally about fairness. I pay tribute to the work of Inquest—we have referred to that organisation a couple of times—which has worked so hard on more than 2,000 cases, with 483 families currently receiving its support.
People who die in police custody, prison, hospital, a care home or a disaster such as Grenfell or Hillsborough need support in order to secure effective understanding and scrutiny of what has taken place. At Second Reading and again just now, the Minister said that the state did not need to fund representation for families as our system is not adversarial. I do not want to go through the whole argument again, but it is just nonsense. If relatives have to fight to discover the truth about what has happened to their loved one, with lawyers putting events in a way that suits the institution and with points that are contestable not allowed to be contested, that is in effect adversarial. The family’s desire to uncover the truth and the institution’s desire or need to conceal it, or to be insufficiently curious about discovering what has happened, are competing aims.
The two parties—I am not going to get into what and what is not a party: we know what we are talking about—might not be adversaries in a formal legal sense, and we understand that, but their competing, different interests mean that there is an inequality of arms which results in injustice for a bereaved family. That is what is happening. I do not believe for a minute that the Minister thinks I am wrong about that; it is just that at the moment he does not feel able to move the Government forward to do something about it.
Inquests are intended to seek the truth and to expose unsafe practices and abuses of power. They are about learning, so that lessons can be taken and future deaths prevented. This opportunity to learn is undermined by the pitting of unrepresented families against multiple legal teams defending the interests and reputations of state and corporate bodies. Public bodies have unlimited access to legal representation at public expense. Too often, families have absolutely nothing. At one of the most difficult periods in a family’s life, they are unrepresented.
Legal aid is granted under the Government’s exceptional funding scheme only if it is considered that there is a wider public interest in the inquest or if it is an Article 2 inquest, where a death was in state custody or it could be argued that the state failed to protect someone’s right to life. It must also meet the financial means test. Removal of the means test in these cases will be helpful, but given that asking people to demonstrate Article 2 qualification is such a high bar, this will not be sufficient to correct the injustice that many families are experiencing now. The evidence for change is completely overwhelming. I hope the Minister will not rely solely on the adversarial/inquisitorial argument. Frankly, it is beneath him. I hope that he will feel able to persuade his colleagues of the need for change. I will say no more. I think that is sufficient to make the point today, but I do not see a situation where we will not come back to this on Report or in future Bills. I gently suggest to the Minister that we have a Queen’s Speech coming up. This is such a problem for the coroners service across the country that it might be worth a Bill in its own right. We could then do justice to the service and to the experience of bereaved families. We are not doing so at the moment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, in the mists of time I was articled to Maurice Evans, who was the coroner on the inquest of the 266 miners who lost their lives in the Gresford disaster. The mine owners were represented by Hartley Shawcross, later the chief prosecutor at Nuremberg, Attorney-General in the Attlee Government and after that a very distinguished Member of this House. On the other side for the miners there appeared pro bono Sir Stafford Cripps, who later became the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Attlee Government. There was equality of arms there. That is what it means, that is what it is about and that is what these amendments are about.
Inquest has very helpfully set out a schedule to its briefing in which it outlines what representations have been made over time. In 1999, Lord Macpherson in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry said:
“That consideration be given to the provision of Legal Aid to victims or the families of victims to cover representation at an Inquest in appropriate cases.”
That is 23 years ago. The Corston report and the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made similar recommendations. His Honour Judge Sir Peter Thornton QC was the first Chief Coroner appointed and I knew him very well; he was in my chambers. He made his report in 2015-16 and said:
“The Chief Coroner … recommends that the Lord Chancellor gives consideration to amending his Exceptional Funding Guidance … so as to provide exceptional funding for legal representation for the family where the state has agreed to provide separate representation for one or more interested persons.”
You could actually take that and make it the amendment we are seeking to put before the Government. Dame Elish Angiolini carried out an independent review of deaths and serious incidents in police custody in 2017 and put it this way:
“For the state to fulfil its legal obligations of allowing effective participation of families in the process that is meaningful and not ‘empty and rhetorical’ there should be access for the immediate family to free, non-means tested legal advice, assistance and representation immediately following the death and throughout the Inquest hearing.”
The right reverend Bishop James Jones in the Hillsborough review said that:
“Publicly funded legal representation should be made available to bereaved families at inquests at which a public authority is to be legally represented … the requirement for a means test and financial contribution from the family should also be waived in these cases. Where necessary, funding for pathology or other expert evidence should also be made available.”
I could go on because there are a large number of these quotes but, coming closer to the present time, the Joint Committee on Human Rights in 2019, considering the detention of young people with learning disabilities and autism, said that:
“Families must be given non-means tested funding for legal representation at inquests where the state has separate representation for one or more interested persons.”
The Justice Select Committee, reporting last year in the other place, said:
“Bereaved people should not be put through the difficult and time-consuming process of meeting the exceptional cases requirements and the means test for legal aid where public authorities are legally represented at public expense at the inquest into the death of their loved one. The Ministry of Justice should by 1 October 2021, for all inquests where public authorities are legally represented, make sure that non-means tested legal aid or other public funding for legal representation is also available for the people that have been bereaved.”
Your Lordships will see that this is not a single voice calling. Everybody who has looked at this particular problem realises that there is no equality of arms, as there was in the Gresford disaster inquest, and that families suffer as a result. They cannot put their case adequately. It is time that the Government should grasp this and not go back to talking about coroners being inquisitorial, therefore we cannot have proper legal representation and so on. It is just shutting your eyes to what is going to happen, and I am sure it is going to happen with the quality of advocacy of Inquest and other people. I hope it will happen through this Bill if we can get together and put the proper amendment forward.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I do not want to repeat anything that the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said in her moving contribution earlier, nor anything said by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, but perhaps I can remind the Minister that we are talking about people who do not have much money and are often in the worst position of their lives, in that they have lost somebody whom they loved very deeply. They are not at a point in their lives where they can cope with the sort of the pressure that the Government are making happen to them. Honestly, the Government are so penny-pinching when it comes to things like this—and student education; indeed, any number of other things—yet they do not make multi- nationals pay their taxes. I do not understand why we ever think that Conservatives are good at running the economy; I think that they are rubbish.
Every death in custody, of any sort, means that a family is bereaved. They may therefore not be thinking clearly and may be extremely upset. For them, the injustice is perpetuated and they are re-victimised because the inquest system is unable to give them the sort of justice they need. Without equality of arms against state parties, effective justice is extremely difficult to achieve. These issues come up time and again; the arguments are well rehearsed. The Government have access to unlimited public funds to instruct the very best lawyers, while the bereaved must navigate complicated legal aid applications in the vague hope that they might be awarded a scrap of money towards their legal costs. It just sounds so mean. It is absolutely mean of the Government. Far too often, the outcome is that inquests and inquiries are seen to have resulted in a damage limitation exercise—an exercise in saving reputations and finding excuses.
I had a grandfather who was killed in the Senghenydd mining disaster. Some 440 men and boys were killed in 1913. The mine owners were brought to court on various issues and paid a total of five and a half pence for every life lost in the mine. This debate reminds me of that: we just do not understand the sort of pressure that we put on people when we do not allow them the legal means to achieve what they need to achieve. It is a bit like the Sue Gray report. Everybody is told that they have to wait until the inquiry is finished but there is another excuse and another delay until, possibly years later, the authorities and everyone have simply forgotten about it.
Here, of course, we all want justice to be done. We all want life to be fair—that is why I am in politics, anyway—but these proposals are not fair. I really hope that the Minister will meet Inquest members because they can give him a first-hand understanding of the pressure and pain that families experience. Justice will not be seen to be done until families are given automatic, non-means-tested legal aid on a footing equivalent to that provided to state parties.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, if noble Lords will permit me, I would like to make a short intervention. I have not taken part at all in the debates on Part 2 because I wanted to find my feet more in this House. I do so as a member of the council of Justice and, until recently, president of the Civil Court Users Association. I certainly intend to get further involved on Part 2 when we get to Report.
To go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, in the mists of time I was called to the Bar in 1963, and in the 1960s and 1970s, legal aid was one of the most socially important provisions that the Labour Government of 1945-51 had brought in. The other one, of course, was the National Health Service and it has been treading backwards ever since that Labour Government went out of power. It is very sad. I remember sitting on a lot of legal aid cases. The problem with legal aid cases was not the lack of spread of legal aid; it was the slowness of the fees coming in. Sometimes they took 18 months or two years to come in, but they did come in and they were very highly supportive of those involved in legal aid. As we see now, particularly in our discussions of coroners, legal aid is no longer supplying the social need that it set out to do, successfully, in 1945. It gets ever more depressing that there is not further support or further money available to support legal aid now, in our present age of the 2020s.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group, Amendments 47, 48 and 49, would introduce three new clauses on legal aid for inquests. Let me make two points right at the start. First, we have now heard about two colliery disasters. The Gresford disaster was something that my late grandfather used to talk about, although he was from south Wales and not north Wales. As a boy, and I have just been looking it up, one thing that stuck with me when he talked about it was the numbers: 266 people were killed in that disaster. Only 11 bodies were recovered because of the understandable, albeit controversial, decision to seal the districts. I remember as a young boy hearing him talk about how that added immensely to the grief that the families went through, because there was no body to bury. I was very moved, if I may say so respectfully, by the noble Lord’s reference to that.
Secondly, as a matter of introduction, it has been suggested by a number of noble Lords that I should meet Inquest. I hope I have established that my general approach is to meet anybody who reasonably wants to meet me. I would be very happy to meet Inquest; I will ask my office to arrange that. Of course, I am sympathetic to the difficulties facing all bereaved families. We certainly take the view that the bereaved family should be at the heart of any inquest process that follows a death. I set out on a previous group, and I will not repeat, the inquisitorial point: I know that is an issue on which we are not going to agree, so I just ask the Committee, respectfully, to take that as read.
It is against that background that I suggest that Amendments 47 and 49, which seek to expand access to legal aid at inquests, run counter to that approach. There is a risk that having additional lawyers at an inquest will not provide an overall improvement for the bereaved and could have the unintended consequence of turning an inquisitorial event into a significantly more complex defensive case, which could, in the majority of cases, prolong the distress of a bereaved family. I think it is important to recognise in this area that for every inquest such as that for Hillsborough—the Committee will appreciate that with my background I remember Hillsborough and I remember that night, as the news came in, very clearly—for every awful case like Hillsborough, there are thousands of, so to speak, normal, usual inquests up and down the country and we want to make sure that they remain inquisitorial. However, we recognise that inquests need to be a process that bereaved families can engage with properly. We have introduced a number of measures in this area; let me set out a few.
We have engaged with the Chief Coroner on training for coroners and their investigating officers; we have published new guidance on coroner services for bereaved people; we have developed a protocol which, among other things, ensures that where the state is represented, it will consider the number of lawyers instructed so as to support an inquisitorial approach; we have, building on the protocol, supported the legal services regulators—the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority—in their work to develop inquest-specific information to guide lawyers who represent at inquests. The regulators published a toolkit and competences for practitioners on 13 September last year.
Turning to legal aid and legal advice and assistance: for bereaved families who need advice and assistance, legal help is always available under the legal aid scheme, subject to a means and merits test. This can help preparation for an inquest, including help for families to decide what questions to ask.
For legal representation at an inquest, legal aid may be available under the exceptional case funding scheme, where certain criteria are met. Where those criteria are met, the Government are of the view that the process should be as straightforward as possible. I do not know whether Members of the Committee have picked this up, because it is very recent, but as of January this year there is no means test for an exceptional case funding application in relation to representation at an inquest or for legal help at an inquest where representation is granted. I appreciate that does not go as far as the amendment, but I hope it indicates that the Government have considered this and moved in this area.
Amendment 48 seeks to remove the means test for legal help prior to an inquest hearing. I have just said that as from January there is no means test for legal representation granted under the exceptional case funding scheme. This change will also provide non-means-tested legal help in relation to an inquest for which exceptional case funding has been granted for legal representation.
I hope that Members of the Committee are aware that we have been conducting a review of the legal aid means test as a whole across civil legal aid, which has been a substantial piece of work. I cannot give a date, but I hope that the review will be published very shortly. It might not go back to the position which the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, set out, but I hope that when Members of the Committee see the review, they will be interested in it and that it will engender some broad support.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Lord has not read it yet, but I will take the bravos in advance in case I get brickbats later. I hope it will be a piece of work which will find support. Given that ongoing work and while recognising there is a point of principle between us—I absolutely accept that—none the less, for today’s purposes, I respectfully invite the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, not to press the amendments.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Clearly, we will not push the amendments to a vote today. It is pleasing to hear the Minister recognise the problems that we are raising, so at least we have got somewhere. Too often, Ministers say, “Well this isn’t a problem; we don’t need to fix it”. I do not think that is what the Government are saying. I am pleased that the Minister has agreed to meet Inquest; that will be very helpful. We obviously reserve our right to come back to this matter at future stages.
Lord Etherton
“Pro Bono Representation: TribunalsPayments in respect of pro bono representation: tribunals
(1) Section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 (payments in respect of pro bono representation) is amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1) after “civil court” insert “or tribunal”.(3) In subsection (3)—(a) after “the court” insert “or tribunal”; and(b) after “in respect of that part)” insert “, but so that no award made under this subsection may exceed the amount that the court or tribunal could order to be paid in respect of R’s representation of P, had such representation not been provided free of charge in whole or in part”.(4) In subsection (4) after “the court” insert “or tribunal”.(5) In subsection (5) after “the court” insert “or tribunal”.(6) In subsection (7)—(a) after “Rules of court” insert “and tribunal rules of procedure”;(b) omit the word “civil”; and(c) after “the court” insert “or tribunal”.(7) In subsection (10)—(a) in the definition of “legal representative” for “exercising a right of audience or conducting litigation on the party's behalf” substitute “, who has a right of audience or has the right to conduct litigation in relation to any class of proceedings in any part of the Senior Courts of England and Wales, or all proceedings in county courts or magistrates’ courts, whether or not the person is exercising such right in the particular proceedings”;(b) in the definition of “relevant civil appeal”, after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) from the Upper Tribunal in accordance with permission granted under section 14B(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (appeal to Supreme Court),”; and(c) after the definition of “relevant civil appeal” insert—““tribunal” means—(a) the First-tier Tribunal;(b) the Upper Tribunal;(c) an employment tribunal;(d) the Employment Appeal Tribunal;(e) the Competition Appeal Tribunal; and(f) any other body, established under or recognised by any enactment, which performs the function of determining matters, which are not criminal in nature, including but not limited to regulatory and disciplinary issues, and which has the power to make an order for the payment of costs.””Member’s explanatory statement
These new provisions will confer on tribunals the same power as civil courts and the Supreme Court currently have to order an unsuccessful legally represented party to pay pro bono costs to the prescribed charity the Access to Justice Foundation where the successful party has been represented pro bono.
Lord Etherton (CB)
As I foreshadowed at Second Reading, I have tabled this amendment to enable tribunals to make pro bono cost orders, as is currently the position in the civil courts and the Supreme Court. I am very grateful to the Minister and his officials for their positive engagement on this issue. I know that the Minister himself, as he was at Second Reading, remains genuinely sympathetic to the principle embodied in the amendment.
We have not received so far any amendment proposed by the Government to match what I have tabled, but this morning those representing the Access to Justice Foundation, which is the prescribed charity and will be the recipient of any pro bono award, received notification that the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General support this change, with the Solicitor-General, who has general responsibility within the Government for pro bono, expressing strong support for it.
On that basis, I am cautiously optimistic that a government amendment will emerge in due course. The main issue of concern at the moment relates to the width of the tribunals that will be caught under the amendment. I know that work is going on regarding that. It would be useful for those who are interested in this issue to have the Minister’s current position recorded in Hansard. I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we fully support the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord. There is nothing that I wish to add. It is plainly sensible. There is no distinction between the civil courts and tribunals, and it is an obvious case for orders in respect of costs.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Similarly, I indicate our hope that the Government will bring something forward. Should that not be the case, we will happily play our part in doing whatever we must to move this on.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as this is the last group in Committee, it is nice to end on a point of general agreement rather than discord. Whoever put the groups together, I take my hat off to them.
I respectfully welcome the proposals in Amendment 51, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and am grateful to him for the time that he has given to me and my officials in discussing this. The amendment would allow pro bono cost orders to be made in tribunals, in much the same way as they are already available in the civil and family courts. This is a helpful proposal which will not only provide additional funding to the Access to Justice Foundation but—moving from pounds, shillings and pence to a statement of principle—importantly signals our support for the excellent work that is done pro bono by the legal profession up and down the country. Indeed, in the last group we heard an example of that from many years ago.
As I have already explained in meetings with the noble and learned Lord, we have two concerns about the amendment as drafted, though I underline that I am making not a point of principle but points of drafting. First, as drafted, it would apply to a very wide range of tribunals of different types, including tribunals for which the Government are not responsible; for example, professional disciplinary tribunals, such as those of the General Medical Council. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord and the Committee would agree that it would not be right for the Government to impose this measure on those tribunals that the Government are not responsible for, in circumstances where we have not been able to engage with them or seek their agreement. That is the first point: the ambit of the tribunals which we are talking about, although those for which the Government are responsible are, for these purposes, the vast majority, so that carve-out will not have too much of a practical effect, I hope.
There is a second point: issues of territorial extent. Again, as drafted, in Wales, it could impose measures on tribunals that are administered by the Welsh Government, while in Scotland, judges would not be able to make pro bono costs awards, even when they are dealing with reserved matters in reserved tribunals. That, again, is a drafting point I am confident we can discuss and agree on.
Therefore, I will formally invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment, but I assure him on the record that I and the Government remain entirely supportive of the principle behind his amendment. As he says, my learned friends the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are also supportive of the measure. The noble and learned Lord and I have met on a couple of occasions now to discuss the amendment ahead of today’s debate. I will certainly continue to discuss this issue with him ahead of Report, and I am very hopeful that we will be able, between us, to do something that will resolve this issue and meet the point he seeks to address in his amendment.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I think there is nothing more to say. I am very grateful to the Minister for those indications, and on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the new Clause after Clause 42 in the name of Lord Wolfson of Tredegar to be brought into force by regulations.
Ukraine
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I have just come from a meeting of G7 leaders, joined by Secretary-General Stoltenberg of NATO, and with permission I will update the House on our response to President Putin’s onslaught against a free and sovereign European nation.
Shortly after 4 am this morning, I spoke to President Zelensky of Ukraine as the first missiles struck his beautiful and innocent country and its brave people, and I assured him of the unwavering support of the United Kingdom. I can tell the House that, at this stage, Ukrainians are offering a fierce defence of their families and their country, and I know that every honourable Member will share my admiration for their resolve.
Earlier today, President Putin delivered another televised address and offered the absurd pretext that he sought the ‘demilitarisation and denazification of Ukraine’. In fact he is hurling the might of his military machine against a free and peaceful neighbour, in breach of his own explicit pledge and every principle of civilised behaviour between states, spurning the best efforts of this country and our allies to avoid bloodshed. For this, Putin will stand condemned in the eyes of the world and of history: he will never be able to cleanse the blood of Ukraine from his hands.
Although the UK and our allies tried every avenue for diplomacy until the final hour, I am driven to conclude that Putin was always determined to attack his neighbour, no matter what we did. Now we see him for what he is: a bloodstained aggressor who believes in imperial conquest. I am proud that Britain did everything within our power to help Ukraine to prepare for this onslaught, and we will do our utmost to offer more help as our brave friends defend their homeland.
Our embassy took the precaution on 18 February of relocating from Kyiv to the city of Lviv in western Ukraine, where our ambassador, Melinda Simmons, continues to work with the Ukrainian authorities and to support British nationals. Now we have a clear mission: diplomatically, politically, economically—and eventually, militarily—this hideous and barbaric venture of Vladimir Putin must end in failure.
At the G7 meeting this afternoon, we agreed to work in unity to maximise the economic price that Putin will pay for his aggression. This must include ending Europe’s collective dependence on Russian oil and gas that has served to empower Putin for too long. So I welcome again Chancellor Scholz’s excellent decision to halt the certification of Nord Stream 2. Countries that together comprise about half of the world economy are now engaged in maximising the economic pressure on one which makes up a mere 2%. For our part, today the UK is announcing the largest and most severe package of economic sanctions that Russia has ever seen. With new financial measures we are taking new powers to target Russian finance. In addition to the banks we have already sanctioned this week, today—in concert with the United States—we are imposing a full asset freeze on VTB. More broadly, these powers will enable us to totally exclude Russian banks from the UK financial system, which is of course by far the largest in Europe, stopping them from accessing sterling and clearing payments through the UK. And with around half of Russia’s trade currently in US dollars and sterling, I am pleased to tell the House the US is taking similar measures.
These powers will enable us to ban Russian state and private companies from raising funds in the UK, banning dealing with their securities and making loans to them. We will limit the amount of money that Russian nationals will be able to deposit in their UK bank accounts, and sanctions will also be applied to Belarus for its role in the assault on Ukraine.
Overall, we will be imposing asset freezes on more than 100 entities and individuals, on top of the hundreds we have already announced. This includes all the major manufacturers that support Putin’s war machine. In addition, we will ban Aeroflot from the UK.
Next, on top of those financial measures, and in full concert with the United States and the EU, we will introduce new trade restrictions and stringent export controls, similar to those that they in the US are implementing. We will bring forward new legislation to ban the export of all dual-use items to Russia, including a range of high-end and critical technological equipment and components in sectors including electronics, telecommunications and aerospace. Legislation to implement this will be laid early next week. These trade sanctions will constrain Russia’s military-industrial and technological capabilities for years to come.
We are bringing forward measures on unexplained wealth orders from the economic crime Bill to be introduced before the House rises for Easter. We will set out further details before Easter on the range of policies to be included in the full Bill in the next Session, including on reforms to Companies House and a register of overseas property ownership. We will set up a new dedicated kleptocracy cell in the National Crime Agency to target sanctions evasion and corrupt Russian assets hidden in the UK, and that means oligarchs in London will have nowhere to hide.
I know this House will have great interest in the potential for cutting Russia out of SWIFT, and I can confirm, as I have always said, that nothing is off the table. But for all these measures to be successful, it is vital we maintain the unity of our partners, the G7 and other fora.
Russian investors are already delivering their verdict on the wisdom of Putin’s actions. So far today, Russian stocks are down by as much as 45%, wiping $250 billion from their value in the biggest one-day decline on record. Sberbank, Russia’s biggest lender, is down by as much as 45% and Gazprom by as much as 39%, while the rouble has plummeted to record lows against the dollar. We will continue on a remorseless mission to squeeze Russia from the global economy piece by piece, day by day and week by week.
We will of course use Britain’s position in every international forum to condemn the onslaught against Ukraine, and we will counter the Kremlin’s blizzard of lies and disinformation by telling the world the truth about Putin’s war of choice and war of aggression. We will work with our allies on the urgent need to protect other European countries that are not members of NATO and could become targets of Putin’s playbook of subversion and aggression. We will resist any creeping temptation to accept what Putin is doing today as a fait accompli. There can be no creeping normalisation—not now, not in months, not in years.
We must strengthen NATO’s defences still further, so earlier today I called for a meeting of NATO leaders, which will take place tomorrow. I will be convening the countries that contribute to the Joint Expeditionary Force, which is led by the United Kingdom and comprises both NATO and non-NATO members.
Last Saturday I warned that this invasion would have global economic consequences, and this morning the oil price has risen strongly. The Government will do everything possible to safeguard our own people from the repercussions for their cost of living, and of course we stand ready to protect our country from any threats, including in cyberspace.
Above all, the House will realise the hard and heavy truth that we now live in a continent where an expansionist power, deploying one of the world’s most formidable military machines, is trying to redraw the map of Europe in blood and conquer an independent state by force of arms. It is vital for the safety of every nation that Putin’s squalid venture should ultimately fail and be seen to fail. However long it takes, that will be the steadfast and unflinching goal of the United Kingdom, of every honourable Member of this House and of every one of our great allies, certain that together we have the power and the will to defend the cause of peace and justice, as we have always done.
I say to the people of Russia, whose President has just authorised an onslaught against a fellow Slavic people, I cannot believe that this horror is being done in your name or that you really want the pariah status it will bring to the Putin regime.
To our Ukrainian friends in this moment of agony, I say we are with you and we are on your side. Your right to choose your own destiny is a right that the United Kingdom and our allies will always defend. In that spirit, I join you in saying ‘slava Ukraini’. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating today’s Statement. I think the mood of the House is sombre but also very angry. We welcome the new measures announced in today’s Statement and assure her of our support to ensure their speedy implementation. Could she pass on my thanks for the briefings I received on this issue?
This morning, as Ukrainians woke to the sound of sirens, military aircraft and tanks, they knew that their worst fears had been confirmed. Despite his false claims, President Putin’s invasion of a democratic and sovereign state is totally unjustified. It is a moment in history, the consequences of which will reverberate around the world.
Putin will learn that his aggression carries a very high price. The Moscow stock market collapsed this morning, the rouble has fallen in value and the human loss is already clear. We make it clear that we stand with the people of Ukraine and reassert that democracy will always triumph over dictators.
Resistance will not be limited to Ukraine. It is backed by the united resolve of democratic nations around the world. As the noble Baroness alluded to, there are also many people in Russia who are horrified by this violent aggression. The free people of Ukraine are supported by the entire NATO alliance in their resistance, many of whom will feel less safe and secure today. The decision to strengthen NATO’s defences is welcome and we must work with our NATO allies in eastern Europe to bolster their security, especially in the light of Estonia’s decision to trigger Article 4 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
The noble Baroness will recall that, earlier this week, I asked her for an update on our support to the Baltics. I understand that she was not able to respond then, but if she could give some further information today we would be grateful. We welcome that Sweden and Finland will attend tomorrow’s NATO meeting. This is a moment to show the world that we stand shoulder to shoulder with all those who feel the destabilising impact of this invasion.
The noble Baroness may know that noble Lords from across the House, some of whom are here today, including me, have been actively supporting peaceful protesters throughout Belarus through an adoption scheme of political prisoners. We particularly welcome the announcement of additional measures against Lukashenko’s regime, which is enabling this offensive.
We now must combine military assistance with political and financial support. There is no greater display of solidarity than to expose and tackle illicit Russian finance. The steps announced, including deposit limits, are welcome. The noble Baroness will have our support in implementing these urgently to prevent restrictions being circumvented. We must now go further. Although I accept the need for wider agreement to exclude Russia from financial mechanisms such as SWIFT, I urge the Government to act without delay to seek to achieve such an agreement. Given that the central bank of Russia is known to have developed an alternative to SWIFT payments, we also need to be prepared for any follow-up action.
I am pleased that the noble Baroness the Leader reiterated the UK’s intention to divest from Russian oil and gas. We should support others in doing the same. Many of our NATO allies in eastern Europe are heavily reliant on them, and we need to support them in transitioning from Russian fossil fuels as part of an international focus on energy security.
The noble Baroness will have heard calls on many occasions from Members of this House to bring forward the economic crime Bill, so the Government are right to commit to it today. We offer practical support to ensure that it is implemented. We need tough action on shell companies, urgent reform of Companies House, and zero tolerance for Russian interference and Russian money in our democracy. The noble Baroness will understand that these Benches have called for the Elections Bill to be used as a means of banning Russian donations to political parties. Sanctions have to go beyond just squeezing the Russian economy. They have to be part of an entirely fundamental change in our approach towards the Kremlin, so it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could outline what other legislation—she mentioned the economic crime Bill—will be brought forward as part of the Statement.
Can we say something about humanitarian support, because it is going to be crucial? The Government will have our support in any steps undertaken by our representatives at the UN, working with UNHCR and other appropriate agencies, to prepare for this. We must fully engage in our international institutions to secure humanitarian access under the Geneva conventions, and we must recognise the very great risk of large-scale displacement of people.
As we turned on our TVs this morning, no one could be failed to be moved by the shocking and very distressing pictures of Ukrainians fleeing their homes, some of them unable to carry their possessions with them, their cars stuck in traffic jams as they sought escape for themselves and their families. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are already engaged with neighbouring allies to offer the UK’s support.
President Putin has made it clear that he sees any ally of Ukraine as an opponent of Russia. He is prepared to act as the world’s aggressor, whatever the consequences. Ukraine, NATO and the Government have our full support in challenging this barbarism, and we will do all we can with them to ensure that Putin fails. He will learn that his actions serve only to strengthen the alliances against his corrupt regime. The spirit of Ukraine will live on in the resistance and, while there will be dark days ahead, we will ensure that the price Putin pays for his aggression will outweigh the doomed pursuit of personal glory.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, when we debated this issue on Tuesday and President Putin’s intentions were already pretty clear, I doubt that we fully comprehended the scale and ruthlessness of what he had in mind. Now we have no such doubts. By his own words, we know that he wants the demilitarisation of Ukraine, which he can achieve only by the successful subjugation of the whole country. We are united in offering our full support to the Ukrainian people in resisting this illegal aggression and, metaphorically at least, we stand alongside them in their defence of shared values, peace, democracy and liberal views.
There is therefore much in the Statement which we welcome. It is encouraging, for a start, that the G7 leaders have been working so closely together today, and we hope that this process continues. Some of the specific measures are particularly welcome. We welcome the exclusion of Russian banks from the UK financial system, the banning of Russian banks and companies from raising funds in the UK, the extension of these sanctions to Belarus, the freezing of assets on individuals and companies, and the banning of high-tech dual-use items as exports to Russia. There are, from the Statement, clearly still many details of how these measures will be worked through, and we will obviously co-operate with the Government on any emergency legislation required to do this.
There seem to be two glaring omissions from the list of sanctions announced this afternoon: the words “Rosneft” and “Gazprom” do not appear. Quite apart from their size, these two companies stand to gain more than any others by the rise in oil and gas prices that Russian action is causing. It would surely be sensible to freeze them from the City of London, and any activity in the UK more generally. Could the Minister explain whether that is really an omission, or if they might in fact be covered under the headline of the 100 banks and companies affected by these sanctions?
The Prime Minister said that the package means that oligarchs in London have nowhere to hide. Given that they are not actually hiding in London but do have assets here, what does this mean? Which oligarchs might be involved? It would, for example, send a strong signal if one of them were Roman Abramovich, one of Putin’s close allies. I say this not just as a Leeds United fan: will he be affected?
The Prime Minister says that the Government will introduce legislation covering unexplained wealth orders before Easter. That is fine, but why are the other measures in the economic crime Bill, particularly the reforms to Companies House, and the register of overseas property ownership, being delayed until the next Session?
The whole Bill is apparently ready. To have potentially to wait for more than a year before it is on the statute book seems plainly inadequate to us.
The Government say that nothing is off the table and specifically cites the SWIFT system as being in that category. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked: what is happening with SWIFT? Are the Government actively pursuing it with their allies, and is there any sense of when the exclusion of Russia from SWIFT might actually take place? Can the Leader of the House confirm whether any other measures are also under consideration, such as a blanket travel ban for all Russian nationals or a more complete trade ban?
In terms of the military situation, it is a positive step that NATO leaders are meeting tomorrow. However, the Prime Minister gives no clue about what he will be proposing to them. For example, will NATO—and, in any event, will the UK—be making more military equipment available to Ukraine? Does the UK stand ready, as we believe it should, to offer more troops and aircraft to NATO if they are requested?
The fog of war has descended on Ukraine. We cannot yet see clearly how events on the ground are progressing. However, we can see enough to know that Ukraine faces the gravest possible threat to its independence as a sovereign state and that the longer-term peace and prosperity of Europe is in the balance. We must now unite, both as a country and with our democratic friends, to defeat these threats.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I very much thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their comments and support. The incredibly constructive and sombre tone which all noble Lords have taken in their contributions is gratefully received. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House as we face this difficult situation.
The noble Baroness asked about the Baltics. We are working extremely closely with them. We are doubling the number of UK troops in Estonia in support of NATO’s enhanced forward presence. My noble friend Lord Ahmad visited there 10 days ago, so a lot of contact is going on. Of course, we will work with our allies and, as was mentioned in the Statement, we will have meetings with NATO leaders tomorrow to discuss this further. We are also deploying four more RAF jets to create a squadron in southern Europe. As I mentioned in the previous Statement earlier in the week, a small number of marines have been deployed to Poland from the UK and more will travel during the next week. These personnel were originally due to deploy on Exercise Cold Response in Norway but have been reassigned to this task. We will be working with our allies to look at what further support we can provide in the region and to Ukraine itself.
Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked about SWIFT. As the Statement made clear, we have not ruled anything out in terms of sanctions. None the less, this is an area where we need to work with our global partners, and we will continue to have discussions with them to see as and when further action can be taken. I can assure the noble Lord that there will be a rolling programme of sanctions and actions. As we have already seen from Tuesday to today, significant developments have happened. Today, I cannot go any further than what has been said in the Statement in terms of shedding light on things to your Lordships’ House. I am sure noble Lords understand. As I hope noble Lords have already seen, I can assure the House that we are working globally with our partners to ensure that we are moving and responding to the situation as things develop on the ground.
In relation to legislation, as the Statement made clear, we will bring forward measures on unexplained wealth orders before the House rises for Easter. Next week, we will be laying SIs which will be able to implement some of the other measures. As I said in the Statement, we will set out further details before Easter on the range of policies to be included in the economic crime Bill, including on reforms to Companies House and a register of overseas property ownership. We are already taking action on multiple fronts to crack down on economic crime. Noble Lords will know that, in July 2019, we published Economic Crime Plan bringing together Government, law enforcement and the private sector to tackle fraud and money laundering. We have already delivered 37 actions within this. We have created a new National Economic Crime Centre to co-ordinate law enforcement response to economic crime and have introduced further new powers. Obviously, more work needs to be done, and we are focused on that.
The noble Baroness rightly asked about the humanitarian situation. We are providing financial and technical assistance to partners on the ground to ensure the system is prepared to support those in Ukraine who need it most. For instance, we are working with partners, supporting the Ukraine Humanitarian Fund through the UN humanitarian agency. We have already committed £100 million to new funding to aid efforts to build Ukraine’s resilience and reduce reliance on Russian energy supplies, and 1,000 more British troops will be put on readiness in the UK to support a humanitarian response in the region as and when we know where we need to deploy it.
The noble Baroness was absolutely right: the international community must speak as one in demanding full humanitarian access, respect for human rights and adherence to international humanitarian law. Once again, I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, of course the people of Ukraine are uppermost in our minds and thoughts, but should we not also remember that people have demonstrated on the streets of Russian towns and cities today? Can we do everything possible to utilise to the full the soft power of the BBC World Service to make sure that people in Russia know what is being perpetrated in their name? While we do that, should we not also give the boot to RT, which is a Russian propaganda tool in our own country? Finally, would it not be unthinkable if we did not make sure that the football tournament scheduled for St Petersburg takes place somewhere else?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank my noble friend, particularly for the opportunity once again to state that we have no quarrel with the Russian people; our quarrel is with the Russian leadership and President Putin’s regime. I thank my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to say that on behalf of the House.
In relation to Russia Today, my noble friend will know that the Culture Secretary has written to Ofcom to express her concerns. It needs to keep the situation under careful review. It does have powers to step in when broadcasting rules have been breached. It has, as my noble friend will know, previously sanctioned RT for serious failures to comply with broadcasting rules on impartiality. As we in this country obviously benefit, thankfully, from a free and open media, it is right that all regulatory decisions by Ofcom be made independent of government.
In relation to the football tournament, I think the Prime Minister has been very clear in his view that it should not take place in Russia.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the Statement says that the invasion of Ukraine must fail and must “be seen to fail”. Can the noble Baroness the Leader say something about what failure might look like? Would it, for example, be similar to the rather bedraggled departure of Soviet troops from Afghanistan in the 1990s after well over 10 years of occupation?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I do not think I can stand here today and set out exactly that. What I can say is that we will be working with our NATO partners, as we have seen today through the G7, to ensure that we have a united front against Russian aggression and that we maintain a strong posture together, in order to make sure that we have the outcome in this situation that we all want.
Lord Robertson of Port Ellen (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure I was not the only one waking up this morning to listen to the news who was not reminded of that similar day in 1968 when we woke up to hear the news that Soviet tanks had crushed the velvet revolution in Czechoslovakia. In May 2002, when I chaired the NATO-Russia summit with President Putin as an equal member around that table, I thought that I had finally exorcised the ghosts of 1968. Only hours later, I stood on a platform beside President Putin at a press conference when he said these words:
“Ukraine is an independent, sovereign nation state and it will choose its own path to peace and security.”
Now, remarkably, the same man says that Ukraine does not exist as a state, does not deserve to be considered as one and that its democracy will be crushed. The leader of the Russian people—a people to whom we owe so much for our liberty today—is taking his country down the road to pariah status. The Russian people do not deserve this.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. He has huge expertise in this area and speaks with great authority. He is absolutely right. Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated attack against a sovereign, democratic state. As we have discussed in this House in recent weeks, the Russian Government have repeatedly denied their hostile intent towards Ukraine. At the same time, they have amassed troops, launched cyberattacks and staged false pretences and provocations. As the Statement made clear, unfortunately, the Russian Government seem to have shown that they were never serious about engaging in diplomacy. I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I entirely agree with him.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, when we eventually get the economic crime Bill, it and other similar legislation will be welcome, but critics would say that the challenge is enforcement. Do the Government plan to boost the resources of bodies such as the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, HMRC and the Financial Conduct Authority to allow them to crack down on the abuses we see in London and the UK?
There is a very good article in the Telegraph today which reminds us that it is not just cash that is being invested in Londongrad:
“Russian reputations have also been polished, courtesy of London-based PR and libel law firms to whom the oligarchs pay generous fees”
to protect both their image and the Kremlin’s. Specifically, will the Government tackle the abuse of libel laws to stop this crushing of free speech and criticism?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness. Before I answer her points, I should say that I was a bit out of touch. It looks as if the football tournament has already been moved. I was not aware of that. This is good news. I hope that my noble friend is pleased.
As the Statement mentioned, we are setting up a new, dedicated combating kleptocracy cell within the National Crime Agency. We have ensured that it is staffed with both the resources and the people it needs to do its important work. We have done a lot in this area. For instance, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 has allowed us massively to step up our recovery of criminal assets. We seized £1.3 billion between April 2015 and 2021. We have also conducted around 7,900 investigations. There have been 2,000 prosecutions and 1,400 convictions annually for stand-alone money laundering or where it was the principal offence. Our record shows that we are committed to putting money into this area. We have also committed £400 million to tackling economic crime during the next three years through our new anti-money laundering levy.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, just three hours ago, at a meeting with the Ukrainian ambassador, he reported fighting in the government district of Kyiv. What more can we do to ensure the safety of President Zelensky, his family and his cabinet, not least because of our long and honourable record in providing, where necessary, a place of safety for Governments in exile?
When we respond to Putin’s illegal actions, will the Leader bear in mind that, in addition to economic sanctions, in 2000 Ukraine signed the Rome statute, which established the International Criminal Court? Will the Government urgently discuss with our law officers and the ICC how we can invoke its powers to prosecute war crimes committed on the sovereign territory of Ukraine, so that Russia’s military and political leaders understand that they can be brought to justice within the ICC’s jurisdiction without any veto at the Security Council, and that they can be prosecuted for atrocities committed on Ukrainian soil? Will the political leaders in the Duma who voted for these war crimes have sanctions imposed upon them as well?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
In relation to the noble Lord’s comment about war crimes, conversations are ongoing within the discussions that are being had internationally. I cannot go further and give specifics in this Statement, but I can certainly say that conversations are being had across a whole array of issues. Yes, we are looking at imposing sanctions on individual members of the Russian assembly.
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, while weapons of war reduce people and property to ash, will the Leader join me in commending the Pope on calling for a day of prayer and fasting for peace next Wednesday, which is Ash Wednesday, and in commending the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on calling us all to join in that world movement of prayer and calling all churches of this land to set aside Sunday as a day of prayer for peace? Also, would she care to expand on her answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the humanitarian response, especially in terms of how we are co-ordinating our response with European partners to the predicted refugee crisis? The Leader may be glad to know that Coventry City Council has assured me that it stands ready to do its part should that be needed, as it has been in the past.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate and all the faith leaders he mentioned for the action they are taking. We stand united in the face of this Russian aggression and, once again, it is fantastic to have leadership from across all our communities standing together. I set out to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, a number of things that we are doing in relation to the humanitarian effort—in particular working through the UN, which we will continue to do. Of course, we will assess the situation and discuss with international partners other things that we may be able to do to help if we see a refugee crisis unfold within what is happening in Ukraine.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Leader for taking the time to make this Statement and have a full Front Bench, as well as for finding time tomorrow for a proper debate. I want to return to the economic crime area and ask whether resources will be made available to Companies House for enforcement, because that is of course important and reform there is overdue. Also, will similar measures be taken in other countries? That would level the playing field, act as an incentive for good behaviour and reduce corruption in other countries.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I have set out in our general discussion—obviously, there was also the G7 call today—we are working with our global partners on a range of issues. I am sure that discussions around the international rules have been part of that. As I said in the Statement, we will set out before Easter further detail on the policies that we intend to bring in, including reforms to Companies House, so my noble friend should not have too much longer to wait for that.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s announcement today on the measures that they are going to take, but Putin will not just sit there; he will probably use cyberattacks as a way of hitting back at the West. Are the Government prepared to do the same back to him if that happens? Unless we do that, we will see continual cyberattacks. We need to make sure that he understands the consequences of what he intends to do.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The noble Lord is right; that is certainly an area we are looking at. He will know that we have put a UK cyber sanctions regime into force to ensure that the consequences of malign cyber activity are felt. We have specialist teams of cyber experts and intelligence analysts working round the clock to detect, decipher and deter Russian threats. We are also investing £2.6 billion in cyber and IT capabilities over the next three years.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I must say, it was good to hear of the strong co-operative approach with our European friends and neighbours; I very much welcome all that was announced today. Less good, however, was today’s news that one of the armoured columns started the morning in Belarus. The Belarusian leadership has been acting as cheerleaders from the side for Mr Putin on this. Can the Leader comment on that and confirm to us that the sanctions regime that will hit Belarus will be equally as tough and strong as the one that will hit Russia for this infamous act of brutality?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
Yes. In the Statement, it was quite clear that the sanctions will also be applied to Belarus for its role.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in responding to the Front-Bench questions, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House said the international community must speak as one. That is identifying it, I think rightly, as a world crisis, not just a European one, as it has sometimes been painted. I note the very powerful contribution from Kenya’s ambassador to the United Nations reflecting on his own country’s experience that the recovery from the “embers of dead empires” must be completed without creating new forms of oppression and domination. Will the UK go to the United Nations General Assembly to seek collective action under the uniting for peace procedure created by Resolution 377A, given that it is obvious that action by the Security Council would be blocked by Russia?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The noble Baroness will be delighted to know that my noble friend hotfooted it back from the UN this morning and will no doubt be able to give more information on that in the debate tomorrow.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, it might be helpful to have an insight from the Government about what is known about Russia’s endgame in this whole arena. Might the Leader be minded to respond to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about the Cabinet and the President and their safety in Ukraine? I would just counsel that cool heads need to prevail in ensuring that the British media are not kicked out of Russia as a result of tit for tat, otherwise it will probably be less helpful than any other area.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
The noble Lord invites me to get into the mind of Vladimir Putin and I am afraid that that is not something I am at all qualified to do, I am pleased to say. I am sorry; I forgot to cover the point from the noble Lord, Lord Alton: the Prime Minister is talking regularly to the President of Ukraine and so I am sure will have discussions around the issues that he raises. He spoke to him first thing this morning and is speaking to him very regularly.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, if I may push the Leader of the House a little further on the question raised by my noble friend the shadow Leader of the House, what new legislation is being brought forward as a result of today’s Statement?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I have said, there will be some SIs next week in relation to some of the sanctions. Through the debate we had earlier today, we already have some of the powers we need. There will be that and, as I said, we will be bringing forward measures on unexplained wealth orders before the House rises at Easter. We will also be bringing forward an economic crime Bill in the next Session, of which further details will be set out in due course.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Robertson, I well remember waking up in August 1968, not least because it was my birthday and, instead of being wished a happy birthday, I was told that the Russians had invaded Czechoslovakia. I want to ask one question arising out of the Statement. It says that the UK now has
“a clear mission: diplomatically, politically, economically—and eventually, militarily”.
Can I invite the Leader of the House to explain the use of the word “militarily” in that context? Does it imply that the UK will now continue to supply arms to Ukraine?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
Yes, we have said that we will provide further support to Ukraine in terms of both lethal aid in the form of defensive weapons and non-lethal aid, such as body armour and helmets. We will be continuing to supply them and support them in that way.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, can the Leader tell us what support the Government will provide to the BBC World Service so that the citizens of Russia can continue to receive accurate information from the free and democratic West? Can she assure the House that Putin himself is on the list of people to be sanctioned? I underline the importance of making it absolutely clear to the Russian military, Russian officials and the security services in Russia that they will be held to account individually for war crimes committed during the invasion of Ukraine.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, discussions are ongoing around the issues the noble Lord talked about. On the BBC and Russia, this was a question the Prime Minister was asked in the other place and I know that he and the Culture Secretary will be looking at how we can best support that to continue, because it is obviously extremely important to make sure that information that is true and valid is able to be accessed by the Russian people—and not just the misinformation and disinformation by the President.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, has the Foreign Office offered any new travel advice relating not just to Ukraine and Belarus, but any neighbouring countries?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I said on Tuesday, I think, British nationals were being encouraged to leave Ukraine. What we have also said now is that any who are still in Ukraine should register their presence, which will allow us to provide the latest information. Obviously, now there will be a lot of difficulties around this, but we have encouraged all British nationals to leave Ukraine. We are also providing an enhanced response in the FCDO, with teams working around the clock to support British nationals and respond to political developments. Obviously, we will continue to update travel advice as and when we can.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, will the measures that the Leader of the House has announced target Putin’s personal wealth? I do not think he cares about institutions but I do think he cares about his wealth.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
As I say, I cannot go any further than what was said in the Statement, I am afraid. As I said, sanctions and action is a rolling programme, but I cannot say anything more specific. I apologise.