House of Commons

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 2 March 2022

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

The President of COP26 was asked—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

1. What his timeframe is for the succession of the UK presidency following the COP26 conference.

[The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)]

The UK took on the COP26 presidency on 31 October last year at the start of the COP26 conference in Glasgow. We hold the presidency throughout this year until the start of COP27 in November, when we pass the presidency baton to Egypt. We are already working closely with Egypt and other partners to ensure that countries deliver on the commitments they made at COP26.

[Mr Bone]

Will the Minister use his remaining time as President to pivot the conference away from making climate change the No. 1 goal to making energy security the No. 1 goal?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the reasons the UK has reduced its dependency on gas is precisely that we pushed out in terms of renewables. We have the second-biggest offshore wind sector in the world and we want to quadruple it. What I want, as part of the solution to tackling climate change, is a clean energy transition across the world.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

One of the set-backs at COP26 was the failure to reassemble the coalition we managed to put together in Paris in 2015, which met the high ambition to bring both developed and developing countries together to put pressure on the big emitters to pull weight. In the transition to a new presidency, what is the current President doing to try to rebuild that coalition ahead of Egypt taking on the role?

[Alok Sharma]

I just gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Glasgow climate pact was delivered as a result of consensus brokered by the UK across almost 200 countries. What we now need to ensure is that we get countries to deliver on the commitments they made. That is what I am focused on during the rest of my time as COP President.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

2. What assessment he has made of the role of businesses in implementing the Glasgow climate pact.

[The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)]

COP26 was one of the first conferences where there was a significant presence from the private sector. Collectively, business made a significant number of commitments. Five thousand international companies have signed up to the UN’s Race to Zero campaign, including over half the FTSE 100.

[Mr Mohindra]

I thank the President for that answer. My constituent, Wayne McGuire of Grove Innovations in Tring, does excellent work fitting heat pumps to households, which can be a vital assistance in reducing the use of coal, as agreed to in the Glasgow climate pact. What provisions have the Government made following COP26 to support other businesses like Grove Innovations and ensure that the installation of green technologies is viable for all households?

[Alok Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend’s constituent, Wayne McGuire of Grove Innovations, for the work he is doing to ensure a green energy transition in our own country. With regard to support, as announced in our heat and building strategy last year, the Government are launching a new £450 million boiler upgrade scheme, providing upfront grants of up to £6,000 to install heat pumps.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

3. What discussions he has had with his (a) Cabinet colleagues and (b) international counterparts on the development of a loss and damage fund.

[The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)]

COP26 was the first COP where a section of the cover decisions was devoted to loss and damage. We agreed a new Glasgow dialogue on loss and damage, which will discuss the arrangements for the funding of activities that avert, minimise and address loss and damage.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report confirms that many consequences of climate change are already locked in, regardless of ongoing efforts to mitigate them, and that the consequences will fall mostly on those least able to cope and on those least responsible for the crisis. Can the President confirm that his Government will be aiming for an equitable loss and damage agreement that compensates developing nations and recognises the disproportionate role of developed nations in causing such loss and damage?

[Alok Sharma]

I note the point the hon. Gentleman makes. He will know that the UK already funds internationally relevant activities relating to loss and damage, including humanitarian and disaster response support. With regard to the Glasgow dialogue, that will be a consensus-driven process. Ultimately, all parties will have to reach a collective decision on the outcome and results of that dialogue. What we want to ensure is progress during this year.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

The IPCC’s latest report, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) mentioned, acknowledged loss and damage, and warned that it is most concentrated among the poorest, most vulnerable populations. The loss and damage mechanism was established at COP19 back in 2013, and recognised in Paris in 2015; its details, however, are still to be finalised. The Scottish Government stepped up to the plate in Glasgow on that issue, followed by private enterprises and others, such as Wallonia. It will clearly be the subject of even more international attention at COP27. As COP President, what pressure is he putting on his own Government to follow the Scottish Government’s lead?

[Alok Sharma]

As I said in response to an earlier question, the UK is already funding activities internationally that are relevant to tackling loss and damage. The hon. Member knows that we are doubling our international climate finance commitment. My role is to broker consensus among almost 200 parties. That is why we are beginning to ensure that by the time we get to Sharm el-Sheikh we have made some progress on the discussion on loss and damage, but I hear what she is saying.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

4. What progress he plans to make in tackling climate change during his COP26 presidency.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

8. What his priorities are for the COP26 presidency.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

11. What his priorities are for the COP26 presidency.

[Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)]

12. What his priorities are for the COP26 presidency.

[The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)]

As I have already noted, we are working with Egypt, as the incoming holder of the presidency, and other partners to ensure that countries deliver on the commitments that they signed up to in the Glasgow climate pact. We want to ensure that there is progress on adaptation, finance and, of course, support for developing nations, and we need to ensure that all countries revisit their 2030 emission reduction targets.

[Robbie Moore]

At a local level across Keighley and Ilkley we have experienced the real impacts of climate change, including flooding in Utley, a landslide in Riddlesden, and severe water issues along Redcar Lane in Steeton. As we look to build on the deal achieved at COP26 last year, how will we work with international partners to make real progress on adapting to the damaging effects of climate change?

[Alok Sharma]

A number of colleagues have raised the IPCC report, and my hon. Friend raises a vital point. The report was a grim reminder to the world about climate change and how it is affecting our planet. What it underlines, and this is what we are doing through our presidency, is working with parties to ensure that there is faster progress on adaptation—particularly on finance, with the commitment to double adaptation finance. Domestically, we are putting in place robust measures, including £5.2 billion to tackle coastal erosion and flooding in the UK.

[Felicity Buchan]

One of the great successes of our COP presidency was the amount of private capital dedicated towards net zero. It increased from $5 trillion to a staggering $130 trillion. How will my right hon. Friend keep up that momentum?

[Alok Sharma]

As my hon. Friend highlights, net zero has become one of the clearest financial trends. I pay tribute to Mark Carney and his whole team for establishing the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, to which she refers. I hope that during this year additional private capital will sign up to that alliance. Part of the work of GFANZ is to ensure that some of the funds are directed towards climate resilience projects in developing nations. We are working with GFANZ and other partners towards that objective.

[John Lamont]

It is vital that the UK seizes the opportunities of net zero to create new industries and green jobs. How is the President of COP26 prioritising skills to help the United Kingdom and the world to achieve our ultimate goal?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is right to link achieving net zero with jobs creation. Of course, as we build these new green industries, it will require equipping workers with the right skills. I congratulate him on the hard work that he did in ensuring an award from the UK Government of £380,000 to Borders College in his constituency to develop green courses in entrepreneurship and carbon literacy. I look forward to visiting the college with him next week.

[Holly Mumby-Croft]

My right hon. Friend has committed to getting the Santiago Network on loss and damage running to provide concrete solutions. Will he provide a further update on that?

[Alok Sharma]

Work on the Santiago Network is under way. Submissions are being requested from parties. As my hon. Friend knows, it is a two-year programme. We want to ensure that by the end of the year, and by COP27, we have operationalised the Santiago Network, and that there is funding available to provide technical support to countries that need it.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I thank the President for attending the meeting on small island developing states recently; they really appreciated that. If global warming is kept at 2°, we will lose 99% of our coral reefs; if it is at 1.5°, we will lose 70%. It seems particularly appropriate, with COP27 being held in Sharm el-Sheikh, that that should be a priority. Could the President tell us whether it will be?

[Alok Sharma]

It is absolutely a priority. The hon. Lady makes particular reference to support provided for adaptation, and as I said we reached a commitment at COP26 for developed nations to double the amount of money going towards adaptation finance by 2025. I want to ensure that we are on trajectory by the time we get to Sharm el-Sheikh.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Reuters reports today that data show that the corporate world remains far from aligned with global climate goals and that some countries have gone backwards since the agreement. What does the President have to say to that?

[Alok Sharma]

There is clear recognition within the private sector that net zero is the right approach. It is obviously what customers and clients want, but it is also good for the bottom line. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Felicity Buchan) referred to $130 trillion of assets being committed to net zero, and we need to ensure that those commitments are in line with the science. That is one of the things that the UN Secretary-General is looking to do through his expert group.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Glasgow climate pact and, indeed, the COP26 priorities contain a commitment to keep 1.5° alive, yet the UN Environment Programme production gap report warns that Governments plan to produce more than twice the amount of fossil fuels in 2030 than is consistent with 1.5°. Real climate leaders do not license new oil, gas or coal and no amount of climate checkpoints will change the climate reality. Will his Government scrap their checkpoint as inconsistent with climate leadership and rule out new fossil fuel licences once and for all?

[Alok Sharma]

We put forward a plan for how we wanted to ensure that our climate compatibility checkpoint was consistent with our legally binding commitment to net zero by 2050. That consultation closed on Monday. I hope that the hon. Lady responded to it and I know that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will come forward with its views on the checkpoint in due course.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

Just over 100 days after world leaders agreed vital efforts to limit global warming at COP26, a UN report has issued a stark warning of the dire consequences of inaction. This Conservative Government are asleep at the wheel when it comes to delivering a secure and stable future. Will the Minister go further and act faster to cut emissions, commit to adaptation finance and prevent the “atlas of human suffering” from becoming a grim reality?

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Lady has to judge the Government on our record. We have cut emissions the fastest of any country in the G20 or G7 in recent years. We have the second biggest offshore wind sector in the world and we want to quadruple that by 2030. We are not reliant on Russian gas precisely because we have focused on clean energy in our country. That is what we want to see delivered across the rest of the world as well.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the key role of marine conservation in tackling climate change and that damage to the seabed and the plants that are there can be very damaging in the battle towards climate change. With that in mind, will he look at the Bill presented yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), supported by me and others? It would ban bottom trawling, which would mean that we could tackle the problem better.

[Alok Sharma]

I am happy to look at the Bill that my right hon. and learned Friend mentions, of course. As we know from the IPCC report, if global warming continues at current rates, by 2070 we could be in a position in which a third of all plant and animal species are extinct.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

The House stands in solidarity with the Ukrainian people, and the Minister’s COP presidency now faces an utterly changed context with the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The crisis shows how global dependence on fossil fuels can support the most tyrannical regimes. This is a war underwritten by Russia’s oil and gas. Does he agree that the best route to protect our energy and national security and to undermine the power of Putin is not by increasing our dependence on fossil fuels, whose price is set on the international market, but by supercharging the drive to renewables, nuclear and energy efficiency so that all countries, including our own, have clean, cheap and homegrown power?

[Alok Sharma]

No one can fail to be moved by the appalling suffering of the citizens of Ukraine, including children. They are enduring unimaginable conditions, and our hearts and thoughts are very much with them.

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the clean energy transition. I have said in the past that we want to see a managed clean energy transition, which is why we have put forward the North sea transition deal, and of course the Government are focused on renewables, on nuclear and on hydrogen.

[Edward Miliband]

An essential part of becoming less dependent on fossil fuels is reducing our demand for gas by making more progress on energy efficiency. On its own, insulating the 18 million draughty homes in our country would cut our imports of gas by 15%—double the amount we import from Russia. In his role holding Departments to account on net zero, will the COP26 President now persuade Treasury and other colleagues that it is time to finally get serious and invest at scale in the national programme to upgrade Britain’s homes, which Labour has long called for?

[Alok Sharma]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. Buildings are responsible for 20% of emissions in the UK; in our heat and buildings strategy, we set out our aim to ensure we insulate homes. He is right that that is how to reduce not only emissions, but costs for individuals and businesses.

[Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)]

5. What assessment he has made of the outcome of COP26.

[Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)]

6. What assessment he has made of the outcome of COP26.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the outcome of COP26.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

15. What assessment he has made of the outcome of COP26.

[The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)]

At COP26, almost 200 countries agreed to the historic Glasgow climate pact, which keeps alive the aim of limiting the average global temperature rise to 1.5°. At the Munich security conference last month, John Kerry, the US special envoy for climate, referred to COP26 as perhaps the best or one of the best of the COPs, saying that it did more than Paris; it really gave life to Paris. We now need to ensure that the commitments are acted on.

[Mark Fletcher]

Given the horrible events that we are witnessing in Ukraine at the moment, does my right hon. Friend agree that the move from COP towards more renewables is more important than ever, particularly for our European neighbours? They need to wean themselves off Russian gas and oil for the good of our world.

[Alok Sharma]

There is a lot of consensus in the House that the UK’s significant expansion of renewables in the past decade, particularly in the offshore wind sector, has reduced our dependence on gas. My hon. Friend is right that we need to continue to push out on this to ensure our domestic energy security. As I say, we want more on renewables, more on nuclear and more on hydrogen.

[Antony Higginbotham]

Now more than ever, we have to ensure security of supply. Following COP26, does my right hon. Friend agree that investing in technologies such as new nuclear is so important for constituencies such as mine and for the wider Lancashire area?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When I was Business Secretary, we set out our 10-point plan for a green industrial revolution, in which we made it very clear that we would be supporting nuclear. We have followed that through; I know that my hon. Friend will have particularly welcomed the funding that is going towards new small modular reactor technology.

[Giles Watling]

I recently met the brilliant people at Rolls-Royce who are working on small modular reactors, which will help to fill the gap between fossil fuels and renewable energy. Does my right hon. Friend agree that more investment in nuclear power will help to combat global climate change and, more importantly, help our desperate constituents who are having to choose between eating and heating right now?

[Alok Sharma]

I share my hon. Friend’s view: nuclear has to be part of our clean energy mix. We are investing in SMR technology through Rolls-Royce, as he has acknowledged. It also provides an export opportunity for the UK and the creation of jobs in our industrial heartlands.

[Alexander Stafford]

Will my right hon. Friend set out what steps he is taking to ensure that the Glasgow climate pact starts delivering this year, in 2022?

[Alok Sharma]

Delivery of the Glasgow climate pact is very much the focus for this year. As I said in Glasgow, we managed to keep 1.5° alive, but its pulse is weak and will strengthen only if Governments honour their commitments. Since COP, I have engaged with Ministers from more than 30 countries. I will continue to engage and press them to honour their commitments.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

The credibility of the presidency depends on action at home. Next month, the Advanced Construction Skills Centre in my constituency will host my apprenticeships fair. Does the COP26 President agree that the jobs of the future and apprenticeships offer a credible way to take action at home? Will he support my fair? Will he say how his Government are supporting the jobs of the future?

[Alok Sharma]

Apprenticeships, of course, are a big focus for this Government. We have created many hundreds of thousands over the past years. Ensuring apprenticeships in green technologies is vital, and I wish the hon. Lady well with her fair.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker, do you and the Minister agree that, if we are to take COP26 seriously, it should be about what we do locally as well as what we do nationally? Is the Minister aware that the company that the House of Commons Commission has chosen for the contract to construct the holocaust memorial building, which I fully support, rather than putting all the materials and the waste and all that traffic on the river, which would be easily done, will put it on the road, to snarl up London traffic and pollute the air? Could we look at this question locally and nationally, right now?

[Alok Sharma]

I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. He will appreciate that it is not part of my responsibilities, but I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and other relevant colleagues will have heard his call for action.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

In its report this week, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put forward its bleakest warning yet, stating that

“progress on adaptation is uneven and there are increasing gaps between action taken and what is needed to deal with the increasing risks”.

It emphasised the urgency of immediate action, concluding:

“Half measures are no longer an option.”

Given that, will the COP President outline what concrete steps have been taken since COP26 to scale up finance for adaptation, whether he will increase ambition in the light of the report, and whether he will commit to bringing a plan to this House on how we will meet the 2025 target?

[Alok Sharma]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point. Of course, the report was a stark warning—yet again; another code red—that we need to take action. I set out in answer to earlier questions what we are doing to push forward, particularly on finance—we are doubling adaptation finance. We will ensure that, by the time we get to COP27, the trajectory has moved forward.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)]

Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine is at the forefront of all our minds, as are the brave and courageous people of Ukraine, who are having to defend themselves from the despicable onslaught of Putin’s forces. Supporting and standing with Ukraine is rightly our most immediate priority, but as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report earlier this week highlighted, the chronic threat of climate change has not gone away. That is why we need to redouble our efforts to ensure that countries deliver on their commitments set out in the Glasgow climate pact.

[Felicity Buchan]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the path to net zero not only creates clean, green energy but makes us energy resilient, which will further reduce our need for imported oil and gas?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I can tell her that when I speak to Governments around the world, they see the UK as a leader in the clean energy transition. On my recent visit to Vietnam, for instance, they were particularly keen to understand the revenue mechanisms we have put in place to ensure more private sector investment in our offshore wind sector.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

T3. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that the voices of environmental and human rights defenders are heard in the COP process, and that their safety and security are protected worldwide?

[Alok Sharma]

At COP26 and in the lead-up to it, we ensured that the voices of civil society and youth were heard, and I am sure that is something that all future COPs will want to ensure too.

[Claire Coutinho (East Surrey) (Con)]

T2. The energy security of Europe will clearly be central to the security of us all. I commend the COP President for his tireless work to promote the growth of renewable energies across Europe. Will he update the House on his plans to press ahead with the nuclear agenda in particular, with our allies in Europe?

[Alok Sharma]

Thankfully, the UK is not reliant on Russian oil and gas because we have invested significantly in renewables, and we will continue to do so. However, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Every country needs to think about a managed clean energy transition and security of supply.

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

T4. The next generation of jobs and apprenticeships is going to be delivered in the industries that the COP President talks about. Would he praise those employers reaching out to young people at my apprenticeships fair just a few weeks ago in Consett for all the work that they are doing to deliver great jobs in these high-tech sectors for the next generation?

[Alok Sharma]

Employers in the private sector are going to be vital to the transition to net zero. I commend all the employers who attended my hon. Friend’s apprenticeships fair and indeed employers across the country for everything they are doing to ensure a clean transition by 2050 in our country.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

T5.   Many countries will be considering how they can reduce their dependence on Russia for energy supplies. Will my right hon. Friend use his presidency to help other countries to ensure that they can diversify their supplies and use renewable energy with British assistance?

[Alok Sharma]

Yes; my right hon. Friend makes a really important point. We are working with developed country partners to see how we can support other nations to make that transition to clean energy and to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)]

Does the President recognise that consideration for biodiversity loss needs to be given parity in the Government’s plans for environmental protection, alongside their existing plans for delivering net zero?

[Alok Sharma]

As the hon. Lady will know, we had a big focus on nature at COP26 and we had a commitment from over 140 countries representing over 90% of forests around the world to ensure that they are protected. We will of course continue to work on this issue with partners around the world.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we come to PMQs, I wish to remind Members of what I said last week. I want concise, focused questions so that we can get through the list, and I want much less barracking and heckling of Members. That behaviour is discourteous and does nothing to enhance the representation of our House, or its ability to scrutinise the Prime Minister. I expect Members to reference one another in a courteous and orderly fashion.

Finally, I want to welcome to our Gallery the Ukrainian ambassador—[Applause.] Your Excellency, we generally do not allow applause in this Chamber, but on this occasion the House quite rightly wants to demonstrate our respect and support for your country and its people in the most difficult of times.

Before we start, I would like to point out that the British Sign Language interpretation of proceedings is available to watch on parliamentlive.tv.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 2 March.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

Yesterday, I was in Warsaw and Tallin reaffirming our commitment to NATO and our solidarity with Ukraine. Putin has gravely miscalculated. In his abhorrent assault on a sovereign nation, he has underestimated the extraordinary fortitude of the Ukrainian people and the unity and resolve of the free world in standing up to his barbarism. The UN General Assembly will vote later today, and we call on every nation to join us in condemning Russia and demanding that Putin turn his tanks around. If, instead, Putin doubles down, then so shall we, further ratcheting up economic pressure and supporting Ukraine with finance, with weapons and with humanitarian assistance. Today, the Disasters Emergency Committee is launching its Ukraine appeal, and every pound donated by the British people will be matched by the Government, starting with £20 million.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Graham Stuart]

Men, women and children terrorised, murdered and maimed. Indiscriminate munitions unleashed on civilian populations with a total disregard for international law and human life. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that we will accelerate the transfer of military supplies to the Ukrainians and maintain this country’s proud record of support for refugees fleeing war?

[The Prime Minister]

I hope I spoke for the whole House when I spoke to President Volodymyr Zelensky this morning and told him that we will, indeed, do everything we can to accelerate our transfer of the weapons my hon. Friend describes. As the House knows, the UK was the first European country to send such defensive weaponry, and we are certainly determined to do everything we can to help Ukrainians who are fleeing the theatre of conflict.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I am very glad the ambassador is here to hear me repeat what I have said to him privately on a number of occasions, which is that this House and this country stand united in our support for the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian aggression. We are all appalled by the shocking footage that has emerged over the last few days. We must stand up to Putin and those who prop up his regime.

Roman Abramovich is the owner of Chelsea football club and various other high-value assets in the United Kingdom. He is a person of interest to the Home Office because of his links to the Russian state and his public association with corrupt activities and practices. Last week, the Prime Minister said that Abramovich is facing sanctions, but he later corrected the record to say that he is not. Why on earth is he not facing sanctions?

[The Prime Minister]

It is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases at this stage, but I stand by what I said in the House and what we put on the record. Be in no doubt that the actions that we and this House have already taken are having an effect in Moscow. By exposing the ownership of properties and companies in the way we are, and by sanctioning 275 individuals already and a further 100 last week, the impact is being felt. In addition, we will publish a full list of all those associated with the Putin regime, and of course we have already sanctions on Putin and Lavrov themselves. The House will have heard what the President of the United States had to say last night. The vice is tightening on the Putin regime, and it will continue to tighten.

[Keir Starmer]

I hear what the Prime Minister says and the way in which he puts it. I hope it means we will see some action in the near future.

Last week, Putin summoned to the Kremlin the cronies who prop up his regime. They dipped their hands in the blood of Putin’s war, and among them was Igor Shuvalov, Putin’s former Deputy Prime Minister. Shuvalov owns two flats not five minutes’ walk from this House, and they are worth more than £11 million. He is on the EU sanctions list, but he is not on the UK sanctions list. When will the Prime Minister sort this out?

[The Prime Minister]

The House should be proud of what we have done already, and there is more to be done. Thanks to the powers that this House and this Government have taken, we can sanction any individual or company connected to the Putin regime. This Government were among the first in Europe to ban Aeroflot from our skies. This Government led the way last week on banning Russia’s use of SWIFT. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman talked to any of our European partners, he would understand the leading role the UK has already played and the impact that those sanctions are already having in Moscow. As I told him, the squeeze is growing and will continue to grow on the Putin regime.

[Keir Starmer]

I support the measures that have been taken so far. The ownership of Shuvalov’s flats is registered under Sova Real Estate, which is actually owned by Shuvalov and his wife. We know which oligarch lurks beneath that shell company only because of the information obtained and disclosed by Alexei Navalny, who was of course poisoned by the Russian state and now sits in a Putin jail. Transparency is essential to rooting out corruption. It should be built into our law, but it is not. I am ashamed that we know about Shuvalov’s Westminster flats only because a dissident risked his life. Is the Prime Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

I repeat that the UK, of course, is doing everything we can to expose ill-gotten Russian loot. We have been working on that for a long time. We were the first to impose sanctions on those who were guilty of the poisoning of Alexei Navalny, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions. But what we are bringing forward now is the exposure of the ownership of properties in London, and across the whole of the UK, in a way that has not been possible before and that I believe will continue to tighten the noose around Putin’s regime. Be in no doubt: it was the UK that led the way on putting sanctions on the Russian central bank and on putting sanctions on Russian banks altogether. I am afraid that we are still out in advance of several of our friends and partners. We want them to go further, I believe that they will and we will continue to put pressure—ineluctable pressure—on the Putin regime.

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister refers to the long overdue economic crime Bill, which, to be clear, we support and will vote through on Monday with speed. The key plank of that Bill is a register of who truly owns property in the UK, but it does not come into force for existing owners such as Shuvalov until 18 months after the Bill passes. At best, that is autumn 2023, which is far too long for the Ukrainian people. Why are we giving Putin’s cronies 18 months to quietly launder their money out of the UK property market and into another safe haven?

[The Prime Minister]

Let us look at the impact of what the UK is doing. The whole House should be proud of what we have done, because we have led the way on this. We led the way on SWIFT, on Aeroflot and on freezing the assets of banks. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the speed of results. I can tell him that, on Thursday, $250 billion-worth of assets were wiped off the Russian stock market and the rouble fell by about 40%. We are now on the third day on which the Russian stock market has not been able to open. That is thanks to the package of global sanctions—western sanctions—that the UK has led in enforcing on the Putin regime. I think he should acknowledge that.

[Keir Starmer]

I have acknowledged it and I do again. What I am offering is support to speed this up on Monday. The Prime Minister knows he has the House with him when the economic crime Bill goes through. We could do this on Monday at speed, and I think the whole House would welcome that. So this is an invitation to work together, Prime Minister.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published a White Paper this week. It rightly sets out that the UK’s companies register is being exploited to further the interests of the UK’s enemies and to help them to move stolen money into the west. But the same Department, on the very same day, published an economic crime Bill that did nothing to address that, leaving Companies House untouched and still exploited. So will the Prime Minister work with us to amend the Bill on Monday to include the most basic reforms such as identity checks for directors?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said, we are bringing forward, at an accelerated pace, measures to whip aside the veil of anonymity of those who own assets in this country and those who own property in this country. Furthermore, we are going to be publishing a list of all those who have assets that are related to the Putin regime. I am delighted by the support that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is offering. If we can work together to make sure that we strengthen and accelerate the package, all the better.

[Keir Starmer]

We will work in that spirit to bring forward amendments on Monday to try to achieve all the ends that I have identified in these questions. I think that this can be voted through on Monday at speed, with the full support of the House. I am very pleased that we can show that unity with the ambassador here watching us.

In this week of darkness, we have seen glimmers of hope: in the resolve of Ukraine; in the unity of our allies; and in the bravery of Russian protesters. They remind us that the Russian people are not our enemy; they are the victims of thieves, who have stolen their wealth and stolen their chance of democracy. For too long, Britain has been a safe haven for stolen money. Putin thinks that we are too corrupted to do the right thing and put an end to it. Does the Prime Minister agree that this House and this country stand united in our support for Ukraine, and now is the time to sanction every oligarch and crack open every shell company so that we can prove Putin wrong?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and that is why this Government have brought forward the unprecedented measures that we have. I know that the whole House would agree with me that nothing we do in rooting out corruption and corrupt money in London or in any other capital—I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman very strongly—should for one minute distract from where the true blame for this crisis lies, which is wholly and exclusively and entirely with Vladimir Putin and his regime. I am glad that those on the Opposition Benches are as resolved as we are that Putin must fail in his venture and that we must ensure that we protect a sovereign, free and independent Ukraine. That is what we are going to do. With the unity of this House, with the continued heroism and resolve of the Ukrainian people, which is so amazing, that we have seen over the past few days, and with the unity of the west that we are seeing, which I think has also taken President Putin aback, I have no doubt at all that he will fail and that we will succeed in protecting Ukraine.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

Q5. First, may I say how brave the Ukrainian people are and that they have the full support of the whole House? May I also commend the Prime Minister and the Government for the excellent actions that we have taken so far? Ukraine is very much the bread basket of the world and it grows much wheat. We therefore need to make sure that there is food security and also security of global food supply. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need also to look to our production in this country to make sure that we can maintain a good standard of food production and enhance our food production in order to keep good and affordable food for the future?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, my hon. Friend knows whereof he speaks. He is a great advocate of UK food and farming. That is why we are increasing the farming investment fund to £48 million. We have a massive opportunity, particularly for UK fruit and vegetables.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Leader of the SNP.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

May I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming the Ukrainian ambassador to our proceedings?

With every passing hour, the world is witnessing the horrors of Putin’s war in Ukraine. In Kherson, a family of five—a mother, her parents, her six-year-old daughter and her baby son—were murdered in cold blood by Russian troops. In the same city, a 12-year-old boy watched his mother die as he desperately attempted to save her from the rubble of her own home. These are war crimes happening in Europe right now.

Vladimir Putin is a war criminal, and, one day soon, he must face justice in The Hague. To prosecute Putin and his regime, the full range of war crimes charges need to be used, including the crime of aggression by a state, but the UK has always refused to sign up to the prosecution of this crime in international law. Surely with Putin’s crime of aggression in plain and horrific sight in Ukraine, now is the time to drop that opposition. Will the Prime Minister meet with me to discuss this, and will he amend the UK War Crimes Act 1991 and support the International Criminal Court prosecution of Putin for his crimes of aggression against the people of Ukraine?

[The Prime Minister]

I am, in principle, happy to meet the right hon. Gentleman at any stage, but I can tell him that, in my view, what we have seen already from Vladimir Putin’s regime in the use of the munitions that it has been dropping on innocent civilians already fully qualifies as a war crime. I know that the ICC prosecutor is already investigating, and I am sure that the whole House will support that.

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Let us work together across this House to ensure that Putin is prosecuted and held to account. Just as we seek to punish and prosecute Putin for his crimes, we need to help the Ukrainian people right now. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians are fleeing the horrors of this war, and they desperately need refuge and sanctuary. The United Nations estimates that well over half a million Ukrainian refugees need urgent help, most of them women and children.

This is a moment for Europe to stand united in the face of Putin’s war. The European Union has acted to waive all visa requirements for Ukrainian refugees; the UK Government stand alone on our continent in so far refusing to do the same. Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s First Minister, has made clear that our country stands ready to open our borders and our hearts to the people of Ukraine, but the UK Government must bring down the barriers. Will the Prime Minister join our European partners and waive all visa requirements for the people of Ukraine who are fleeing war?

[The Prime Minister]

The EU already, because of its Schengen border-free zone, has its own arrangements with Ukraine, and they have differed for a long time from those of the UK. What we have is a plan to be as generous as we possibly can to the people of Ukraine; the numbers that will come under our family reunion scheme alone could be in the hundreds of thousands, to say nothing of the special new path we are opening up, the humanitarian path, which is also uncapped. That is the right thing to do. What we will not do is simply abandon all checks. We do not think that is sensible, particularly in view of the reasonable security concerns about people coming from that theatre of war.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Q6.   On 28 July last year, every Labour councillor in Bury voted in favour of Andy Burnham’s plan to impose a 493 square mile clean air charging zone on my constituents and the residents of Greater Manchester. The Mayor’s plan is an attack on jobs and opportunity; it is based on flawed data and should be scrapped. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and as somebody who once had to deal with a badly thought out low emission zone, it is totally wrong to impose measures thoughtlessly that damage business and do not do very much to protect clean air. The Mayor of Greater Manchester has done the wrong thing, and I am glad we are delaying it. I congratulate my hon. Friend and other local Conservative MPs in the Manchester area who have shown common sense.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

My Wales-based constituent works for the British International School in Ukraine. The school employs 60 British citizens, most of whom thankfully escaped via a bus over the weekend. I heard the Prime Minister’s response to my colleague the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), but, given the lack of a humanitarian corridor, 173 Ukrainian colleagues from that school are stuck in Kyiv and Dnipro, and ineligible for the Home Office’s humanitarian sponsorship pathway due to the school being domiciled in Ukraine. Wales aspires to be a nation of sanctuary. Our neighbours in Ireland have waived all visa requirements for three years. Why will the Prime Minister not allow us to provide the same humanitarian welcome?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Lady very much and I know the whole House will want to help the 173 she mentions in Ukraine. I think the arrangements we have are right, and they will be very generous—they already are very generous indeed. The House should be proud, by the way, of what the UK has already done to take vulnerable people; I think we have taken more vulnerable people fleeing theatres of conflict since 2015 than any other country in Europe.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

Q7. The nurses and doctors working at Warrington Hospital in my constituency provide selfless care for families living in some of the most deprived areas of England, where life expectancy is 12 years lower than the national average. At the same time, the population has expanded, with thousands of new homes being built in Warrington and putting pressure on services, particularly at the general hospital. Does the Prime Minister agree that tackling health inequalities is key to levelling up, and will he support my campaign for a new hospital in Warrington?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government are building a record number of hospitals—a total of 48—across the country. I am forbidden, unfortunately, from pre-empting the application process that I know my hon. Friend’s wonderful hospital is going through, but I wish him every possible success.

[Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)]

Q2. The situation in Ukraine continues to appal most of the world and shame the rest—and, importantly, highlights the need to break our economic dependency both on Russia and on China. Does the Prime Minister agree that our national security must be protected, and our food, energy, fibre and national infrastructure must be secure, both now and in the future, from hostile Governments? Specifically, will he commit to the real hydrogen strategy that both industry and trade unions such as the GMB are calling for by doubling the hydrogen production target for 2030?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for her very far-sighted question. That is exactly what we should be doing. We are moving to much more energy resilience and self-reliance. It was a shame that Labour cancelled so much of our nuclear power while it was in government—or failed to develop it. The agenda that she is setting is absolutely right, including on hydrogen.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

Q9.   Last September, my constituent Dylan Rich, who was a talented 17-year-old footballer, tragically collapsed and died during a youth FA cup game. His family and his club, the West Bridgford Colts, raised money in his honour to buy more defibrillators to put on-site, but were faced with a VAT bill of hundreds of pounds on each life-saving device. Will my right hon. Friend commit to reviewing the VAT on commercial defibrillators to bring them in line with the zero rate applied to other medical instruments, and will he meet me, Dylan’s family and his club to discuss this much-needed change?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the whole House will want to echo my condolences to Dylan’s friends and family. My hon. Friend raises a very important and emotive issue. At the moment, defibrillators are bought through voluntary contributions and donated to charities that may be eligible for VAT relief, but I am very happy to meet her to discuss the matter further.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Q3. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Conservative party to give to Ukrainian humanitarian causes the £2 million it has accepted from Lubov Chernukhin? This includes £80,000 referred to in data released today by the Electoral Commission. I know he does not want to tar everyone with Russian links with the same brush, and neither do I, but leaked documents—[Interruption.] Conservative Members might want to listen to the question. Leaked documents show that Lubov Chernukhin received £8 million from a Russian member of Parliament, an ally of Putin who was later sanctioned by the United States. This is an opportunity for the Conservative party and for the Prime Minister to end the suspicion of conflicts of interest with Putin, while showing solidarity with the Ukrainian people.

[The Prime Minister]

It is absolutely vital, if we are to have a successful outcome in what we are trying to do collectively, united with Ukraine, that we demonstrate that this is not about the Russian people; this is about the Putin regime.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Q11. Does my right hon. Friend agree that choices always have consequences? Putin has chosen to inflict death and destruction on the people of Ukraine and must be made to pay, but others, including those in the Russian military and Russian oligarchs, could still choose to be on the right side of history. Will my right hon. Friend and other world leaders tell them to make the right choice and to make it soon, because in this conflict, time is life?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend has made a very powerful and important point. I do hope that those who have any links with the Putin regime whatever—any so-called oligarchs and all those who are in any way associated with the regime—take this opportunity, as some brave individuals already have, to dissociate themselves from this barbaric invasion.

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)]

Q4. Two weeks ago in a letter to the Prime Minister, I outlined that over half a million people in the UK are immunocompromised, and to them, the idea of living with covid is frightening, while many charities such as the MS Society are not reassured by the Government’s lifting of restrictions around free testing and isolation. Does he agree that in order to protect this group, free covid-19 testing must continue, and include their families and friends as well as any unpaid carers, so that they can really be allowed to live with covid?

[The Prime Minister]

As I think I said to the hon. Lady last week, it is absolutely essential that those who are immunocompromised and the clinically extremely vulnerable continue to have access to free testing and all the therapies and antivirals that they need.

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Q12. What assessment he has made of the viability of a potential (a) foreign lobbying Bill and (b) economic crime Bill.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We are carefully reviewing responses to our recent consultation on a range of legislative proposals to counter state threats, including foreign agents registration. We will update Parliament in due course.

[Bob Seely]

I would like to thank the Ukrainian ambassador. Dobryi den, druh mii, shanovnyi posol. Diakuiu, diakuiu vashomu narodu. Slava Ukraini! [Translation: Good day, my friend, dear Ambassador. Thank you, and thank you to your people. Glory to Ukraine!]

Key oligarchs enforce the Kremlin’s hybrid conflict. In Britain, one of its aims is to ensure safe passage for money flows offshore, while law firms intimidate into silence those who would investigate, be it the media or even the National Crime Agency. Does the Prime Minister understand that this is how state corruption happens, and that this is systemic, planned subversion? Does he realise the seriousness of what has been happening to the law firms and finance companies in recent years?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Law firms in this country are regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. They were reminded on 23 February of the need to comply with sanctions regulations and legislation, and there are regular checks to ensure that they are doing so. They have responsibilities under that regime to safeguard the UK and to protect the reputation of the United Kingdom legal services industry. Clearly they will face sanctions if they fail to do so.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q8. Putin is the only enemy, but I do feel ashamed. The United Kingdom signed the Budapest accord in 1994, guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine. Twenty-three men who once sat on these Benches gave their lives for plucky little Belgium, and they have shields on the wall down at that end of the Chamber. Twenty-two did the same for Poland, and they have shields down at this end. We are not guaranteeing the territorial integrity of Ukraine. I do not want war—no one wants war—but we are not yet even sanctioning Sergei Shoigu, the Russian Defence Minister, nor Igor Osipov, the commander of the Black sea fleet, nor Usmanov, Sechin, Peskov, Abramovich, Roldugin or the Members of the Russian Duma who voted for this war. Why do we not use parliamentary privilege to get this out there, so that the lawyers cannot attack the sanctions that we must surely bring rapidly today?

[The Prime Minister]

I hear the hon. Gentleman, and I know that the whole House will understand his feelings and his frustration that no country in the west is going directly to the support of the Ukrainians with direct military assistance. That is a reality we simply have to accept, because the consequences of a direct confrontation between the UK and Russia, and indeed between other western countries and Russia, would not be easy to control. To repeat the point I made earlier, I think that would play directly into Putin’s narrative. He says that this is about him versus the west and him versus NATO. We say that it is about him versus the Ukrainian people, and that is the difference.

As for what the hon. Gentleman says about shame, I am proud of what the UK has been able to do so far. I am proud that not only have we given a lead on sanctions, where we insisted on the toughest measures, including for SWIFT, which had a dramatic effect, but we took the lead of all European countries in offering military assistance to Ukraine, and we will continue to do so. If I understand him correctly, he would like to go further, but I can tell the House that we will continue to go further, and not only with military assistance but by tightening the vice on the Putin regime.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

Q15. In addition to the tragedy in Ukraine, I know that the Prime Minister wants to slash red tape to make Britain more internationally competitive. David Cameron succeeded, but after he left we abandoned his proven one-in, two-out regime and added billions in red tape costs instead. Last month’s document, “The benefits of Brexit”, repeats that mistake and vetoes one in, two out for another toothless regime. I urge him to step in before it is too late, because otherwise the blob will win and we will fail to deliver a key benefit of Brexit.

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to say that we have a new Secretary of State for post-Brexit freedoms, and he is driving a campaign to reform, repeal and replace outdated legislation and regulation across the board. I do not know about the blob, but I can think of no more fearsome antagonist of the blob than my right hon. Friend.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

Satellite images show a 40-mile convoy of military hardware heading to surround the cities of Ukraine. We know from Grozny what Vladimir Putin’s intention is: hundreds of thousands of people will be murdered in those cities. I ask all hon. Members to think of their families, their neighbours and relatives who they may have abroad. They are going to be murdered. The Prime Minister has led the world in the reaction to what is going on and I am proud of what he has done. I ask him—I know he has probably not been to bed for a week—to use every second he has remaining until that tragedy surely unfolds to try to prevent it.

[The Prime Minister]

That was, of course, one of the subjects that I discussed this morning with Volodymyr Zelensky. Many people looking at it will wonder why it is impossible to interrupt the progress of those tanks with airstrikes from a drone, for instance, which we know that the Ukrainians have. Technically and militarily, however, it turns out that, unfortunately, it is not as easy as people might think. The tragic reality is that Vladimir Putin is going to continue to grind his war machine forwards if he possibly can. That is why it is vital that we continue the military support that we are offering and that, together with the United States and all our friends and partners in the west, we intensify and accelerate the programme of economic sanctions that is already hurting.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Q10. London is known as the world’s capital for corrupt Russian money. Some £100 billion a year is awash in our country. The scale of that corruption could not happen without what the Intelligence and Security Committee describes as the “enablers”—the lawyers, accountants, PR specialists and so on—including those who challenge our brave independent journalists for identifying them. The Prime Minister did not fully respond to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) about how he will tackle the activity of those enablers who have, for too long, been corrupting the rule of law in our country.

[The Prime Minister]

With great respect, let me repeat and reinforce what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely). The legal profession and everybody involved in assisting those who wish to hide money in London and in assisting corrupt oligarchs have been set on notice that their actions are under scrutiny. If they break the law, and if they undermine the interests of this country and advance the interests of Putin’s war machine, they will pay a price.

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Q13. In the last few days, I have been overwhelmed and heartened by the incredible response of my constituents to the crisis in Ukraine. There have been countless offers of accommodation and financial support for refugees. The community sponsorship route is a slow process, however, and it will struggle to meet the challenge that we face. Does the Prime Minister agree that we need a faster and more effective route, and a better way to offer sanctuary to refugees and the people of Ukraine, than the Government’s current proposals?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member very much, and I know that the sympathies of the whole House are with her in what she is trying to do. I talked to our Polish friends yesterday about what we can do in partnership with them to bring people directly to the UK who are fleeing to Poland. I have set out for the House, as I know my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already, the big, big package of measures that we are putting in to help people fleeing Ukraine. I just want to repeat: look at the numbers we took from Afghanistan and look at the numbers of BNOs from Hong Kong. Huge numbers of people have come to the UK. I think we have settled 25,000 vulnerable people since 2015, which is more than any other European country, so we should be proud of our record.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

My grandfather Paul Kreciglowa was a Ukrainian who was deported by the Soviets to the gulags of Siberia. I am proud of my Ukrainian heritage, and never more so than over the past week, when this plucky nation—the nation of my family—has stood up to the jackboot of Putin’s army. I know that the world is watching the PM and our country. Will the Prime Minister give me his assurances that he will continue to look at every single possible option to ensure that Putin feels the toughest range of punitive sanctions—through financial measures, but also focusing on his inner circle?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and that is why we have begun with him and also with Sergey Lavrov, but there is no limit to what we can do on his regime, and we will continue to do that. Can I just echo what my hon. Friend said about our bond with and our debt to the Ukrainian people? Never forget that when we stood side by side with Russia in the 1940s against fascism, the Ukrainian contribution to that army was 10 million people, and they were absolutely invaluable in freedom as well.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Q14. Scotland stands ready to welcome any fleeing Ukrainians. However, this Government have failed to follow the example of the European Union of a red tape and visa-free approach. Will this Prime Minister commit to an unconditional rapid, safe and legal approach to settlement for Ukrainians fleeing this invasion? Why is he failing to do so?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have explained to the House already several times, the EU has a border-free Schengen zone, and it is not appropriate for it to have checks of any kind. We have a different system, and it is sensible— given the situation we have, and given the large numbers of people leaving that warzone—to have checks and to make sure we know who is coming in, but what we will not do is impede Ukrainians coming in fear of their lives. This country, as I have said several times today, has a proud, proud record of taking people in. Look at what we have already done. Look at the record just under my premiership. Look at what we have done to help people from Afghanistan. Look at what we have done to help the Hong Kong Chinese. The hon. Member should be proud of what the UK is doing.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That ends Prime Minister’s questions. I will just let the Chamber settle down before points of order.

Points of Order

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

12:40

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the first of two points of order that I hope to raise today. On Monday, the Government published a newly signed free trade agreement between the UK and New Zealand, and briefed the press about it before sharing the agreement with my International Trade Committee, despite assurances from the Secretary of State for International Trade and her Department that this would not happen. My Committee has also sought clarity from the Secretary of State about key aspects of the scrutiny timeline to ensure that we and this House have time to meaningfully consider the FTA before its ratification—without response, nearly a month after we set her a deadline.

I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker, that ensuring parliamentary scrutiny of a free trade agreement that the Government sign is of the utmost importance. I am deeply concerned by the cavalier approach that the Government seem to be taking in this regard, and so is the equivalent Committee in the House of Lords. The Government’s attitude directly impacts on my Committee’s ability to conduct the scrutiny it has been appointed to do by this House under Standing Orders, and by extension, this shows a discourtesy to this House as a result. Can you please advise me on how to ensure that the Government uphold their commitments to parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in regard to free trade agreements in the future?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of the point of order. The Minister is willing to respond immediately.

[The Minister for Trade Policy (Penny Mordaunt)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for this chance to respond. The hon. Gentleman knows—as I have given evidence to his Committee in the short time I have been a Minister, and the Secretary of State for International Trade has given two evidence sessions with a further evidence session coming up, along with our first and second permanent secretaries and the director general for trade negotiations appearing before the hon. Gentleman’s Committee and the Public Accounts Committee last month, and also private briefings with his Committee and the New Zealand chief negotiator during negotiations—that we are completely committed to sharing documents with his Committee before publication where we are able to. We laid the free trade agreement before Parliament as soon as possible after it was signed and sent copies to his Committee shortly after signature. We also laid a written ministerial statement, again on the day, and sent a “Dear colleague” letter the day prior. No discourtesy is intended: we take scrutiny of these trade agreements very seriously. I will be happy to follow up with the hon. Gentleman’s Committee to give further reassurances.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

I want to keep things going but we shall first listen to what the Chair of the Select Committee has to say.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There has been no detail of the sought scrutiny timeline and the Committee and its staff—and up in the House of Lords there is the same feeling—are very disappointed with the Department for International Trade. When can we have the scrutiny timeline, please?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman knows, as I gave evidence to his Committee, that we are determined not only that we have a good and very clear scrutiny timeline, but that there is a decent amount of time for Trade and Agriculture Commission recommendations and so forth and for this House, including his Committee and also the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to examine them. I will be happy to make sure the Secretary of State follows up with the hon. Gentleman’s Committee.

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Taking into account how hard our security officers in this place work, may I ask for your clarification on the following matter? Last night while voting I had a long-standing meeting with a member of the public. He sought access to the parliamentary estate to meet me but was not allowed access via Cromwell Green because of apparent covid regulations even though I was under the impression they had ceased. A number of colleagues have told me since that they have also had members of the public held at the entrance of the parliamentary estate, and also in the current inclement weather. Can you confirm, Mr Speaker, that the regulations have changed and members of the public can access the estate when we have prior arranged meetings?

[Mr Speaker]

I have just been told about this and will certainly look into it. I will be speaking with the Serjeant at Arms later, who just made a note of it as we were speaking.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Russians describe the Ukrainians as neo-Nazis, yet yesterday we learned that the Babyn Yar holocaust memorial was bombed by Russia. Clearly this has caused significant upset among the Jewish community of Ukraine and around the world. Will you consider sending commiserations and messages of sympathy to the Jewish community of Ukraine on behalf of Parliament?

[Mr Speaker]

I will be more than happy to do so; we of course have our solidarity book as well, and I ask all Members to make sure they sign it, along with staff of the House and anyone who comes on to the estate.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Once again, come on Angus Brendan MacNeil.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On an unconnected point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Home Secretary came here with her latest version of how to get people from Ukraine to the United Kingdom, but it is simply not working at the moment. My constituent Derek MacLeod has family in the countryside on the Polish-Ukrainian border; visas are needed but they cannot get to a place to get visas. This system is not delivering. If it does not deliver and we cannot get people out as was indicated yesterday by the Home Secretary, can we get the Home Secretary back to this Chamber to update and clarify and give us a working system to get people out of Ukraine?

[Mr Speaker]

Obviously, what I cannot do is continue the debate on the issue. I am sure Members on the Government Benches will have picked up the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. During that same statement, the Home Secretary appeared to call into question the trustworthiness of Opposition Members to be briefed on security matters. Is it in order for her to undermine hon. Members in that way?

[Mr Speaker]

I do know that the Opposition have been briefed, and I will be briefed again later today. Members of Parliament are trustworthy—that is why they are hon. Members—and I would expect information to be shared in an appropriate manner.

Bill Presented

Benefit Cap (Report on Abolition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

David Linden presented a Bill to report to Parliament on the likely effects of the abolition of the benefit cap, including on levels of absolute and relative poverty, poor mental health, food bank use, borrowing of money from friends and family, evictions from homes and problem debt, and on different groups including women, lone parents and people from Black and minority ethnic backgrounds; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 264).

Firearms and Hate Crime

1st reading
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

12:50

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the keeping of pump action firearms in homes, with exemptions for professional pest controllers and farmers; to make provision about medical requirements for holders of firearms certificates; to make provision about the disclosure of mental health concerns relating to holders of firearms certificates; to extend offences of stirring up hatred to cover hatred on the basis of sex or gender; to make motivation by misogyny an aggravating factor in sentencing for violent crimes; and for connected purposes.

It has been more than six months since the first shots were fired in Keyham in Plymouth. On that day—12 August—we tragically lost five members of our community. I want to remember them now: Maxine Davison, Stephen Washington, Kate Shepherd, and Lee Martyn and his three-year-old daughter, Sophie Martyn. We also remember two others who were injured and taken to hospital that day.

This incident has devastated the proud and tight-knit communities of Keyham and Ford. I have already spoken in the House about the pain and hurt caused to our community. Plymouth has faced a collective trauma. We know that there were nearly 300 eyewitnesses to the shootings—people who saw a body or blood on their streets—and many of them were children, who have seen things that no child should ever witness. Biddick Drive, where the shooting began in Keyham, could be any street in any of our communities. That is what makes this so scary, and that is why we need to be sure that it never happens again.

I have been pleased and proud to see the community in Keyham come together to support and help each other. People from across our city have worked together across party lines for a Team Plymouth approach. I am pleased that together we have secured £1.8 million for Keyham by working with the Government. That money has been spent on social workers, educational psychologists, counsellors, extra policing and home security upgrades to make people feel safe in their homes again. On top of that, thousands has been raised by the community for the Plymouth Together fund.

Keyham is still grieving, but through that grief comes clarity. We never want this to happen to any other community again. For that, we need to learn the lessons of this tragedy. Our community awaits the invaluable work of the inquest and the result of the investigations by the Independent Office for Police Conduct and Devon and Cornwall police, but we do not need to wait to act.

In the months after the tragedy, Ministers changed gun laws to require gun certificates to be signed by a GP and a social media check to take place on those applying for a certificate. Those changes are welcome. Today, I present the first part of what we are calling Keyham’s law—a set of proposals that I hope and expect will expand over time. It has been a privilege to work on the proposals with many of the family members of the victims, many of whom are watching from the Gallery today; others are watching live from Plymouth. I pay tribute to them for the steadfast way in which they have conducted themselves. Grief is painful, but, under the glare of international media, it can be even more stark and difficult. I am very proud of them.

The first part of Keyham’s law has three proposals. The first is a ban on pump-action shotguns and pump-action rifles being kept in homes. The second is to introduce a requirement that medical records and gun certificates be linked, with a requirement for medical professionals to report any concerns about a gun holder’s mental health to the gun licensing authorities so that their suitability for holding a gun licence can be reviewed. The third is to adopt the Law Commission’s proposals to make violent misogyny a hate crime.

The first proposal is to ban pump-action shotguns from being kept in homes. A person can apply for a gun certificate from the age of 14. In answers to parliamentary questions, the Home Office confirmed that there are 23,955 current certificates for pump-action shotguns and 1,918 current certificates for pump-action rifles on issue in England. One certificate can allow its holder to keep many guns.

I do not see any good reason why anyone in Britain should need a pump-action weapon in their home. My Bill would change the law and require pump-action weapons to be held in a gun club or a gun shop. That would have the effect of removing pump-action weapons from residential areas. I recognise that there may be a need for limited exceptions. When a gun certificate holder can demonstrate a legitimate reason for keeping these weapons in their home—those who work as a farmer or pest controller, for instance—there should be a permitted exemption, but I do not envisage many of them. I want to rid our communities of these dangerous and unnecessary pump-action weapons that are currently held in homes throughout the country.

The second proposal is to link medical records to gun certificates. People experiencing a mental health crisis should not have access to a gun, for the safety of themselves and others. We need a legal requirement for concerns about an individual’s mental health to be shared with the police if they have a gun. Progress is being made—slowly—in that respect, but my Bill seeks to go further. That means a simple marker on a person’s medical records, introduced and maintained by law. If any concerns were flagged about that individual’s mental health, the medical professional would be required to notify the gun licensing authority for a review of their suitability to have a gun, for their own safety and that of others.

At present, GPs are asked to confirm only that there are no health conditions or reasons that would prevent someone from receiving a gun certificate on application, and perhaps again on renewal, but they can be five years apart. I have heard of cases where no supporting statement has been provided but gun certificates have still been issued. Omission must never be a reason for approval. That link should be not just at the point of application; there must be a legal requirement to maintain a connection so that concerns that arise can be acted on swiftly. There is precedent for that: that is what happens when, for instance, heavy goods vehicle drivers present with a serious health concern; and a similar system already exists in Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker, I know that parliamentary rules prohibit me from seeking to raise taxes or charges in the Bill, but I do believe that the fee for a gun certificate needs reviewing, embracing full cost recovery, with the greater fee paying for a better gun licensing system than the one we have today.

The third and final proposal in Keyham’s law is to make violent misogyny a hate crime. Incel culture is a sickness that is being allowed to creep its way into the lives of far too many young men. Festering in the dark corners of the internet, they are being taught to channel their frustration into an insidious hatred for women. Incel culture is a cancer that is growing. It is a rotten cesspit of hate, loathing and anger, and, if we are to tackle it, we need to better understand the extent of the problem. How do we stop our young men going down the path towards hate? What is the cure for this terrible disease? I would like to discuss with Ministers the commissioning of new research into incel culture. That would help to inform the Government’s work on violence against women and girls. Britain does not yet have a full strategy to tackle incel culture or the resourcing to make inroads, but, on a cross-party basis, I think that we need one. That is why, though discussing our community’s pain and loss is difficult, we must not shy away from being part of that conversation or having our voices heard.

I am presenting the first part of Keyham’s law, but this is the start of a campaign, not its end. It is not an exhaustive list or a final set of requirements to change gun laws. The campaign may take some time, but I am so pleased that it is a cross-Plymouth and, importantly, a cross-party campaign backed by so many MPs from across the country who share concerns about our nation’s gun laws. I look forward to meeting the Minister responsible for this area later today alongside the families of the victims of the shooting. I hope that he will see the merit in taking further steps to reform gun laws to keep us all safe.

Big hearts have prevailed in giving Keyham the support that we have needed to date, and I thank everyone for that support. Now, cool heads must prevail as we change our nation’s gun laws for the better so that we can stop a tragedy like this ever taking place again.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Luke Pollard, Johnny Mercer, Sir Gary Streeter, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Mr Ben Bradshaw, Abena Oppong-Asare, Karin Smyth, Caroline Lucas, Alyn Smith, Alex Sobel, Valerie Vaz and Anne Marie Morris present the Bill.

Luke Pollard accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 March, and to be printed (Bill 265).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

14th Allotted Day

Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

13:01

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the Government for failing to take sufficient action to tackle the epidemic of violence against women and girls and for presiding over a fall in the rape charge rate to a record low; and therefore calls on the Government to increase the number of specialist rape and serious sexual offences units, improve police training to secure better outcomes for victims, introduce effective national management and monitoring of domestic abuse and sexual offenders and urgently publish the perpetrator strategy in full.

Next week is International Women’s Day, a time when we celebrate women across the world. However, it is also a time when we highlight the discrimination, violence and abuse that too many women and girls face. It is a time when we look back on the progress that we have or have not made, and it is a time to look forward and set out our demands for freedom, justice and equality, including the basic right to have freedom from fear. And we should face the hard truth, because when it comes to violence against women and girls, and that basic entitlement to freedom from fear, that progress has been far too slow. We have even seen in some areas the clock being turned back.

I welcome the work that the Government have done on tackling violence against women and girls, and I welcome some of the policies they have set out, but the reason for calling this debate today is that it is not enough. We are not being determined enough. We are not going far enough. We are not going fast enough to ensure that women and girls in this country feel safe in the way that they are entitled to be. The Government are right to agree to have a violence against women and girls strategy. The “Enough.” communication campaign they launched this week is welcome. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which we worked with the Government on and contributed to, raising a whole series of further measures to be added, is welcome. There are policy proposals that Labour Members have put forward over many years which the Government have now accepted, most recently treating domestic and sexual abuse as a serious violent crime as part of the duty—if we are honest, it is shocking that it was ever disputed that it should be treated as a serious violent crime—and adding violence against women to the strategic policing priority. There are, therefore, many things we should have cross-party agreement on, but we should also just be really blunt and honest: worthwhile as those changes are, they really do not meet the scale of the challenge we face, and in too many areas things have been getting worse.

Mr Speaker, as you know, I have stood at this Dispatch Box before doing the job of shadow Home Secretary. That means it can sometimes feel a little bit like groundhog day. As shadow Home Secretary, a job with responsibility for holding the Government to account on policing, one cannot avoid noticing that police officers are certainly getting younger. It also means, however, that I have been talking about violence against women many times over the years. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) has been campaigning on violence against women and girls for very much longer than I have. Seven years ago, I warned that the police were becoming too overstretched to properly tackle serious crimes such as rape and domestic abuse. I warned then about the risk of falling prosecutions, more criminals being let off and more victims being let down. I wish I had been wrong, but it has got much worse than I could possibly have imagined since then.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way it has got worse is the huge escalation in waiting times to get to court? Many victims are waiting for such a long time to get into court that they end up walking away from the whole process, letting perpetrators get away with it. No strategy will tackle this issue unless the Government start to get on top of court delays.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That has an incredibly damaging impact on the prosecutions of rape and other sexual assaults in the criminal justice system. This has not just happened during the covid crisis—we should be really clear about that—because the delays have been getting worse and worse over many years. It is devastating for victims who may be desperate to get on with their lives. They can end up feeling hugely traumatised by the entire process of the rape being investigated and then being pursued through the criminal justice system. That is badly letting down the victims that the criminal justice system should be standing up for and ensuring justice for. My hon. Friend is right that those delays have got worse—getting worse by hundreds of days—but what it means is that a growing number of victims are dropping out now before it finally reaches prosecution. Some 40% of rape victims withdraw from prosecution because they just cannot bear it any more. That means the entire criminal justice system and this House, which ultimately must have oversight of the criminal justice system, is letting those victims down.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about a case in my surgery at the weekend? A young woman went to the police to report violence by her partner against her. She was concerned that the officer did not treat the matter seriously enough and made a complaint against the officer. Subsequently, she was then charged with stalking the person who had committed violence against her. I am afraid that this is the way our police in London seem to have got things entirely the wrong way around.

[Yvette Cooper]

That is an incredibly disturbing case. Many of us as constituency MPs will have had deeply troubling cases where, at every stage from the policing response, the investigation and the court response, it feels like not only is there a deep injustice being done, but that the system does not understand what is happening and the nature of violence against women and girls. I would be keen to talk to my hon. Friend further about that individual case and how we can ensure—it is one of the issues we refer to in the motion—there is proper training for police officers across the board on violence against women and girls, and on some of the incredibly serious issues we face.

[James Daly (Bury North) (Con)]

Following on from the hon. Gentleman’s point, which I think is absolutely fundamental to this issue, we are in a position where 90% of rape allegations are not referred by the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. We have a severe problem prior to charge in terms of how we deal with these matters. We have a conviction rate in the courts of 4%, so 4% of police referrals are put in that position. We have to concentrate on what is going wrong in police investigations. Does the right hon. Lady agree?

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree. I think that things are going wrong at every stage in the process. Things are going wrong in the police investigation—I will come on to talk about Operation Soteria, and how we should go much more widely—in the referral process between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, which is also breaking down, and in the prosecution. The hon. Member is absolutely right: at every stage in the process things are going wrong. That raises the challenge for us in Parliament, because there is always a risk that different bits of the criminal justice system end up blaming each other. We need the oversight to pull everybody together and demand that action is taken. My fear is that we are not seeing that oversight, because it is simply not delivering results.

I have respect for the Ministers in both the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office who work on violence against women and girls, but I say to them that the work is not delivering results, and it is overwhelmingly not on the scale that we need. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue has said:

“Provision is at breaking point.”

It has said:

“Rape victims are continually and systematically failed by the criminal justice system.”

How have the Government allowed that to happen? How have the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice allowed that to happen? How have we allowed it to reach breaking point? Back in 2014, Labour called for action to increase prosecutions, but the opposite has happened. The rape prosecution rate is down to a horrendous record low of just 1.3%—lower than ever.

We should consider for a moment the reality of what that means. Around 63,000 rapes are reported a year. It is estimated that at least as many again are not reported. Of those reported, just 1.3% result in someone being charged. That means that across the country more than 300 women will be raped today—more than 300 lives devastated by a vile crime, according to those estimates. Those figures mean that, on average, 170 rapes will be reported today, but the figures also suggest that just less than three of those rapists will see the inside of a court room this year, never mind the inside of a prison cell.

These are the basic pillars of the criminal justice system: if a vile crime happens, the victim should expect to be able to get support, and for the police to investigate and the perpetrator to be pursued, prosecuted and brought to justice. Nothing can ever undo the damage that the crime has done, but at least we can give the victim justice, and protect others from the same thing happening again. The truth is that all of us should be ashamed of the reality of the way that the criminal justice system is treating violence against women and girls. I know that across the criminal justice system there are brilliant police officers who are working hard to get evidence and to get the prosecution rates up, brilliant lawyers and CPS prosecutors who are working incredibly hard to try to get prosecutions, and brilliant support workers and advisers who are working hard to support victims, but the total system is failing.

We have a system that still too often has blind spots around violence against women and girls. There could be blind spots, for example, on the way that domestic abuse prosecutions happen—something that I have been raising, and that the Government have accepted. A woman in my constituency told me how she had been assaulted while she was pregnant, but the case timed out. She could not get justice because of the six-month limit in the magistrates court, which works sensibly for common assault if it means fights in the street or in the pub, in order to speed up the justice system, but does not work for domestic abuse, where there may be countless reasons why someone cannot report a crime straightaway.

When I first raised that, neither the Home Office nor the Ministry of Justice had any research on it. Many in the criminal justice system and in organisations that had campaigned on violence against women and girls had assumed that it was just not possible to change that, because it was so embedded in the criminal justice system. I welcome the fact that the Minister talked to me about this, commissioned research and accepted the proposals that we put forward to change the system and to lift the six-month limit, but it reflects a deep blind spot that has been in the system for too long.

There is still a blind spot on spiking. Until the surge of needle spiking last autumn, it had been too often dismissed as a crime linked to young people drinking and drug taking, and particularly to young women drinking and not taking enough care to protect themselves. The best that would happen was that a bit of advice would be given young women on how to cover their drinks to stay safe.

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that there is a lack of cohesion between presenting at accident and emergency and reporting the crime to the police? In a case that I was involved in recently, a young lady who had to stay in hospital overnight was then told by the hospital that she had to go to the police the next day when she was out of hospital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a real issue that we have to resolve between A&E departments and the police?

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s point. I have also had cases raised with me where the victim of spiking was told to make an appointment with the police to have the tests done and could not get an appointment until considerably after the drugs would have left her system. Therefore, there was no possibility of getting the evidence needed that might then help with an investigation.

That is why we need a co-ordinated approach, but that requires leadership. Very often it is the nature of our criminal justice system and the support services, be they in health, mental health or other areas, that we need organisations to work together, but ensuring that that happens needs leadership from us and, ultimately, from the Government. That is the purpose of today’s debate: to call for much stronger leadership from the Government to tackle these awful crimes and the gaps where things are simply not happening.

There has now been recognition of the seriousness of spiking, but we still have to go much further to ensure that action is taken. I spoke to a college class of 17-year-olds in my constituency a few weeks ago. We started talking about this, and I asked them how many of them knew someone who had been spiked. They were 17-year-olds, and all the girls and half the boys said that they knew someone who had been spiked. That shows the scale of the challenge that is affecting young people. We have failed as a society and across the criminal justice system to take the action needed.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend knows that in Leeds dozens of spiking cases have been reported just to me as an MP. I took action alongside the Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin. We had a spiking summit. We had a multi-agency approach. We worked with the nightclubs and bars. The spiking cases included not just drinks but injections. It had an effect of putting people off undertaking the spiking, but although people were assaulted and there were cases of theft, we still have not seen any prosecutions. We need the powers to go further. For instance, the rape and serious sexual offences unit is not properly funded at West Yorkshire police. We need that funding in place to ensure that we have action.

[Yvette Cooper]

I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, a couple of weeks ago I sat in on the morning report sessions of senior officers in West Yorkshire police. They raised a couple of spiking cases that had come in that day in Leeds, and the action that they were taking. I strongly welcome the work that the West Yorkshire Mayor has done to highlight this and to call for stronger action, but we need to go much further.

There is still a blind spot across the country, and across the criminal justice system, around stalking. We have all heard awful cases where someone who had been stalked reported it to the police and then things got worse, and ultimately the awful result was that the woman was killed, despite reporting it to the police. I think that that sets out why we need so much more urgency. Although we welcome the work that the Government have done and the things that Ministers have said, there is still no sense of urgency or action at the scale that is needed.

I am very glad that the Government have made violence against women and girls a strategic policing requirement alongside terrorism. Good. I wish they had done it immediately when the inspectorate recommended it back in the autumn. I would also say that we called for violence against women and girls to be treated as a top priority alongside terrorism in 2014. We need clear objectives and detailed outcomes against which the police and the criminal justice system will be judged. It should not just be made a priority and then passed over—we need clear follow-up.

The Government have set a target to get rape prosecutions back up to the level they were at in 2016. That was still too low, but at least it is a target. However, they are way off achieving that right now and it could take years at the current rate. That is a total disgrace, because women cannot wait for that.

Why does every police force not have a specialist rape and sexual assault unit? Why is that not a requirement for police forces when we have known for such a long time that specialist policing is crucial to investigating and prosecuting sexual assaults, and domestic abuse as well? Having that specialist expertise is crucial, which is why we are calling for a specialist rape and sexual assault unit in every force. It should just be a basic requirement.

Although the police, rightly, have operational independence, the Home Office sets the direction and has oversight. As the chief inspector told the Home Affairs Committee last year, the Home Secretary has powers that could and should—that was his word, “should”—be used to require and chase progress around violence against women and girls.

We need specialist prosecutors and the inspectorate’s most recent report also talked about the importance of specialist courts, such as specialist rape courts, to make progress on policing. And we need training. We desperately need comprehensive training across police forces in violence against women and girls, challenging some of the issues that have been raised and some of the myths and making sure that there is basic expertise and support. Every police officer has to deal with domestic abuse. It is one of the most common crimes we face, so every police officer should be getting stronger training in tackling it.

Yesterday, the Government announced that they will extend Operation Soteria, which works with police forces to investigate the perpetrator rather than the victim in rape cases, to a further 14 police forces. It still covers less than half of all forces in England and Wales, so does that mean that in the forces that are not covered, rape victims can still expect to feel investigated rather than the focus being on the rapist? That is truly unacceptable.

We need much stronger action against perpetrators. The inspectorate’s most recent reports have all repeatedly identified real problems with the identification and management of serial offenders in violence against women and girls. When we made proposals for much stronger monitoring and to add repeat offenders in domestic abuse, sexual violence and stalking to the multi-agency public protection arrangement process for managing the most serious offenders and to add them to the register, the Government refused and resisted. That is just not good enough. We need much stronger intervention and much stronger action, starting with those most dangerous perpetrators and those who we know are most likely to offend again and whose behaviour will escalate.

We desperately need the perpetrators strategy that the Government has long promised, which I hope will be strong and determined. Too often when we deal with issues of violence against women and girls, women end up feeling that it is all their responsibility to try to keep safe and to prevent violence rather than our having a system that says that the perpetrators need to be targeted and tackled. They need to be brought to justice and they need to be held to account, and women have a right to feel that freedom from fear and to feel safe, be it on our streets, in our homes or in our communities. Everywhere, women have that right to feel safe, but, too often, things have happened, the criminal justice system has been unable properly to take the action we need and, bluntly, there has been a lack of determination from the Government to drive the change and to ensure that it happens. I have recognised the Government’s good intentions many times , but words are not enough.

Enough is enough. That is what we all say, but we have to go much further. We need to see more progress. We need not just incremental change but the major, dramatic and substantial changes that will get us the justice and safety that women across the country deserve.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. Does she agree that we also must not forget the online sphere? As we heard last week in the debate on child sexual exploitation, these things often start online. We have been so slow in catching up. Does she agree that we hope that all the recommendations from the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill will be incorporated into the Bill?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is completely right. We all know that, just as we campaigned for many years to reclaim the streets from abuse and violence, we may need to reclaim the internet from abuse and violence against women and girls, because it is totally unacceptable that women can end up feeling harassed and targeted by misogyny and abuse. When he presented his ten-minute rule Bill just half an hour ago, we heard the powerful words of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) about the risks of incels and misogyny online and of young people, particularly young men, being groomed online into extremism and misogyny. We need the strongest possible action against that as part of the online harms Bill. I hope that the Government will bring that forward, because our approach needs to be about prevention and safety in all aspects of our lives, online and offline.

It does not matter how many women walk home with their keys between their fingers, how many women share their location with friends waiting at home or how many safety apps are developed. Unless we target the perpetrators, target prevention and have a complete overhaul of a system that just is not working and is not delivering, in 12 months’ time, in the run-up to next year’s International Women’s Day, we will say all the same things again. That is not good enough.

Let us all stand together and urge the Government to go much further and much faster and to be much stronger. Let us tackle violence against women and girls and let all of us say that we have had enough. We will take action. We will see change.

13:28

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

It is a genuine pleasure to be in the Chamber today to discuss this important issue ahead of International Women’s Day.

We can start with some areas of agreement, because that is how we are going to change things. We can all agree that we have had enough. We are half the population and we should not have to put up with some of the behaviours and crimes that are captured by the phrase violence against women and girls. The range of behaviours and crimes caught by that phase is truly shocking—the many ways in which our sex is used against us and we are made victims of the sorts of crimes that everyone in this Chamber finds absolutely abhorrent. That is why last year we published our tackling violence against women and girls strategy, because we wanted an holistic and societal response to these crimes.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) rightly urges us to do more and go faster, and there is will and determination in this Government to do exactly that. That is why we worked together last year to pass the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, for example—truly groundbreaking legislation that will help more than 2 million adult victims and the children who live in abusive households with this most invidious and hidden of crimes. We have to acknowledge, however, that this will take time. I wish solving the problem were as easy as pulling a lever in one part of the criminal justice system, but it is not. Fundamentally, we know that some of the behaviours and crimes that we will hear about this afternoon have arisen as a result of behaviours, societal attitudes and so on that we must tackle. Not only do we know that intellectually and academically, because we have asked researchers and worked with charities and campaigners, but we know it from the responses of women and girls, and men, to our call for evidence last year when we were drafting the tackling violence against women and girls strategy. More than 180,000 responses were received. That is an unprecedented response rate. It caught that moment, which I am sure we all remember, when there was a very urgent national conversation about how women and girls are suffering these behaviours and crimes.

The responses share the sorts of experiences that every woman and every girl will know. Holding our keys in our knuckles as we walk home, texting friends to say we have got home safely, batting away and avoiding eye contact in a bar if somebody is approaching us and is not taking no for an answer—those are all behaviours that we know and experience. The responses and the national conversation at the time said, “Enough”. That is why we want the strategy to be seen as the start of a decade of change—that is what I said when we launched it.

It will take us time to make sure that boys and girls learn from primary school about what healthy relationships look like, and it will take time to get the communications right. Part of that longer-term societal change is about drawing a line as to what is healthy and acceptable behaviour in relationships, because for all sorts of reasons that we know about—including, we all suspect, the influence of internet pornography—there seems to be some disconnect between what we know to be healthy and what our girls and our young women are facing. We are committed to helping to draw that line, so in our response to the women and girls who responded to the call for evidence—but also, importantly, to charities and campaigners—we committed in the strategy to a public communications campaign to begin that discussion.

I am delighted that this week we launched the campaign, “Enough”. Please google it and look at it—I urge every single hon. Member, regardless of party politics, to share the campaign, which was very well received by charities and campaigners when it was launched this week. The multi-year campaign will begin that vital work to make it clear to perpetrators that their crimes will not be tolerated. It will drive societal rejection of those crimes and help to give victims the confidence they need to seek help if they feel able to do so.

[Yvette Cooper]

I know that the Minister takes the matter very seriously. I urge her not to just accept that it will take time. I do not think we should accept that; I think we should be much more ambitious about the changes that should happen immediately and the changes that should happen within the next few months, rather than starting from the position that it will take time.

I press the Minister for her diagnosis of why things have got so disastrously worse since 2016, with the massive drop in the prosecution rate and the pushing of the system to breaking point. I have a diagnosis around the scale of the cuts to policing and to the criminal justice system, not just the digital changes that have taken place. If the Government do not understand and recognise how things have got so much worse on their watch, people will not have confidence—women and girls will not have confidence—that things will be turned around.

[Victoria Atkins]

If I may, I will develop that point in my speech. As the right hon. Lady knows, an enormous amount of work is going on, particularly in the rape review, and I want to take the House through it in detail. She is absolutely right that there is action now, this day, to tackle these crimes and behaviours, but we must acknowledge—as, in fairness, colleagues across the House have acknowledged throughout our domestic abuse debates and so on—that there are real, fundamental problems that we have to tackle at a societal level so that women and girls know we agree that this behaviour is not their fault, is not their responsibility and must be tackled.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

We talk about wider societal change and bringing young people up with proper relationship training. I was a secondary school teacher; that sort of relationship training is done at the end of the day by maths teachers or foreign language teachers. Does the Minister believe that we need professionals to lead it? We cannot leave it to schools to pick up the pieces any more.

[Victoria Atkins]

May I say that there has been progress since the hon. Lady has been in her place? I very much hope that she welcomes the progress that we have made. Importantly, there is now a statutory requirement and, what is more, there is specific training to help to roll it out. We take her point that it has to be done in a way that is appropriate and sensitive but also effective, so we get the messages through to children at the right stage and the right time in their lives.

There is one way in which every single person in this Chamber can help and do something today. When hon. Members leave the Chamber, will they please share the “Enough” campaign across their many social media networks? Not only are we bombarding social media, but over the weeks to come we will have adverts cropping up across our towns and cities on buses, billboards, television and so on. This is how, individually, we can make a real difference today.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am sure we can agree with all the sentiments that the Minister has expressed. There is one other thing that we could do, which is naming this for what it is: not just violence against women and girls, but male violence against women and girls. If we start talking about it and naming it correctly, that will be a very big help.

[Victoria Atkins]

Male colleagues are in attendance today, although perhaps not quite as fully as in previous debates, but in fairness male colleagues across the House have accepted their role and are very much working with us to tackle this. I have one slight caveat, though: when we talk about sexual violence, we know that it disproportionately affects women and girls, but I want us to acknowledge that men can be victims of sexual violence as well. We will be addressing that in our male victims paper in due course, but it is very important that we are clear about the causes and themes that run through this behaviour.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford rightly challenges us to share what we have done so far. I agree that we want to look over not just the next decade, but the past few months and what we have done. We have funded local projects and initiatives across England and Wales, totalling more than £27 million, to improve the safety of women in public places, particularly as we come out of covid restrictions on social distancing and so on.

Through round 3 of the safer streets fund, we are providing more than £650,000 to the west midlands to provide interventions, such as the bespoke VAWG public spaces-tailored programme offered to all schools in conjunction with the mentors in violence prevention programme and the violence reduction unit place-based pilot, to address harmful sexualised attitudes in boys. In West Yorkshire, we are providing more than £650,000 to implement interventions such as Student Safe Spot, safe routes and sexual assault referral centre walkthroughs.

Further to the point that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made, relationships, sex and health education became statutory in schools from September. We are putting support in place to improve the quality of teaching so that we support children and young people through school.

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) talked about online crimes. The Online Safety Bill is coming to the House shortly. Precisely because we wanted help, assistance and input from Members of both Houses, and indeed from charities and campaigners, we opened the Bill up to pre-legislative scrutiny. We are going through that scrutiny at the moment and are very respectful of the Joint Committee’s efforts to draw our attention to parts of it. We are working with determination to make the online world as safe as we possibly can.

[Debbie Abrahams]

rose—

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

rose—

[Victoria Atkins]

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then to my hon. Friend.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I was on that Joint Committee, and I have heard some worrying concerns that some of the recommendations that we made will be watered down. We took evidence that a large proportion—I cannot remember the figure, but a majority—of primary school-age children are being sent unsolicited extreme porn images. As great as the “Enough” campaign may be, how on earth do we combat that unless we have strong legislation?

[Victoria Atkins]

The world in the 21st century is having to grapple with some of those factors that we have seen emerge on the internet over the last two or three decades. I genuinely think this is the moment for our country to draw a line in the sand and say, “Enough is enough. We expect better from tech companies and we expect better in terms of regulation of tech companies.” That is what the Online Safety Bill will involve.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

rose—

[Victoria Atkins]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who has been so patient.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

I think we have all been very patient as women, to be brutally frank. I want to return to the point made by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Let us call it what it is: this is male violence against women and girls. I hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says. There are probably more men here than I have seen in a debate of this kind, which is fantastic, but we are only really going to tackle this if we get full societal change. That means that our communications outside this Chamber must make it very clear that it is not a women’s problem that men are committing these crimes against them; it is the fault of everyone in society. People should stop looking the other way and we should cease just sucking all this up. Let us call it what it is—male violence against women and girls.

[Victoria Atkins]

I would very much welcome my hon. Friend’s views on the “Enough” campaign. We set out three scenes to tackle exactly that tendency to turn away, giving people the courage to call out so-called banter among their mates, and helping people who see behaviour in the street that they are not sure about to offer a helping hand and say, “We’re here if you want to talk.” That sort of approach is going to make the sort of societal change that I know we all want.

However, it is also vital that, when crimes sadly occur, victims get the support they need and deserve. That is why we have committed to increasing funding to vital support services to £185 million by 2024-25. Importantly, that includes increasing the number of independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers to more than 1,000. That is pivotal. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford rightly said that there are various stages in the criminal justice system, and as I move on to the rape review I will try to explain a little more the very technical work that we have been doing on this. We know that there are certain pressure points, and there is emerging evidence that the role that IDVAs and ISVAs play in supporting victims can really help to tackle victim attrition rates. It can mean that victims are nearly 50% more likely to stay engaged with the criminal justice system.

We are also—again, I have listened to the responses that we have received and to charities and campaigners—in the process of setting up a national sexual violence helpline in England and Wales. That will be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so that victims of sexual violence can get immediate access to support when they need it and when they want it. I think that will be a step change for many victims, knowing as we do just how important the domestic abuse helpline has been in offering support. We are also, of course, introducing a victims law. That is a critical part of our plans to ensure that victims’ voices are at the heart of the criminal justice process. It will strengthen the accountability of the players in that process and improve support for victims.

On another point of agreement, we want to see perpetrators of violence against women and girls ruthlessly pursued and brought to justice. Yesterday the Safeguarding Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean)—confirmed to the House that we will be adding violence against women and girls to the strategic policing requirement, meaning that it will be prioritised just as terrorism offences, for example, are prioritised. That is essential. I appreciate that it is the sort of technical thing that is all words and has very little meaning if one has just been raped and been the victim of a crime, but those of us who work in this process know how significant a commitment it is. We are now prioritising nationally the very crimes we are all so concerned about, in the way that serious organised crime and terrorism, for example, are prioritised.

However, we know that we cannot just look to criminal justice, so in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 we committed to giving the police new powers to help bring perpetrators to justice and to stop the abuse. Domestic abuse protection notices and orders were a very strong part of the Act. We will be publishing a comprehensive perpetrators strategy, which will set out our approach to detecting, investigating and prosecuting offences involving domestic abuse, assessing and managing that risk, and reducing the risk that individuals will commit further offences. The strategy will form part of the domestic abuse strategy, which is due to be published in the coming months.

[Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)]

Those announcements are welcome. Will the Minister recognise the work being done by the excellent Northumbria police and crime commissioner, Kim McGuinness, who has such a holistic approach to tackling violence—sexual violence and domestic abuse—against women? She has launched campaigns such as “Fun without fear”, and she commissions work with perpetrators, as well as with victims of domestic and violent abuse, to cover all aspects of work to stop this kind of violence against women.

[Victoria Atkins]

I genuinely thank the hon. Lady for bringing to the fore the vital role that police and crime commissioners play in their local areas to do exactly the sort of the work that she describes. We are giving police and crime commissioners the funding and flexibility to commission plans and work in their own local areas, but we are now supporting that, as I say, with the national strategic policing priority so that there is a focus not just at local level but at national level. We have invested an unprecedented amount—some £35 million—specifically in tackling the perpetrators of domestic abuse. This is very significant work, and I am sure that we will begin to see the benefits of it very soon.

We also want to build an evidence base on perpetrators. In the strategy, we committed to creating a “what works” fund to see what is working, with risk assessment and changing behaviours, and to looking at some frankly under-researched areas such as abuse within adolescent relationships. I see the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) opposite me; we discussed this in the Domestic Abuse Bill Committee. We know that, as part of our wider societal work, we need to focus on what is happening in teenage relationships before the age of 16, when the Act kicks in, so that both adolescents and those over 16 are being looked after in their relationships.

As I hope I have already set out, we are going to be able to deliver this change by ensuring that each of the agencies and parts of the system that are responsible for tackling these crimes plays its part and that they play them together. The policing world and the Government have accepted all the recommendations made in previous HMICFRS inspections. We have already supported the introduction of a national policing lead for violence against women and girls, DCC Maggie Blyth, who is co-ordinating the policing response. She is playing a really important role in policing at the national level, which of course informs local policing on the ground, a point that I know has been emphasised and that I will develop in a moment. That means we have a national policing lead fully dedicated to looking at the police response to these crimes. DCC Blyth has already published a national framework so that police forces have clear and consistent direction.

We have also taken the opportunity in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to ensure that it is clear that domestic abuse and sexual offences are included in the definition of serious violence when local areas are determining how to fulfil their duty under the new serious violence duty in that Bill. This is a significant step forward at local level. I know that there have been grave concerns, particularly in recent weeks, about incidents of police attitudes and behaviour. The Home Secretary has commissioned a two-phase independent inquiry chaired by Dame Elish Angiolini QC to investigate the issues raised by events last year and also to scrutinise the robustness of vetting practices, professional standards, discipline and workplace behaviour. That is important work that needs to be done to help to restore public trust.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) intervened on the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford to ask about the pressure on courts. I think the Opposition acknowledge the impact that the pandemic has had on the criminal justice system and on our ability to run courts. We kept the criminal justice system and the family courts operating for the most vulnerable cases through the pandemic. I must correct him on one point. I am told that court backlogs were 19% higher in the last year of the Labour Government than under the Conservative Government in February 2020, just before the pandemic. However, I understand the spirit in which he raised that point. I am pleased—although not complacent—that the pandemic backlog in magistrates courts is well on the way to being resolved, and significant changes are being made in the Crown courts as well.

I turn now to the motion’s emphasis on rape cases and investigations. The reason I want to focus specifically on this is that it is such an important part of the Government’s overall work to tackle violence against women and girls. For reasons that have been debated previously, there are significant issues at every stage of the criminal justice process, and we are determined to tackle them. We have a highly focused programme of work looking specifically at the investigation and prosecution of allegations of rape. It is called the end-to-end rape review report and action plan. We took a hard and honest look at how the criminal justice system deals with rape, and we are clear that into many instances it is simply not good enough.

I have been asked about oversight of the system as a whole. Just to help explain, the rape review action plan is precisely about that oversight and grip of the national systems. Everyone in the Chamber will understand that the police have their role to play and that the Crown Prosecution Service has its role to play, and of course we respect the independence of the judiciary and of juries, but there must be, and there is now, oversight of the system as a whole. This is why the publication of the first six-monthly progress report and quarterly scorecard on adult rape cases is so important. If anyone wants to look at the scorecards, they are on the gov.uk website. In them, we are shining a light on every stage of the criminal justice process, not just for those who work in the justice system but for charities, for campaigners and, importantly, for the public to examine. We have a theme of non-defensive transparency running through the scorecards because we want to share what is going well—there are areas where we are beginning to see small improvements—as well as the areas where the system needs to do much, much better.

I am pleased to confirm that in the coming months we will also publish what we are calling local scorecards, because we understand that local areas will want to know what is happening in their area. As part of that, we are also rolling out Operation Soteria, which has already been mentioned today. This is a significant programme of work for policing and for the CPS. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford has called for rape and serious sexual offence—RASSO—units in forces, but Operation Soteria is even more ambitious than that. It is about transforming the approach that the whole of policing takes to investigating crime. We are taking the focus away from the victim and putting it firmly on the suspect.

[Yvette Cooper]

Why, then, is the Minister not rolling out Operation Soteria to every single force straight away, and why not require RASSO units in the meantime? I would love her to go further, but surely we should be requiring RASSOs within three months.

[Victoria Atkins]

We will be, but this is such a fundamental review of policing and CPS practice. The area where we have piloted it already—Avon and Somerset—is beginning to roll out lessons to other police forces, but we need to be clear as to what is working and what is not working. None of us wants unintended consequences in any of this work. It will be rolled out nationally, but we are just making sure that the academics uncover everything. We have a team of academics who go into a police force area, dive into the files and look at everything. From that, they come up not just with data but, importantly, with recommendations on what went wrong and what worked. This is an incredibly intensive programme, and it will take a bit of time before we roll it out nationally, but we are already on schedule with rolling it out to the five pilot areas and the next tranche of forces. That is what we are determined to do.

I hope that the right hon. Lady also supports the fact that as part of our efforts to improve rape convictions, referrals and investigations, we have listened again to victims. One of the areas that they are understandably most concerned about is the idea that their mobile phones will be taken away from them without good cause. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) has raised this with me on a number of occasions. We hear that and we get it, and that is why in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill we have included new criteria that the police must abide by in the decision-making process as to whether they should take a victim’s phone. What is more, we have piloted a phone swap-out scheme if a phone has to be taken for more than 24 hours. We are seeing whether having a swap-out will help to inform a national scheme. In addition, we are rolling out digital technology across forces so that it is much quicker for them to deal with these phones—[Interruption.] I very much hear your discreet coughing, Madam Deputy Speaker—in a non-covid way—but if I may, I will just deal with the national roll-out of section 28.

Those in the Chamber will know what section 28 is. It involves the ability of victims of sexual violence and modern slavery to give pre-recorded evidence, so that, rather than waiting a long time for a trial to come to court, they give evidence as quickly as possible after the event and it is then used at the trial. This is exciting work, and we have committed to rolling this out nationally as quickly as we can. There will be more news on this in the coming months. There is much more I can say, but I am going to take your hint, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There are many areas of agreement on this. It is absolutely right of Her Majesty’s Opposition to hold us to account and scrutinise what we are doing, but there is genuinely an enormous amount of good will in Government and across the House to tackle these invidious crimes. Please, the message must go out from the Chamber that enough is enough. We—half the population—will not put up with this behaviour any more, and by working together we really can make this the decade of change.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister. We have 15 speakers for this debate, so I urge colleagues to be considerate of one another. I think it boils down to about seven minutes each.

14:00

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have this opportunity to debate male violence against women and girls.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) spoke about the online space, and I flag the work of the all-party parliamentary group on commercial sexual exploitation. We have taken extensive evidence on the prevalence of violent online pornography, which is ubiquitous and has, for some time, fuelled the epidemic of violence against women and girls.

Ministers have heard me talk about this many times, and I plea for them to look again at non-contact sexual offending and how it is a red flag for the possible escalation of offending behaviour into something far more serious. They will know of the case in my constituency where a man prowled the streets for months, flashing and taking part in acts of voyeurism. It was not reported, and he later got bolder and raped and murdered a student at Hull University, throwing her body into the river. I hope Ministers will look again at low-level offending.

The Government’s ending violence against women and girls strategy for 2016 to 2020 was clear about the outcomes they wanted to achieve by 2020, namely increases in reporting, police referrals, prosecutions and convictions for violence against women and girls, matched by a reduction in the prevalence of all forms of violence against women and girls, but sadly it appears that the opposite has happened. The volumes of police referrals, charges, prosecutions and convictions for offences of violence against women have plummeted since 2016-17, particularly for rape and serious sexual offences. Recent figures from the Crown Prosecution Service show that 1,557 rape-flagged cases proceeded to the prosecution stage in 2021, down from 5,190 in 2016-17.

I welcome the rape review, but I remain a little confused about which Minister is actually responsible for driving it.

[Victoria Atkins]

rose—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)]

rose—

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Two hands are up on the Front Bench.

[Victoria Atkins]

It is me.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am very glad to hear that because, of course, the Minister for Crime and Policing is also named as having responsibility for the rape review. There is a bit of confusion. As the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), will know, the Home Affairs Committee has carried out an inquiry on rape investigations and convictions, and we will shortly publish a report.

[Victoria Atkins]

Precisely because this is cross-Government work, of course other Ministers are involved. We are bringing in everybody who needs to be in the room, but the Deputy Prime Minister and I are the leads. We own it, and we are monitoring it very closely and very frequently.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

That helps. The issue I have is that, unless one person is driving it through, things often do not happen. If the Minister is responsible, that is good to hear.

We are still waiting on some of the Government’s commitments on tackling violence against women and girls. Although there has been some progress, as the Minister pointed out—and I particularly welcome Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth’s appointment as the national policing lead on tackling violence against women and girls—many campaigners have said that a number of central pledges in the most recent tackling violence against women and girls strategy, launched in July 2021, have not yet been implemented. For example, no timescale has been provided for the Home Office’s work on potential gaps in the law on public sexual harassment and how a specific offence might address them. A final version of the statutory guidance on the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 has also still not been published.

The tackling violence against women and girls strategy stated that the complementary domestic abuse strategy would be published in 2021, but it has been delayed. The perpetrators strategy, to which the Minister referred, is due by the end of April. When the Home Secretary recently appeared before the Home Affairs Committee, she did not give a date for publication and, concerningly, she did not say that it would be published in time. I know the Minister said the strategy will be published in the coming months, but there is a duty on the Home Secretary to publish a perpetrators strategy within 12 months of Royal Assent of the Domestic Abuse Act, which was given on 29 April 2021. This is urgent, and I hope we will see the strategy in time. The domestic abuse organisation SafeLives has highlighted the fact that less than 1% of perpetrators receive any form of intervention to help address their behaviour, which is why the perpetrators strategy is vital.

The support for migrant victims of domestic abuse pilot is due to end on 31 March 2022, and the external evaluation is not expected to finish until the end of August. The domestic abuse commissioner has raised concerns that the Home Office has not outlined what interim support will be made available after the pilot concludes, with survivors facing uncertainty and, potentially, a lack of support before a long-term decision is made. In its report on domestic abuse in 2018, the previous Home Affairs Committee stated:

“Victims of abuse with uncertain immigration status are particularly vulnerable because they can have difficulties in accessing financial support and refuge and other support services, so they have few options for escaping from abuse.”

I am concerned by the number of gaps and delays in the implementation of the male violence against women and girls strategy. This is now an endemic problem. The Minister said there is a cross-departmental approach, yet the Government seem to be struggling to enact reforms in one Department alone. I urge them to speed up the implementation of their commitments on this sadly growing issue as a matter of urgency.

14:06

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my fellow Select Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).

This hugely important issue and debate concerns men as much as women, which we need to emphasise. It is not easy, and there is no single silver bullet. A raft of reasons give rise to this appalling level of offending and the difficulties we have in dealing with it. As both Front Benchers said, it needs to be addressed on a wide front.

I will concentrate on the criminal justice issues, as my Select Committee is seized of these matters. As it happens, an interesting and useful report was recently published by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services and Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate. In fact, the four criminal justice inspectorates are giving evidence to the Justice Committee next week, which will give us an opportunity to probe a little more into the report’s useful recommendations. I hope that, by and large, the Government will look upon them favourably, although even there we have to recognise some of the complexities.

In my previous life as a barrister, I prosecuted and defended quite a number of rapes and other serious sexual offences. They are the most appalling offences, and most of us rightly regard them as perhaps only a little below homicide in their vile impact on individuals and in how seriously the system must take them. These offences must therefore be handled, at all stages of the process, with particular sensitivity and care, which the system always endeavours to do.

Given the time I spent at the Bar, I can say that the experience of complainants has markedly improved from when I first started in practice. We are much, much more aware of the myths that sometimes abound about why such offences are or are not reported. There is much greater sensitivity in the handling of complainants and witnesses in these cases. In particular, the Judicial Studies Board has produced much more up-to-date and much more sensitive model guidance to judges who try these cases in the Crown court on giving directions to juries to dispel some of the myths and on being alert to the particular sensitivities of witnesses giving evidence on such traumatic events. We have done much more on the use of special measures in courts to make it easier for witnesses in such cases to give evidence.

All those are positive things. That does not mean that we should rest on our laurels and that we should not continue to do more, but we have to recognise that there has been significant change and we must now build on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) pointed out one thing to our Committee that had been striking over the years. I am grateful for his support and work in the Committee during his time as a member, which was absolutely outstanding, and I congratulate him on being appointed a Parliamentary Private Secretary. The Committee was struck by the statistic he raised: that some 90% of the attrition of victims and complainants in these cases comes before the case even gets to the CPS to look at. That really has to be addressed most urgently.

The other interesting statistic we found was that when a charge has been brought and the case has gone to the Crown Court, the conviction rate in rape and serious sexual offences cases is not broadly dissimilar to that for other offences of serious violence against the person—section 18s and so on. When we get these cases to court and when they are presented properly, by experienced counsel and with properly trained judges, we can get the same results as we do for other offences of violence. We really need to tackle why we are not getting to that situation in the first place. That is why Operation Soteria and the end-to-end rape review are so important.

We must also deal with specific issues on delays in disclosure, which we have all seen over a number of years in relation to such offences. The Minister rightly refers to the issue of digital evidence and mobile phones in particular. That is much more significant now, and we must get to a situation where the evidence can be downloaded. It has to be disclosed, where relevant, because there is an obligation in holding a fair trial to make legitimately disclosable material available to the defence. I have been involved in cases where the disclosure of material demonstrated that there was a genuine defence and therefore a miscarriage of justice was averted—I can think of two such cases. So that has to be done, but it has to be done sensitively and swiftly, so that the victim can get their phone and material back as soon as possible. That is the key thing: we need to invest in that and make sure it is done consistently, in the same way as we need to invest in making sure that victim support services are consistent in all the courts across the country and that the level of communication between prosecutors, police and the witnesses is consistent in the way that the latter are dealt with.

There is a suggestion in the inspector’s review of specialist rape courts, and I would be interested to see how that works in practice. A suggestion was made for that in Scotland. I am not sure where the evidence base is for that in England, but the real issue is not so much specialist courts, but the delay in listing. That is one thing we could ask the Courts Service to look at. I know that listing is a judicial function, but we need to work with the judiciary on this to give them the resources. I find it shocking that rape cases are listed as what the Minister and I will remember as “floaters”, or back-ups, where they do not have an allocated court and are there to be called on if another case collapses. It is not fair to be listing cases in this way, where victims who have to relive the trauma of a rape or sexual assault are hanging around not knowing whether they will get on that day or not. Surely all such cases ought to be fixtures.

We should also be doing more to avoid the late vacation of fixed dates for trial. As the report details, there have been too many instances where cases were adjourned more than once, with the victim—the witness—having worked themselves up to give evidence only for the case to be taken out of the list, often because there is not judicial availability or because barristers are not available. The point is that these cases have to be tried by “ticketed” Crown court judges: judges who have undergone training in handling sensitive witnesses and such cases, and who understand the issues that have to be gone through. We need to make sure that there is an adequate supply of ticketed senior Crown court judges and, where necessary, highly experienced recorders as well. We also need to make sure that there are enough experienced advocates available.

Unfortunately, I have seen evidence from the Bar Council and others of too many instances recently where cases have had to be adjourned—one or two of the cases have been well publicised, so I am sure the Minister has seen them—because a prosecutor of sufficient seniority was not available to take then on. We have to look at that in the criminal law legal aid review and its implementation, because it is a healthy, independent Bar that provides most of the prosecutors and defenders in these cases. Getting that right is important, too.

There also has to be proper remuneration to make sure that people of sufficient experience and status handle these really serious cases. There are specific things that I hope can be done. The section 28 hearings are certainly important. The one caveat I would enter is that we should keep a careful eye on how that works in practice. It may well have the advantage of getting early guilty pleas, which are particularly important in cases involving offences of this kind, as we save the complainant from having to give evidence and relive the incident, but some concern has been expressed by practitioners that when the case is contested, the impact of recorded evidence can seem more remote to a jury. That may or may not be right, but we should keep an eye on it, because we want these proceedings to work if they can.

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. We should all be supporting the “Enough” campaign, not only with rhetoric, but with action. That means investing properly in the justice system. There is much good will and expertise, but we need to make sure that there is resource to enable the system to function with consistency and to keep up to date with developments in technology and other matters in the field.

14:15

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

We see domestic abuse, misogyny, sexual violence, threatening behaviour, economic abuse, sexism—I could go on. Whether it is behind closed doors or on our streets; a hidden secret or something that makes the front pages of the national press, violence against women and girls is endemic, and tackling it must be a priority. I regularly spend time with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) talking to the women in Swansea who are selling their bodies on the street. They are working as prostitutes, and we go to talk to them and ask them, “Why are you here and what more can we do to help you?” Most of them do not want any help, because they are doing what they are doing because someone “loves” them—someone who takes the few pounds they are earning in return for a place to sleep or a quick fix. Often there is no physical abuse—no cuts or bruises—but the psychological impact and the economic hold that these men have over those women is so damaging.

That is not unique to Swansea; it is the same, on streets and in homes, in towns and cities the length and breadth of the country. At a recent event, I met the team from One25, an outstanding charity based in Bristol—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) is a big supporter of its work. Its vision is of a world where women feel safe, feel loved and can thrive. It reaches out to some of the city’s most marginalised women and gives them practical support to move from crisis and trauma towards independence, without any kind of judgment. But the stories behind the charity’s work paint a very dark picture. In 2020-21, One25 worked with 237 women, 97% of whom had experienced domestic or sexual violence. All the women it works with have experienced trauma—for some it is childhood abuse which is deep-rooted and has led to a lifetime of marginalisation and pain. Most have ended up in crisis, on the streets and selling their bodies, which makes them vulnerable to further violence and abuse.

Worryingly, we have seen a sharp increase in violent behaviour towards women selling sex during the pandemic, both in the levels of it and in the intensity. One25 saw an increase of 82% in reported cases last year, and it is a similar story on domestic abuse; data is limited on the exact impact, but in May 2020, just two months into lockdown, the Office for National Statistics reported a 12% increase in the number of cases referred to Victim Support. The national domestic abuse helpline also recorded a 65% increase in calls in the second quarter of 2020, the height of the first lockdown, compared with the first quarter. However, as we begin to emerge from the pandemic, we know that domestic violence remains a huge problem and we must do more to tackle it. No one is immune, but a recent study run by the charity AVA—Against Violence & Abuse—called “Stuck in the Middle with You”, exploring the impact of menopause on survivors of domestic abuse, found that women’s experiences suggest a two-way relationship between the two.

Menopause impacts on women’s relationships, particularly those with an intimate partner, which can lead to an escalation in violent behaviour. On the flipside, those experiencing domestic abuse may find that this leads to worsening menopause symptoms. This month, the Welsh homelessness charity, Llamau, will launch its “Break the bias” campaign. Its aim is to remove the stigma and create a society where women do not fear being judged by their experience. Domestic abuse does not discriminate, so those who survive it should not feel discriminated against.

There are some fantastic organisations right across the country, such as the Swan project in Swansea, which are working hard to tackle violence against women and girls and to support survivors. Today, I have shared just a few wonderful examples, but there are so many more. We must stand together and work together so that we can make sure that the threats, the abuse and the hate stop. Every woman and girl affected—every survivor—needs to know that there is support, that we will not tolerate this, and that we will all do everything that we can to tackle the violence that so many face.

14:20

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

There is, I suppose, a grim sense of bookending in this debate. We all know that we are very close to the anniversary of a particularly appalling murder—one of the most appalling crimes that I can recall. It was a grotesque breach of trust by a serving Met police officer. Most recently, though, there was the admission of guilt by the murderer of Sabina Nessa, who we now know drove miles from his home, found her at random, killed her in the most brutal and degrading way and pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey last week. There is no doubt that there is an epidemic of violence against women and girls.

I understand why the Opposition have brought this debate to the Chamber, and I respect their reason for doing so. I think it is reflected in the tone that everybody has taken so far that it would not serve well to use this debate as a political tit for tat. The truth is that, when we debate these issues, it is always the same faces who are here, and we know that it will be our collective endeavour, if anything, that will improve the situation.

I want to align myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who said that finding out what is happening and how we improve it is complex and difficult. I think that that was revealed a little bit on Monday night when we debated making misogyny a hate crime. I heard the impassioned speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and what she said about women’s safety, but, as a matter of law, she did not engage at all with the issue of whether all violence against women and girls is motivated by hatred, or whether there are other more complex causes, and how, if at all, it fits within the framework of section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which governs all hate crimes. She also could not explain why the reporting pilot that had been conducted in Nottingham had not actually resulted in any more prosecutions or convictions. I do not believe—I say this very respectfully—that there was consensus on the Labour Benches about whether it should be made an offence. Even if I am wrong about that, and there is no desire here to humiliate, it exposes the fact that there are complex questions about causation and legal framework that are not that easy to resolve. Even people whose mission is the same will disagree on the mechanics of how we get there.

Before I get into the substance of the debate, I want to spend a moment talking about what I think the Government have achieved, because it is quite easy to overlook that. I am not just going to give a shopping list of the things that the Government have criminalised, from stalking to coercive control and to revenge porn, because everybody is familiar with that and most people have participated in debates where we have talked about that. One thing that we have achieved in the past 10 years is looking at violence against women through a much more expansive lens. In the old days of domestic abuse, for example, many will recall the shorthand of “knocking her about”—think how far we have come from that. We do not even see it as just a question of violence. We view these crimes as issues of power, control, obsession, jealousy, and a desire for revenge. We recognise that coercive control is a criminal offence, even if the relationship has long since finished. We recognise that revenge porn, something that would have been the shame of the victim for many, many years, is actually the crime of the perpetrator. We have tackled toxic assumptions. It was the Mother of the House who used the phrase for the first time, “the nagging and shagging defence” that used to be frequently and successfully deployed in the criminal courts. We have also dealt with the fact that there is no such thing as consent to rough sex as a defence for sexual violence. I think that we can probably agree that we still have further to go on some of this.

The Centre for Women’s Justice has written very recently that we still have issues around culture. One thing we need to be careful about in the “she was just walking home” labelling is that we are not saying that there are deserving victims and that the woman who was out getting drunk or even looking for sex or doing something that is not seen as ladylike is not a deserving victim. That is all still there, I think.

What we are doing on rape is important. I understand the collective concern on that issue. Section 28 procedures —the ability of a victim to give evidence behind closed doors with counsel and to be cross-examined without having to wait for trial—have made a huge difference. Members of the Home Affairs Committee—I think that this only applies to the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on the Front Bench—will recall that, when the chairs of the rape reviews for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales gave evidence, they did not agree on everything, but the one thing on which they did agree was how important section 28 procedures are, and I am so glad that the Justice Secretary is now rolling them out nationwide.

I also have to mention criminal justice scorecards. I am not sure whether we are using that official language yet, but, about four weeks ago, I was contacted by a young lady in my constituency who had recently been raped outside the constituency. When she approached the force where it had happened, her treatment was lamentable. The rape statistics of that force had been published and were in the public domain. When I wrote to them—a letter of complaint essentially on her behalf—pointing out their absolutely diabolical rape prosecution rates, they responded to me the next day with an extremely helpful and supportive letter, setting out what they would do and making contact with her, and I think we turned it around.

[Sir Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is making a most important point and I entirely agree with her. Does she agree that that links into the importance of proper, careful and sensitive investigation by the police? We will increase the rate of charging only if, in a sufficient number of cases, there is admissible evidence that affords a reasonable prospect of conviction, and it is the evidence gathering, therefore, that must be tackled. It is the failure to gather sufficient admissible evidence to give a reasonable prospect of conviction that means that a person cannot be properly charged.

[Laura Farris]

I accept that. I also accept the point that my hon. Friend made. Members of the Select Committee will recall Mary Prior QC saying emphatically that we need continuity of counsel, but the judicial listing function is detrimental to that.

There are three points on this issue.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the police culture and revenge porn. Does she accept that there is a cultural problem in the police in terms of reporting revenge porn, telling people whose drinks have been spiked that they are just drunk, all the misogyny in WhatsApp groups, and the behaviour at both Bristol and Clapham? Twenty people have been put in hospital by police unaccountability. Is there not an issue there about accountability and culture that we need to confront?

[Laura Farris]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, which pre-empts what I was coming onto—the three issues that are serious and that we have not really tackled. The first is the prevalence of online porn. On checking the figures today, I found that more than half of children up to the age of 13 have viewed porn, and that rises to two thirds by the time they get to 15. Most of them say that they have seen some violent content when they were not looking for it. The numbers of children under the age of 16 who have viewed rape porn is unbelievable. I think that, when I am an old lady, we will look back at this moment in our history and think that it is absolutely unforgiveable that this form of child abuse—that is what it really is—is still operating, and it really affects the attitudes that boys have towards women. In my day, it was lad mags and lap dancers; now it is something far more pernicious.

The second point is the police culture. We have heard recently that Wayne Couzens had WhatsApp groups and those police officers have been named. We have PCs Denis Jaffer and Jamie Lewis who pleaded guilty to the grotesque crimes that they performed on the bodies of Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman. Then there is the Charing Cross branch of the Met, a member of which described a domestic abuse victim as “mad and deserving a slap”, and then talked about whether they would rape or chloroform somebody. There is a serious issue that goes beyond one bad apple, and I look forward to the outcomes of those inquiries.

Finally, I do not even know whether the two sides of the House disagree on this, but there is clearly more to do on perpetrators. I think that we have all come to understand that there are gateway crimes—stalking is a prime example—and there needs to be now, which the Government are getting to, a perpetrator strategy that records escalating violence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I need to remind Members that the case relating to Sabina Nessa is still sub judice, and will remain so until sentencing or the conclusion of any appeal.

14:29

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

This debate is tragically timely for women across my constituency, who will tomorrow mark the one-year anniversary of the murder of my constituent Sarah Everard at the hands of a serving police officer. As our prayers and thoughts go out to Sarah’s family, I remind everyone of their request for privacy, and particularly the media; given what the family have suffered, that is the least they can offer them. That murder shocked the nation and my constituents; it struck fear into the hearts of women across the country, but particularly women who walked around the same area, who contacted me saying that they no longer felt safe. No one should feel unsafe walking anywhere at any time.

I cannot raise that case without also mentioning the vigil that followed on Clapham Common and the conduct of the Metropolitan Police. Women present at the vigil were there to remember those who had lost their lives at the hands of male violence, and some were there to process their own trauma. They were forcibly kettled, manhandled and dispersed. The police response was called “controversial” at the time; I would say it was not merely controversial, but disgraceful.

There have also been great efforts to make it seem as though the murder’s happening at the hands of a serving police officer was a matter of one bad apple, but evidence has consistently revealed a deeply misogynistic culture in the Metropolitan Police. In the past 10 years, 750 Met police officers have faced sexual misconduct allegations, yet only 83 have been sacked.

We have heard tales of officers sharing inappropriate and offensive material and taking pictures of the dead bodies of women as a joke. The report into the vile misogyny and racism at the Charing Cross police station led the Home Secretary herself to declare that the Met had a “cultural and attitudinal” issue with misogyny. I do not say those things to berate the police, but because women need to be able to turn to the police to deliver justice and to prosecute the perpetrators of male violence. What confidence will they have in police forces that are known to do such things?

Since the murder in my constituency last year, a number of attacks have taken place in the area, leading to even more women being fearful of walking by themselves. Several of those attacks even happened during the day or in relatively open spaces. There is a culture of misogyny running rife through our society, and it is emboldening men to commit more heinous crimes against women in broad daylight. The systems in place to deliver justice for female victims continue to fail, as rape is effectively decriminalised.

One thing we must do is look at education and schools, teaching boys from a young age that as they grow up to become men, women should not be treated as objects or be spoken to or about in certain ways. That said, we must look to what they are seeing and hearing online, something hon. Members have frequently mentioned today, with the ever-growing presence of incels. We hope the online harms Bill will actively look at that and puts more responsibility on social media companies to take down some of that horrible content and make people realise that, as Mr Speaker has reminded us, words have consequences. It is not just banter or general viewing. It is not just a joke.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that social media is normalising hate speech—particularly aggressive hate speech directed towards women and girls—and that we must address that through the online safety Bill to ensure that the normal legal standards that exist offline are applied online and to create real responsibilities for companies such as Facebook, YouTube and TikTok to ensure that they do that?

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—he is absolutely right. I wish more responsibility was placed on social media companies. There should even be a levy for them to pay for the perpetrating of the crimes that sometimes happen online but are not considered to be serious because they happen in a virtual space.

While it seems obvious to point out the impact of past cuts to police funding, it is important to make people realise that the ability to investigate crimes against women and girls is greatly impacted. The impact is not just in the lower numbers of police available, but in the cuts to police training and vetting. Between 2010 and 2018 the Met faced over £600 million in Government cuts, which saw a reduction in police posts and no doubt resulted in corner-cutting in training and vetting of officers. No wonder there are individuals who we know are clearly unfit to act as officers and have used their positions to commit heinous crimes against women and girls.

The answer to violence is not simply having more police on the streets, but they must be there, they must be appropriate and they must be vetted and we must ensure that, when dealing with cases of violence against women and girls, they take them seriously. If the police are to regain our trust in them to keep women and girls safe and tackle the spiralling issue of male violence against women and girls, they must first address the culture of impunity that allows violence against women and girls to thrive, by actively investigating these matters and taking them more seriously.

If the Government are to regain our trust in their commitment to tackling violence against women and girls, they need to assess and review all their cuts to services dealing with violence against women and girls right across the country. Those services have been cut in such a way that when women need support, there is hardly anybody to go to. We are talking about refuges and other services that have been cut right to the bone, and meanwhile the incidence of violence is increasing. If the Government are committed to tackling this issue, they must seriously look at the issue of funding, restore it where it has been cut and continue to work with those organisations that have done so much to end violence against women and girls.

14:36

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

It is a year since the nation held its breath, prayed in hope, and then received the terrible news. It was a body blow felt by women everywhere. Those grim headlines alerted us to the enormity of the problem, the sheer scale of male violence against women and girls. Women shared stories, organised and collectively shouted “No!” Every one of us had had, and has had, enough.

In a country such as ours, there is no acceptable excuse or reasonable explanation on earth for the rise in violent crime against women and no excuse or explanation for the abysmally low prosecution rates. Most women never receive justice for rape; most do not even get to try. Author Julie Bindel, a lifelong feminist campaigner, wrote this morning:

“If conviction rates for rape fall any lower in the UK, it might as well be decriminalised.”

That has also been said many times in this place by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). Why is that still the case? Whatever the reasons are, they cannot be used as excuses. They must be fixed urgently. We need to see changes immediately.

If every person who has been raped lay down in the street as though they had been murdered, we would be tripping over the bodies. If the bodies of women who had been killed by their former or current partners were there too, we would run out of space to walk. I welcome the Minister’s launching the Enough initiative as part of her Department’s strategic changes and Operation Soteria, but we in this place are all on notice. We cannot just allow the scale of male violence against women and girls to keep growing. It is our problem, it is society’s problem, it is everybody’s problem, but it is largely our responsibility.

In the meantime, the Office for National Statistics data released at the end of January showed that police forces recorded the highest-ever number of rapes and sexual offences last year—more than 63,000 rapes, 13% up on the previous period. Perhaps we need another lockdown so that women and girls can just live out our daily lives without the risk of being brutally hurt? Should women all stay quietly at home after dark, or maybe carry weapons?

The men who commit those crimes need to know that they will be caught, stopped and locked up. If they ruin a life, they should live with that action every single day, as their victims are forced to. Instead—what? They just go home after work, rape a woman, go to bed, catch a train the next morning, plan a bit of DIY at the weekend, knowing they will not be caught or prosecuted. Meanwhile, the person that they have brutalised slowly opens her eyes, tries to move her limbs in order to stand, walks slowly in a state of shock, checks her injured body, and then sits motionless, her brain attempting to make any sense of what happened to her and reliving the bits she remembers over and over. Stuck, paralysed and alone, she will have to piece together her sense of herself and the world anew. Every decision and thought will now carry weight like never before. A new way of living will be hers, her life interrupted and broken because a man decided to use his body to hurt, control and violate her.

Some of those women are able to speak up—they attack the useless system we have in the hope that that might bring about change—yet the majority will carry on being daughters, mothers and workers, changed for ever, mostly unnoticed by others who will not know their story. But we are here to make things better. Women should not simply have to accept that violence is a real and daily threat to bear in mind constantly. Male violence against women and girls should be seen as being as socially unacceptable and shocking as kicking an animal. The pursuit of justice must be a priority, reflecting the punishment lived by victims.

Dame Vera Baird reacted to today’s grim figures by saying:

“Much as we hope each year to finally witness the green shoots of a recovery, we are once again faced with the crushing reality that the criminal justice system is continuing to fail rape victims in ever-increasing numbers.”

Let us treat that as an emergency, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, and fix this broken system once and for all.

14:41

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure and privilege to speak in this debate. We have talked about this issue many times, and I could not agree more with the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) that the time for talking should be over and we need to see a lot more action.

I want to praise the organisations in Bath that are working on tackling violence against women and girls: the Southside project, which supports families affected by domestic violence and abuse; Somerset and Avon Rape and Sexual Abuse Support, or SARSAS, a specialist support service for women and girls who have experienced any form of sexual violence at any point in their lives; and Voices, a survivor-led charity supporting those living with and beyond domestic abuse to recover from their trauma, which redoubled its efforts during the pandemic to make sure that no one was forgotten. I was delighted to recognise Voices with the first Best of Bath award last year.

But we should not leave it to charities to tackle violence against women and girls. We must do a lot more not only to support survivors but to prevent the terrible violence from occurring in the first place. We absolutely need to improve police training so that victims and survivors are properly supported. Many crimes do not even enter the criminal justice system. Over 600,000 women are sexually assaulted each year, but only one in six of those assaults is reported to the police. We must give women and girls the reassurance that their concerns are taken seriously whenever they report crimes of assault or domestic abuse.

I would like to add something to the motion before us today. Supporting victims of violence and sexual abuse begins at a local level. The Government must support local authorities to perform this vital task by giving them the duty and funding to provide accommodation for survivors of abuse. Our criminal justice system is failing women. It takes an incredible amount of bravery to not only report sexual abuse but then to relive that trauma in the courts. To add insult to injury, 1.6% of reported rapes lead to a charge. I need to repeat that: 1.6% of reported rapes lead to a charge. We are letting survivors down; it is shocking. We absolutely need better training and more resources for prosecutors and judges to punish perpetrators and deliver the justice that victims and survivors so desperately need.

We are still waiting for the Government to ratify the Istanbul convention, 10 years after signing it. We are one of only 13 countries that are dragging their feet. The Istanbul convention enshrines rights of survivors of sexual violence, including the right to access crisis counselling and mental health support. The Government have yet to give a good reason for that delay. This is really about the number of support centres that the Government should support and fund, and I think that is the reason they are dragging their feet: it is simply about money. I hope that the Minister can give her commitment to ratifying the convention without delay, and do so today. I ask the Government: please sign the Istanbul convention.

Violence against women and girls is endemic in our society. If we are serious about tackling it, then we need a dramatic culture change. We in Parliament, and Government, have to lead that change: it is our duty. It starts with better age-appropriate sex and relationship education in schools. I welcome the Minister’s announcement today that something will be done, as I was a teacher six years ago. It was just not good enough for tired teachers to give some relationship training in the afternoon after all the lessons had finished.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I want to support and highlight the hon. Lady’s comments about teaching staff. Having been a head of modern foreign languages myself, I know how difficult it is, when you are not trained, to give this specialist advice and to talk to young people, whose formative years are the most important, about relationship forming. I completely agree that specialist services are needed in schools.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Once again, it is simply a matter of resources. Schools must be given extra resource to have specialists who guide young people into proper relationships. It will probably save us a lot of money if we get this right, but we need to spend the money in the first place.

To back this up, a 2021 Ofsted report highlighted just how early sexual harassment begins, to the point where it becomes “commonplace”. According to the report, 92% of girls said that sexist name calling happens a lot or sometimes; and 80% of girls—80%—reported being put under pressure to provide sexual images of themselves. These figures speak for themselves and say that we need urgent action.

It is hugely disappointing that the Government continue to rule out making misogyny a hate crime. Yes, we discussed this at the beginning of the week, but I need to repeat what I said just two days ago: we have to get to the root causes of violence against women and girls. We must send a powerful message that negative attitudes towards women that lead to hate and lead to offences—from harassment all the way to very serious sexual assault—are not acceptable, and that is what making misogyny a hate crime would do. Hate crime legislation, as we have established, does not add to an offence, but it has made a clear difference to crimes based on racial or religious hate. Why do women not deserve the same treatment? I still cannot understand why the Government are not supporting this. Making misogyny a hate crime is not a silver bullet, but existing hate crime legislation has made a clear difference. So let us get on with it and make misogyny a hate crime.

None of the steps that I have pointed to will make violence against women and girls stop overnight, but the time of inaction and making excuses is up—we owe it to all women and girls who suffer violence and harassment on a daily basis.2.48 pm

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am really pleased that the Labour party has chosen to use one of our precious Opposition day debates for this subject today. It is a matter of tremendous importance. There is obviously a huge amount on the parliamentary agenda at the moment, so it really sends a positive sign that the party has chosen to debate this today.

I want to speak a bit about why this matters so much to me. As Members of Parliament, we on occasion have things that influence small numbers of our constituents—maybe just one of them. Sometimes it might be something that matters to a reasonable number of our constituents. If we had a factory closure that affected 5% of our constituents, we would be racing to Parliament to speak about it, but here we have an issue that not only affects the 51% of our population who are women, but demeans all of us who live in a society where our sisters, our partners, our wives and our daughters experience this and are not safe to go about their lives.

When I speak with those who I know intimately enough to have this kind of conversation, it is remarkable to me how absolutely everyday it is for women to face some kind of sexual harassment. Almost every woman I know who I am in a position to know this about has had an experience of something reasonably serious in this epidemic of violence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) was right to say that we need to accept that we are talking about male violence against women and the extent to which it is culturally everyday and normalised.

This issue matters to me not just as a Member of Parliament representing all the women and girls in my constituency, but as a partner, a father, a brother and a friend of women who suffer from it. It also matters to me as a constituency Member of Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spoke about how we all have constituency casework trying to support women who have been victims of rape and victims of sexual and domestic violence. We recently had the appalling murder of Gracie Spinks in my constituency. Because of the ongoing police investigation, I am not able to go into detail about that at the moment, but Gracie was murdered by a man who had been stalking her. She had no relationship with him previously, but he had become obsessed with her, and that case has touched the hearts of every person in Chesterfield and led to a very passionate debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago.

The Government’s approach is failing at every level. The number of offences committed is shocking enough. The number that do not get reported is shocking enough. The number of reported offences that get inadequately investigated is shocking. The number of cases that have been investigated that get submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service is shocking. The number of cases that get referred to the CPS, but that wait so long to get into court that the victim removes their support for the trial is appalling, as is the number convicted. At every level, this is an absolute crisis and an epidemic that the Government and we all collectively are failing to address.

It is regrettable that the Home Secretary is not responding to this debate, because it would have sent a powerful message if she had come and said, “I am fronting up here. I am taking this seriously. I am not going to delegate this to my junior Minister. I will be the one to respond to this debate.” I put that on the record.

One of the important things that came across very strongly in the debate that we had about stalking was that, when it comes to sexual and domestic violence and stalking, there is such a responsibility on the victim of crime to prove that an offence has taken place, in a way that does not happen if we report to the police that we have been attacked and beaten up or that something has been stolen. In those cases, it is accepted there is a likelihood that the offence has taken place. When it comes to these kinds of offences against women, there is a huge burden of proof on the woman to prove that something has taken place.

I want to talk particularly about the important issue of stalking. The motion does not talk about stalking, but the matter is incredibly important to us in Chesterfield in the light of the Gracie Spinks murder. We need police forces across the country consistently to provide stalking advocacy services for victims and to ensure that every police officer recognises what stalking is all about and the impacts of that offence. Importantly, we have been talking about online violence against women, but often if the police investigate the online case, they will get the evidence they need to back up the stalking case.

Alongside all the pressures that this motion places on the Government, there is a need for us collectively to have a candid conversation about the culture of male violence and the culture, particularly among younger men and older boys, of watching porn and in particular the kind of porn, readily available on the internet, that normalises vicious sexual violence against women. The Government have been too quiet on that, and it needs to be said.

The motion

“condemns the Government for failing to take sufficient action”.

I do not think that anyone who has listened to the statistics that have been put out today can have any doubt that insufficient action has been taken. I welcome the positive tone we heard from the Minister, but we all need to be relentlessly saying to the Minister and the Government that the time for talk is over. We need to see a collective approach that addresses the manifold failures we have here so that more of our sisters, wives and daughters can live more peacefully in the future.

14:56

[Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)]

Since I entered this place, I have given much political headspace to the issue of male violence against women and girls, and I wish that was not the case. However, there is a duty on every one of us to speak out about this issue, which is endemic in our society. It is not getting better; the difference is that it now occupies more column inches and headlines than it did. We need to ensure that that remains so until the problem gets better, but even now, in this instance, I fear we are some way off from making any real progress.

We should be talking about closing the gender pay gap, delivering for working-class women in low-paid sectors such as social care, bettering access to affordable childcare for young mothers and encouraging young girls and women to enter the arena of science and technology but alas, no—yet again, we are in this place debating and talking about just keeping women and girls safe from male violence. We are yet again discussing our inability as a society to protect 50% of our population from harassment and sexual assault, from rape and from murder. That is how imbalanced the scales are, and frankly it makes me angry that we as lawmakers do not seem to grasp the size of the task at hand.

With that in mind, I would like to make a comparison to another incredibly important subject to provide some context. Since 1970, we have lost around 3,400 people to terrorist-related incidents, while more than 6,000 women in that time have been killed at the hands of men. For starters, how about we start treating femicide as seriously as terrorism? This Government are far too relaxed about the femicide taking place right under their nose.

In my own city of Liverpool, were it not for covid, we were due to hold a vigil back in November for women murdered by men, not least the number that occurred across Merseyside in the preceding weeks and months, which would be enough to send a shiver down anyone’s spine. Next week, I hope to take part in a debate called by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on sexism in the Metropolitan police, which supposedly is an organisation meant to keep us safe.

Despite all that, we have continuously been subject to the endless nonsense from Government Ministers, such as the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who repeatedly celebrates all crime as coming down. When he does so, he demonstrates a complete ignorance and insensitivity to the fact that women have no confidence in the system and often do not report the crimes they have been victims of, and an ignorance of the damage that austerity has caused to refuge services, support services, the justice system and much more. I have no faith in a system that spends more on perpetrators than it does on victims, and I will outline some figures in relation to that.

A Merseyside charity that runs a programme aiming to challenge the behaviour of men who have been identified as potential perpetrators was provided with £217,000 of funding from the Ministry of Justice to be spent over a six-month period. The programme stated that, “All males have access to wrap around support including a Mindfulness programme. This has previously been shown to significantly increase engagement, improve sleep, and improve positive mental wellbeing”. That is £217,000 to support 40 perpetrators, which equates to £5,425 per head.

In comparison, Liverpool Domestic Abuse Service in my constituency is given £120,267 per annum by the Ministry of Justice, which equates to £60,133 for the same six-month period. It assists 1,284 women, meaning that only £46 is invested in supporting women and girls in the community who had no choice over the abuse committed on them for the same six-month period.

Let that sink in: there is £5,425 per head for a male identified as a potential perpetrator as opposed to £46 per head for a woman who has suffered abuse at the hands of a male perpetrator—how shameful. How on earth can that be right? That is the value placed on the wellbeing and safety of women. Yesterday, during Home Office oral questions, I called for misogyny to be made a hate crime. That is the scale and breadth of the task at hand, and we have barely begun to scratch the surface on the matter. Acknowledging the problem is not enough; immediate and robust action is required.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I think the hon. Lady might have referred to another hon. Member in her speech. I am sure she knows that, if she were to do so, she should notify them. Perhaps we can have a discussion about that.

15:02

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

Next Tuesday is International Women’s Day, when we could be celebrating the progress and achievements that we have made not just in recent years, but over decades to protect women and girls. I sadly feel, however, that we have gone backwards in so many areas, especially violence against women and girls.

Some 40 years ago, us young women marched the streets chanting, “Whatever we wear, wherever we go, yes means yes and no means no!”. Just over 30 years ago, as a young councillor, I led on a local strategy to bring the council, police and voluntary sector together to ensure that we had proper support for rape victims and a police suite that was staffed by women who had been raped. Gradually, particularly in London over the ’80s and ’90s, improvements were made and funding was made available. We saw improvements in schools, in the curriculum, in the police force and in local councils, and we saw the establishment and growth of many community-based organisations that built expertise and served the needs of victims of different forms of violence against women and girls. They had proper funding.

Today it feels as though we have not progressed much in 30 years—in fact, we have gone backwards. There are still not enough women officers to properly support raped women; police officers are sharing obscene comments and propositioning victims; and those specialist sensitive support services—the rape and serious sexual offences units and the community organisations—are closing.

There is a pattern in the experience of constituents who have come to me recently—victims of all ages, women experiencing domestic violence, stalking and serious sexual violence targeted by men—which is that they have been let down when they have done the right thing and reported their cases. Some 30 years after the strategy I worked on, the police, the probation service, the courts and others are frankly not working together. When one does act and raise an issue, it is not being taken up across the others. In the Minister’s opening speech, she mentioned the new stalking protection orders, but it is pointless having them in place if they are not enforced, if police officers cannot pull up the relevant data when a victim asks for immediate help or if a victim has to repeat the same information in the order again and again.

Breaches of those orders are not being acted on by the police. The police are not aware when a dangerous stalker or domestic abuser is released from custody, and police forces are not sharing information with each other. Of course, such crimes do not all happen with the victim and perpetrator within a particular police force area, and in London each basic command unit is the size of many police forces across the rest of England and Wales. Stalking protection orders—a piece of paper—are not an adequate shield for victims of violent, obsessive men.

The Opposition have called for multi-agency public protection arrangements to include serial domestic abusers and stalkers. We cannot continue with a piecemeal approach and with different agencies not talking to each other. The Government should heed our call and make street harassment a crime, as in France. They can also require police forces to record misogyny as a hate crime. We do not just need RASSOs to be established in every police force, but what about the four forces that have closed theirs? It is not surprising that 40% of victims are dropping out of the criminal justice process before their cases even get to a charge.

There should never be any question that a raped women should be seen by women officers who are properly trained in the care and support of rape victims. As I say, 30 years after we first established that in our London police stations, it is still not the norm.

Time is short, so I cannot cover everything, but I will mention one other aspect of violence against women and girls, which is so-called honour-based violence and abuse. Such crimes have not stopped, but the specialist support that those victims need has all but disappeared.

Over the last year, we have talked more in this place about violence against women and girls than in the past, which of course I welcome, but we need to go beyond talking and we need to see action. I wish we were building on the achievements of the past, not reinventing the wheel. We need action from the police, the probation service and the Government and we need proper support for victims.

There is no point having strategies and pilots, which the Minister mentioned in such detail, without support services for victims, proper criminal investigations and convictions for perpetrators. Nothing changes—the feeling of being beholden to somebody for a lift or of walking with our keys clutched between knuckles; the ever-growing fear that somebody is walking behind us at night; and the day-to-day acts of harassment that still plague the lives of many women. We deserve better, and we deserve change.

15:08

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

This time last year, we met in this House and talked about the outpouring and sharing of stories of violence and harassment that women and girls were experiencing across the UK. Hon. Members shared their own experiences, talked about domestic abuse and the harassment that they had faced, and raised the concerns of their constituents, many of whom had personal experiences of violence. Across the country, women and girls, and men and boys, lit candles on their doorsteps and laid flowers.

My inbox was full of emails from constituents who wanted to share their stories and thoughts on violence against women and girls. More than ever before, I saw a real outpouring locally from young people, especially young women, who wanted to do something about male violence and who sadly already had their own stories to tell. We must ensure that those women are at the heart of our policy making, because their stories matter.

Before Christmas, I spoke at a white ribbon day vigil in Pontypridd where we were joined by a group of girls from a range of high schools in the area. They told me about the harassment that they had experienced walking around town and highlighted the myriad ways that they had been harassed online. They had all been sent unwanted nude pictures, some had been pressured to take pictures of themselves only to have them shared round the school, and some had been sent abuse by strangers on social media platforms. When we talk about tackling violence against women and girls, we have to be talking about this too, which is why I will be doing everything I can in the next few months to make sure that our online space is as safe as our streets.

It is fundamentally clear that in both areas we have work to do, and part of these conversations must focus on the work we can do with perpetrators. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), has quite rightly said, the focus of the debate today fundamentally should be male violence. When we focus too much on “violence against women and girls”, we exclude and minimise the role of the perpetrator. Of course, the violence that women and girls experience is overwhelmingly perpetrated by men, and so is the violence that men experience.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, I know that understanding and tackling male violence must be at the heart of policy to address these issues. I am grateful that organisations such as Respect, which supports the group, exist to bring these issues to the forefront. However, this is not about legislation or policing strategy; we need a complete culture change in this country if we are truly to make women and girls feel safer on our streets and keep them safe in their homes. We are done asking women and girls to take action themselves; it is time we asked men and boys to take action.

The Government have long promised to publish a domestic abuse strategy, with a much-needed pillar looking at perpetrators, but as with many things this Government promise, we are still waiting. Can the Minister therefore update the House on when exactly this much-needed strategy will be published? The UK Government and the Home Secretary have talked at length about violence against women and girls and they make promises, but what do we actually see happening? Charge rates for sexual offences and rape have fallen, yet again, to a record low of just 1.3%, and women and girls face harassment on the street trying to go about their daily lives. The police recorded a total of 845,000 domestic abuse-related crimes in 2021. How have we got to that number? In fact, almost a fifth of all crime reported to the police in the year ending March 2021 was domestic abuse, and these are just the crimes we know about.

Thankfully, in the absence of any action from the Government, we have the likes of the incredible Karen Ingala Smith and her team, who have dedicated their lives to counting the deaths of women who fall through the cracks. I have also been privileged to speak to Professor Jane Monckton-Smith and the team behind the “Hidden Homicides” podcast, who have been campaigning hard to push for greater awareness and investigation of so-called hidden or unexplained homicides. These domestic abuse-related unexplained deaths or suicides must be properly investigated by the police, and the UK Government have a responsibility to make sure this is happening.

Frankly, we simply do not see the scale of the problem of violence against women and girls reflected in the Government’s policing and funding priorities. Our police services are facing huge challenges. They have worked tirelessly throughout the pandemic, dealing with enormous difficulties, and I know that the vast majority of officers are doing everything they can to tackle male violence, but they simply do not have the support that they need. The UK Government proposals lack serious funding commitments, and more than a decade of austerity followed by a pandemic has left much-needed services struggling to cope under the strain.

It is absolutely vital that the Government commit to making violence against women and girls a strategic policing priority, so that it can be given the same prominence and resource as organised crime and terrorism. I therefore urge the Minister to please listen, and to commit to meeting me and other members of the all-party group to discuss these issues further. Tackling violence against women and girls is something colleagues across the House can clearly unite behind, and it is only by co-operative working that all of us will put an end to this unnecessary violence once and for all.

15:13

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

I am delighted to be speaking in this debate, but I am also angry that I am having to speak in this debate. I am angry that the Opposition have had to call the debate, because the House has not been given the Government time it should be given to address this issue.

This shows my age, but 30 years ago I was on the streets campaigning and marching with other women for reclaiming the streets. I am just heartbroken that I feel our streets are less safe for women and girls than they were 30 years ago. I am just angry that we are still having to talk about this issue and that we are not making any progress, or enough progress, on this issue.

I recently spoke to someone who did not want to report their rape. They just did not want to go through the system: they did not want to talk about it and they did not feel that the system would be on their side if they did. How many others are there? If I know just some people who face this, we know that it is goes on across the country. I have also spoken to a constituent who did report it—she went to hospital—but had to relive and retell her story again and again, and she found that more traumatising than the criminal act that started it. I have also spoken to constituents who, when they reported a rape, went to the police, but then had their phones taken off them, and they found that that was traumatising in itself. They could not contact people they wanted to contact, and their phones were taken for a very long time. The whole system seems to be stacked against the victims of rape, instead of against the criminals—the male criminals—who are perpetrating it.



I would like to thank the Law Centres Network, which regularly gives free advice to my constituents in Putney, Roehampton and Southfields, and to those at Citizens Advice Wandsworth, who are on the side of people who go to them.

It is shameful that this epidemic still exists across the UK. Under this Government, to be honest, a safe space has been created for rapists and attackers. Too many male criminals are being let off and too many victims are being let down. The Minister outlined the scale of the Government’s action, and I welcome all the new proposals being made and all the new strategies, but I just do not think they go far enough.

I would like to have heard more targets, such as for the charge rate for rape, of a certain number by a certain time. I would like to have heard of specialist rape courts being set up, with a number of judges, recorders and advocates being put into the system to be really sure that it will make a difference. The overwhelming majority of rape victims do not see justice. As we have heard many times, and this should be said again and again, the charge rate for rape has plummeted to just 1.3%, down from 5.9% in 2016. It is just outrageous, and we need to have some actual targets for that if we are to see any change. It is clear that more specialist support is needed, so will the Government today back Labour’s plans to increase the number of RASSO units for each police force? Every police force should have one.

The Government have finally added violence against women and girls to the strategic policing requirement. I have had conversations with my own borough commander about the difference that will make in the police force, but it seems very late. I welcome it, but Labour has been calling for it for months and years, and far more is needed to crack down on dangerous male perpetrators and to support victims. I want to ask the Minister why this action has taken so long. Why, when the Government have been in power for 12 years, has it taken this long to get not very far at all, and what is actually going to change?

Talking of delays, the perpetrators strategy is due by the end of April, so the Government now have two months, and Opposition Members are awaiting it. Can the Minister give us an actual date for its publication, or will we have to wait longer for that one as well?

This House is at its best when we work together and put aside our party differences. In that spirit, Labour has published an entire green paper with serious, sensible, common-sense measures to end violence against women and girls. To be honest, however, this is a whole-society issue. It is just a symptom of the misogyny that we have throughout our society. When women have lower social and economic status, it is what we see; we must do far more to tackle the whole issue.

Will the Government now commit to working more with us to implement these important proposals, so that in a year’s time we do not see the same figures and the same results, with the same number of sixth-formers raising this issue with me when I go around schools as a real concern day by day? Fear on our streets means that women have to change the way they live every single day. I do not want to come back here in a year’s, two years’ or three years’ time and see the same thing. We must see change.

I know I speak for every woman in the country when I say that we have had enough. It is time to turn the balance of power in this epidemic on its head: to stop the whole criminal justice process being traumatising, to fast-track justice, to bring male perpetrators to justice and to make our streets safer. I want to live in a country where we have reclaimed the streets and the internet, where the power lies with the victims of violence against women and girls and the number of those violent incidents is going down, and where criminals have nowhere left to hide.

15:19

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

I thank every Member who has spoken today; it is always good to hear passion on this subject.

I must start by saying that I welcome the fact that men’s violence against women—that is absolutely what it should be called; if we do not name it, we will not deal with it—has been added to the national policing priority. I have stood in this exact spot calling for such violence to be a serious crime and for that to happen—for over a year initially, and then since it was required last autumn by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. I am very glad that is now going to be the case, although I look forward to having more detail on how it is going to play out.

Today’s motion

“calls on the Government to increase the number of specialist rape and serious sexual offences units, improve police training to secure better outcomes for victims, introduce effective national management and monitoring of domestic abuse and sexual offenders and urgently publish the perpetrator strategy in full.”

As is customary, I will go through some of the things said in the debate by some brilliant Members on both sides of the House, starting with the funny feeling of déjà vu of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—I wrote her constituency down as I always get the names in the wrong order—having called for similar things and having stood here and said the same thing in 2014. I often say to young women who come to me and ask how to become an activist, “Practise saying the same thing over and over again, because that is basically the gig.”

For me, there is not as much of a sense of déjà vu, because at the time my right hon. Friend was referring to I was working in frontline service and had been for some time. Back then, there was some legacy, before some of the worst ravages of the cuts came in. We had specialist domestic abuse courts in operation, for instance; most of those that I worked in have now gone. I know that Government Ministers will stand here and talk about some of the funding they have been put in and, as always, say it is more funding than ever before, without ever considering that the vast majority of funding that goes to victims of domestic abuse, certainly in community-based support services and definitely in refuge-based services, does not come directly from the Government. It slightly jukes the stats to say that central Government are giving more money, because actually most of the money came from local authorities. I stand here representing the Labour Home Office team, and Home Office and Justice Ministers sit opposite us. The reality is that this is a completely cross-cutting issue across health, education and local councils, more than any other, and it is not accurate to suggest there is more funding going in now without taking into account measures such as the Supporting People funding that used to come down.

My right hon. Friend talked about what has been done not being enough—not matching the reality of what people feel on the ground. I understand it is a Government Minister’s job to stand in front of us and tell us the good things they are doing, and they do it well. Without question, every single Minister in front of me right now absolutely feels as strongly as I do about this; I have absolutely no doubt about that. I know they have to stand here and say, “We have done this and we have done that,” but out there it does not feel like anything has been done. Out there, if we speak to victims—as I am sure they do—they tell a completely different story; it feels as if it is getting worse.

My right hon. Friend talked a lot about political will and I want to share something said by Laura Bates from Everyday Sexism. She was on an event with me last week and she said that last year there were two big crises that she wished to compare. Obviously, in March we had the outpouring of the country and women coming forward again and again and saying, “This is it”, and it really felt like a moment in the country; it really felt like this is a national crisis—“You get it; it’s an epidemic.” So, a few little things were announced here and there in that period, none of which, I have to say, really came to fruition. I am not criticising that, as I did not think they were particularly good ideas. A few months later, however, it was announced that there might be a European super league—Members will have to stay with me on this one. For seven days after it was announced, a European super league floated across the consciousness of our country. God forbid, I could not say what the European super league was, and I do not know what the other leagues are; I know nothing about the leagues and I do not need to pretend. I do know which team is Aston Villa; that is literally the beginning and end of my knowledge. In that time, however, we had a moment where our Prime Minister called an emergency and said, “The culture in our country is threatened; it will undermine the very fabric of British culture to have a European super league”, regardless of the fact that I believe he may have said some different things before, but he picks and chooses. He had everybody into No. 10. The then Health Secretary said there should be a special tax to penalise those clubs planning to be involved in the super league. The Prime Minister said, “I’m going to put a legislative bomb up this; we will get emergency legislation on the Floor of this House.”

Oh, to be the European super league! What I would not give to be the European super league. Where is the legislative bomb for the epidemic of violence against women and girls? Where is it? Where is the new tax—the new tax being proposed to penalise those football clubs for their bad behaviour? Where is my new tax? Where is it? Where is the same gumption? Where is the Prime Minister, stopping everything and calling everybody in? It does not happen and that is why we get frustrated. The Minister can say it does happen, but out there it does not feel anything like that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and many other Members talked about the need for escalation of this issue and the problems when escalation of the problem is not being dealt with, which I will come on to specifically with regard to our call for perpetrator strategies. Many Members mentioned the lack of a current perpetrator strategy. I realise we are awaiting it; however, these things often get delayed and I would appreciate the Minister saying when it might come.

My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) spoke passionately about the issue of complex needs, which often gets forgotten. I was never in favour of the Government removing domestic abuse from the violence against women and girls strategy. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) talked about the attrition rate in court, and what rarely gets discussed is that the reason there is a huge attrition rate in court for rape and a lack of charging is that those rapes are happening in people’s relationships. When we talk about rape convictions we often think of them in terms of stranger rape or people being raped in nightclubs, but the vast majority are in people’s relationships. What happens is that there is a jockeying in a courtroom or at charges: “Look, I reckon we can get him on this charge, but he’s not going to wear being called a sex offender, so how about we take through this charge and not that one?” I have seen that hundreds of times, such as at charge: “Well, it will be very hard to get a rape charge, but we will be able to get him on a summary offence of this or that,” and the victim’s response is just, “Okay.” The reality of the removal of the two strategies is in what my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East was talking about. These are people with complex needs. There are cases of substance misuse, domestic abuse, mental health and the prostitution of women, but they do not affect separate women. In most cases—in the domestic abuse and rape cases—it is the same woman, and we have not done anywhere near enough to make that part of the strategy. Actually, as I and everybody in the sector said at the time, separating the strategies was potentially not wise, and I would very much say that that needs to be discussed again.

With regard to what the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said on disclosure, of course we recognise that evidence must be gathered, but searching somebody’s phone should not take a year. The rape review says that by the end of this Parliament—who knows when that will be, but I am hoping that it will be sooner rather than later—it will be down to one day. So we will have to wait two years for that. But why on earth do people raped by a stranger have to give up their phones? When I have suffered from a crime, I have never been asked to give my phone in. No one says, “Your car was nicked? Give us your phone.” That does not happen, yet it does for stranger rape cases—I have seen many cases like that. How can that be?

I am proud to work alongside the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris). Everything that she said in her three points was exactly right. We should all listen to everything that she said. I genuinely feel the spirit of cross-party working on this issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) made it clear what it feels like for victims when they are failed. Actually, we hear that quite a lot. What we do not hear is the brilliant thing she said about how perpetrators are probably just planning when they will do their DIY. Ministers stand in front of us and say that the very good campaign that they have launched has shown that perpetrators will not be tolerated—[Interruption.] Okay, the Minister says that she launched it only yesterday. However, while she said it will show perpetrators how their actions will not be tolerated, every single man bar one who rapes somebody tomorrow will walk out of a police station with nothing having happened to them. That is what shows rape being tolerated—that is what victims say to me—and that happens far too often, again and again. That has to change.

We do not have a functioning criminal justice system, and as the Victims’ Commissioner said, that has allowed for the decriminalisation of rape. A system where one in six female rape victims feel completely unable even to report a rape to the police is not a functioning system that does not tolerate harm.

In recent weeks, I have been meeting survivors of domestic abuse as part of the Labour green paper process. The conversations have been heartbreaking and infuriating as well as inspiring. Resilience in the face of such horror drives many of us in the Chamber, but the one point repeatedly raised was how abusive the criminal justice process was from the first interaction with the police through to the courts. The level of abuse that we currently tolerate deserves a legislative bomb.

Many people have called for a perpetrator strategy to be brought forward. This morning, along with my brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), I was on a call with Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner, who said that at the moment she could not speak to the operational issues with monitoring repeat offenders. Every single report, whether through Operation Soteria, Operation Bluestone or Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, says that the most violent abusers and offenders—those who offend again and again—are not being monitored or managed. If they were, that would have stopped every single case raised today of a woman who ended up dead. But there is nothing in what the Government announced yesterday and there is no perpetrator strategy in front of us. There is nothing that says how we will stop that and monitor those people as we would monitor terrorists or those suspected of terrorism.

That is why Labour’s motion calls for the most basic level of training. I should not have to ask for every police force area to have a rape and serious sexual offences unit—that is not a legislative bomb; it is barely a banger. I should not have to ask for specialist training for police forces. The public probably think they already get it, but by and large they do not. [Interruption.] The Minister can nod, but they don’t. All the data and all my experience say that they don’t. We also should not have to ask for violent perpetrators to be monitored so we know where they are and can stop them killing. The Labour party is asking here today for very low-level things that everybody thinks should be happening already. What I really want is a legislative bomb.

15:34

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing time for this important debate. I thank all Members who have contributed. I also thank Members for the tone in which most of the contributions have been made, because I have a real sense that this is a collective effort we are all engaged in. Our colleagues in the police force, local police and crime commissioners, and local authorities, with whom Members engage, also bear that responsibility, and that has come over loud and clear.

I want to start by addressing the points made to me by individual Members. I have made copious notes and I hope I can give due credit to the points that have been made. I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, for her points. We will, absolutely, commit to publishing the perpetrator strategy within the legislative timelines that we have set out and legislated for very clearly. I hope that will command some welcome from the Opposition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, made, in his detailed speech, some extremely useful comments and challenges for us. I listened carefully to his points, as did the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). He highlights a very important matter that the House should reflect on, which is that we are now prosecuting rape in a digital age. We are grappling with challenges on phones that simply did not exist a few years ago. We are setting out how we will tackle some of those challenges in our rape review and the end-to-end taskforce.

My hon. Friend mentioned specialist rape courts. We are looking at those as part of the report and will come forward with our response to that. Members will be interested to know—this was also referenced in the debate—about domestic abuse courts. We are taking steps on that matter. We have set up domestic abuse courts pilots to look at how we reduce the re-traumatisation of survivors of domestic abuse. We are taking a more investigative and less adversarial approach to limit the trauma victims have to go through in family court proceedings. Pilots are ongoing and we will report on them.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for all her fantastic work on the menopause. She is absolutely right to highlight the link between domestic abuse and traumatisation. My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are bringing forward the women’s health strategy, which, largely down to her, will reference that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for all her points and for her very balanced comments about the somewhat fraught issue of misogyny as a hate crime. She highlights how complicated the situation is. Members need to reflect that the House voted overwhelmingly against making misogyny a hate crime, but that is not to say there are not steps we need to take to tackle misogyny in society. The Home Secretary is carrying forward that work with Maggie Blyth and the National Policing Board.

The hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) spoke very sensitively about the constituency case that I think we are all aware of. She has represented her constituent and her family extremely well. I want to highlight the funding that is going into refuge spaces. I announced just last week an additional £125 million for specialist support to go into refuges to help victims to rebuild their lives after the awful experience they have suffered.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) highlighted the rise in reports. Obviously, we want to stamp this out and we do not want victims, but all of us recognise the issues around reporting and recording crime. She mentioned that, and said that those crimes have gone up. It is important that we continue to capture those crimes and that people come forward. There is a positive sign there, although obviously we recognise that there is much to do.

The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talked about the Istanbul convention. We are already virtually fully compliant with the Istanbul convention. We already have those protections for women and girls. There are some legal technicalities, which we are resolving with our friends in the devolved Administrations, and we will be able to fully ratify it soon.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We have signed it but not ratified it. Is it really just a legal delay? I cannot understand it. We have been asking for this for about two years and we keep being fobbed off. Can the Minister please explain why there is this delay?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am afraid that I do not have the capacity in this debate to go into the technicalities. I have a lot to go through. As I have said, they are legal technicalities that we are working through with our friends in the devolved Administrations, which have a different legal jurisdiction. We can discuss that at another opportunity.

I thank the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). We debated another tragic case in his constituency, or near to it, I believe. It was an honour to meet the family, and he is absolutely right to raise awareness of the importance of stalking protection orders. That is work that I am doing through the National Police Chiefs’ Council, to ensure that it is taking up those stalking protection orders.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) asked why we are not taking femicide as seriously as terrorism. That is precisely what the strategic policing requirement sets out to do. I am afraid that I must take issue with her comments about the allocation of funding in her area going to perpetrators, not victims. Those funding matters are local decisions. The Home Office will make funding available to her locally elected Labour police and crime commissioner, so she needs to take that up with her Labour party colleagues in the area. We have put aside national funding of £300 million for victims, so I suggest that she has those conversations.

The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) talked about honour-based violence. Just last Friday we banned child marriage thanks to the incredible hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham). We fund many services helping victims of that horrific crime.

The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who was very passionate in her remarks, asked why we do not talk about this as male violence against women and girls. Many Members have responded in that way. We do not shy away from talking about this as a gendered crime. As I said, we will publish the perpetrator strategy and all the associated guidance soon.

[Alex Davies-Jones]

The Minister is being very generous with her time. Will she meet me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on perpetrators of domestic abuse, to discuss this more fully with the wider members of the group?

[Rachel Maclean]

Of course I will. All Members across the House know that I am happy to meet them; I have met many of the Opposition Members present already. I was delighted that many of them came to the launch of our communications campaign on Monday night. They will know that the sector was there—people I interact with and meet on a regular basis. We have extensive conversations, but I am always delighted to have more.

The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) complained that we are not having this debate in Government time. I do not know whether she was here yesterday afternoon, when I spent two hours answering questions in Government time on the reports, which cover many of the same topics that we are discussing today.

I think that we are all agreed that it is a collective mission to address violence against women and girls. It is one of the most pressing and important tasks facing the Government. Many Members present have rightly challenged us that the time for talk is over. We agree, which is why we have significant action already under way. I welcome the fact that Members noted some of that in their remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle and I spend a considerable amount of our time working flat out on the rape review, that taskforce and all the work that underpins it.

I do not want anyone to underestimate the scale of the challenge, and how difficult it is. We are trying to change the culture across the entire criminal justice system. Many Members in this House have experience of how difficult that is. They will know what we are dealing with and they will respect, I hope, that we have been transparent about the objectives. We have set ourselves clear ambitions for where we want to go in tackling such a crimes and we are already driving action through legislative means and the other means available to us.

I was challenged by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who started the debate, on why we are not doing anything on spiking. Today I had a cross-Government group set up to work on the Government’s response at 3 o’clock. I had to cancel it, because I was coming to the House today. Of course, I will reschedule it.

That group is a subsequent step to a lot of the work that the Home Secretary has already been doing, as the right hon. Lady would expect, with the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It is paramount that we address the issues she has challenged me on, such as what happens when young girls go to A&E. That is why I would have had the Health Minister in that group, along with the Security Industry Authority, the NPCC, the night-time economy and so on. I will reschedule that.

[Yvette Cooper]

I am glad that the Minister is doing something. She will know that Labour tabled an amendment in the Lords that she initially resisted. May I ask, however, whether she did anything on this subject before it became a needle spiking story in the autumn?

[Rachel Maclean]

I am happy to respond that as soon as the reports reached us—that very day—the Home Secretary called in the police—[Interruption.] I cannot respond to the right hon. Lady’s comments from a sedentary position. I am answering the question she has put to me. As soon we were aware of the new issue of needle spiking, we commissioned the police to come to the Home Secretary and set out what they would do. All the work has followed on from that.

I want to make a few concluding remarks. Many Members have challenged the Government on why we did not do things earlier, and why we have not fixed things. If a silver bullet could fix all of this, I think we would have used it by now, believe you me. We have already taken action across a significant number of priorities, many of which were mentioned by my hon. Friends. We have been open and honest that it will take time, because we are dealing with a number of complexities. However, the work is backed by a significant funding settlement, not only through the victims funding I have already referred to, but through the funding the Home Office is putting into multiple support lines, helplines, charities, non-governmental organisations, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner and many others who are working across the whole system to help us improve our results.

I do not think I have heard any Opposition Member mention the significant funding we have put in through the safety of women at night funding and the safer streets funding, which is operational in Birmingham and the west midlands—I just want to say that to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips).

[Jess Phillips]

Will the Minister give way?

[Rachel Maclean]

I will in a second, when I have actually completed my remarks. The hon. Lady has talked a lot about the systemic issues. Why are not we tackling misogynistic attitudes among young boys? That is what the work is doing. Why are not we tackling keeping women safe at night? That is what the work is doing, with additional patrols on the streets of Birmingham and other urban centres. We have safe student support zones and we have street pastors doing vital work out in the night-time economy as a visible presence on the streets. I will give way.

[Jess Phillips]

I can only apologise to the Minister that I did not act grateful enough for the money that has gone towards trying to keep women in Birmingham safer. I am not here to doff my cap to the Ministers; I am here to fight for the rights of women and girls. I will continue to do that, with every single bit of my tone just exactly as it is.

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you.

I want to address one of the substantive points in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, but may I just check that I have a couple of minutes to do so?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

indicated assent.

[Rachel Maclean]

Thank you.

Many Members have mentioned the perpetrators strategy, and, as they will know, in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 we committed to giving the police new powers, including domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders to provide flexible longer-term protection for victims from all forms of domestic abuse. In addition to imposing negative prohibitions such as exclusion zones, the DAPO will be able to impose electronic monitoring requirements and positive requirements such as attendance at perpetrator behaviour change programmes. I think that that is right, despite some of the comments that have been made about spending on perpetrators. How can we expect to tackle the problem unless we spend money trying to stop perpetrators perpetrating? Are hon. Members suggesting that that is free? Yes, we are spending money on perpetrators—because we want them to stop offending. We want them to stop abusing their partners. That is why we spend the money, and I challenge any hon. Member to tell me that it is not a good use of Government funding.

[Paula Barker]

The Minister is being generous with her time. Does she agree that although perpetrator funding is essential, the funding that goes to the victims of violence should be increased? They are often the ones fleeing the domestic home and having to set up anew. Does she not agree that they should get more funding than perpetrators?

[Rachel Maclean]

With respect to the hon. Lady, I think I have addressed that point. The funding is allocated to her local Labour police and crime commissioner, and those are choices that are made on a local level. We have introduced a huge number of measures through the Domestic Abuse Act to address the issues that she has mentioned.

Many hon. Members referred to education, which is vital. They will know that funding and support are going into schools to enable teachers to deliver that education in a respectful and age-appropriate way. All children deserve to learn about what healthy relationships are and about their importance, as well as how to develop mutually respectful relationships in all contexts, including online.

Several hon. Members commented on the online safety Bill. In response to the Chair of the Joint Committee—my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins)—and others, let me say that we are strengthening the Bill. We will require all companies to take swift and effective action against illegal content, including criminal abuse and so-called revenge pornography. We confirm that stalking and harassment offences relating to sexual offences, including revenge and extreme pornography, will be specified as priority offences in the Bill. Companies will have to take proactive steps to tackle such content and prevent users from encountering it. There is no watering down going on. The Government are going to make tackling VAWG online a priority.

We must continue to drive a cultural change in attitudes and adopt a zero-tolerance approach to these crimes. I genuinely hope that every hon. Member across the House will take the time to share the “Enough” campaign, because a lot of the groups that have been referred to were in the room on Monday night, and they all welcomed the work that we are doing. They all said that we have to tackle this at the source; that is what we are doing. We launched the campaign this week to help us to make it clear to perpetrators that their crimes will not be tolerated, and we will consider where further action is needed to protect the most vulnerable in society and bring perpetrators to justice.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House condemns the Government for failing to take sufficient action to tackle the epidemic of violence against women and girls and for presiding over a fall in the rape charge rate to a record low; and therefore calls on the Government to increase the number of specialist rape and serious sexual offences units, improve police training to secure better outcomes for victims, introduce effective national management and monitoring of domestic abuse and sexual offenders and urgently publish the perpetrator strategy in full.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you please advise me how the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip can be called to this House to explain the behaviour of their candidate in the Birmingham, Erdington by-election? It was made clear on GB News earlier that she was caught on camera saying—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. I have to hear him because I have to understand his point of order. Would he start again, please?

[Tom Hunt]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Could you please advise me how the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition Chief Whip can be called to this House to explain the behaviour of their candidate in the Birmingham, Erdington by-election? It was brought to my attention by GB News that she said she was torn between the gun and the ballot box to achieve political ends. It is crucial that the Leader of the Opposition comes to this place to say that if this individual is elected, she will not receive the Labour Whip. If someone does not believe in democratic values, they should not be in a democratic party in this country. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let us stay calm about this—and we will stop having speeches made while people are sitting down.

I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) suggests that it is an abuse of privilege. I do not think that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) has said anything as yet that I had to stop him saying, but I should say that during a by-election situation, tensions are heightened, and we do not want to bring those tensions into this Chamber.

The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I think he appreciates—and the whole Chamber appreciates—that it is not a matter for the Chair. What is said and done during a by-election is said and done in the heightened atmosphere of political banter in a by-election. If a person is then elected to this House, there are ways in which their public pronouncements can be considered, but we should wait to see if somebody becomes a Member of this House before having to make any such judgment.

I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 1, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2022, the Ayes were 303 and the Noes were 11, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Support for Ukraine and Countering Threats from Russia

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

15:57

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House condemns Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine; stands in solidarity with Ukrainians in their resistance to Russia’s invasion of their sovereign state; supports the UK providing further defensive military, humanitarian and other assistance to Ukraine; recognises the importance of international unity against Russian state aggression; and calls on the Government to ensure that the United Kingdom’s NATO defence and security obligations are fulfilled to counter the threats from Russia.

This is an Opposition day and a Labour-led motion, but we have called this debate to unite, not divide, this House of Commons. We have called this debate for Parliament, on behalf of the public, to stand united in condemnation of President Putin’s invading of and killing people in a sovereign democratic country; for Parliament to stand united in support of heroic Ukrainian resistance; and for Parliament to stand united with western allies and other countries around the world in confronting Russia’s aggression.

Putin’s attack on Ukraine is an attack on democracy—a grave violation of international law and the United Nations charter. He wants to weaken and divide the west. He will not stop at Ukraine; he wants to re-establish Russian control over neighbouring countries. Britain has a long tradition of standing up to such tyrants. Our country believes in freedom, in democracy, in the rule of law, in the right of nations to be able to decide their own future. These are the very values that Ukrainians are fighting for today. They are showing massive bravery. We must support their resistance in every way we can.

Putin certainly miscalculated the strength of the Ukrainian military and the resolve of Ukrainians to fight for their country. But this is only day seven, and Russia has such crushing firepower, and Putin such utter ruthlessness, that we must expect more of their military objectives to be taken in the weeks ahead—and I fear that we must expect greater brutality, with more civilian casualties.

Whatever short-term success Putin may secure, we must make sure that he fails in the longer run. This has to be the beginning of the end for President Putin. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said in his remarkable speech on Sunday:

“The twenty-fourth of February 2022 marks a watershed in the history of our continent.”

President Biden said in his state of the union speech yesterday:

“Vladimir Putin sought to shake the very foundations of the free world, thinking he could make it bend to his menacing ways, but he badly miscalculated…the United States and our allies will defend every inch of territory that is NATO territory”.

When the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and I were in Kyiv in January, we were told time and again that western unity was Ukraine’s best defence. I am proud of the way that we in Britain, with our parties in this House together, have helped to build that western unity in recent weeks, but it will be severely tested in the weeks to come. It must endure, and it must endure for years to come, to ensure that it is Putin who fails in the long run.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Of course I agree 100% with the tone of what my right hon. Friend is saying: we all want to stand united. Some of us on this side of the House have been arguing for much more substantial sanctions. We need to throw everything at this. It is about artistic sanctions, sporting sanctions, financial ones, educational ones—literally everything. We seem to be going very slowly in this country. The Prime Minister said earlier that we had sanctioned hundreds of people in this country, but that simply is not true. We have sanctioned eight so far. We are going much slower than Europe or the United States. Is there any way that we can get the Government to work with those of us who want to work to help the Government to go faster?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend has been at the forefront in pushing for this, not just in recent weeks but over several years. I sincerely hope that the answer to his question is an emphatic yes, and that we will hear it from the Minister for the Armed Forces today. From the Labour Benches we have given, and will continue to give, the Government our fullest possible backing for the sanctions they are willing to make and the steps they are willing to take, but this has been too slow, so we will continue to do our job as the official Opposition to push the Government to go further, to meet the imperatives of Putin’s aggression, and to meet our duty to stand by the Ukrainian people.

[Chris Bryant]

Some of the people who have not yet been sanctioned are military leaders who are already active in Ukraine, including the commander-in-chief of the Black sea fleet, Mr Osipov, and the Defence Minister. Surely by now these people should not be able to remove all their possessions from the VTB bank, for instance. They have 30 days to do so unless we manage to sanction them today.

[John Healey]

Our guiding principle must be that the sanctions are swift, severe and sweeping. On those three tests, what has been done so far still falls short, as my hon. Friend says. This House and Members from all parts of it have an important role to play in ensuring that we maintain unity, but also that we do more.

I say to the Minister that we will give Labour’s full support to the economic crime Bill introduced into this House on Monday, but it was promised more than five years ago. We will give our full support to the reform of Companies House, but that was first announced two and a half years ago and we still have only a White Paper, not legislation. I urge him to urge his colleagues in other Departments to step up, to speed up and to display the kind of leadership that he and his Front-Bench comrades from the Ministry of Defence have shown in recent weeks. We also give them our full support.

This is a debate for Members far more expert than I to speak in, so I will be brief. I want to emphasise that there are six areas in which action is required and in which our unity will be tested. These are six areas in which the Government have had Labour’s full support in the action they have taken so far. To the extent that the Government go further, they will maintain Labour’s support.

First, there is military support for Ukraine. As further Ukrainian requests come in—I know the Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence are serious about this—we must respond by scouring our inventories, stockpiles and weapon stores to provide the Ukrainians with what they can use immediately. We must reinforce their capability and capacity to defend their country.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We need to ensure a supply of arms for the Ukrainians, but could we also look at the possibility of our Polish and Czech allies furnishing weapons that we backfill? It would be quicker to move them into Ukraine from Poland or the Czech Republic than waiting to move them from the UK.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is right, and I expect we may hear from the Minister that exactly that sort of action is being taken. It is certainly what some other European countries are doing, because the premium is on providing the defensive weapons and lethal aid that the Ukrainians require now. The fastest route to do that is required.

The second area is the requirement to cut Russia out of the international economic system. Putin himself has opened up a new front. The western sanctions are now opening up a new home front for Putin to fight on, because people in Russia are rightly asking why they cannot take their money out of the bank, why they cannot use their credit card and why they cannot use the metro. People in Russia are bravely coming out on to the streets to demonstrate the growing dissent in Russia for Putin’s rule.

But to be effective, we must do more and act faster. As I said a moment ago in response to interventions, to the extent that the Government are willing to act, they will continue to have Labour’s full support.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I agree that Russia must be cut out of the international economic system, but does this not go further? We cannot have Russia as part of an organisation that sponsors the rule of law, democracy and human rights, which is why my colleagues and I were very firm in getting Russia suspended from the Council of Europe.

[John Healey]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the action he and his Council of Europe colleagues from all parties and all nations took last week.

Russia must feel that Putin is leading it in the wrong direction, towards increasing isolation, increasing cost, increasing damage and increasing uncertainty. We must ensure the people of Russia see that, whatever success he may secure in the short term in Ukraine, he fails in the longer run. As I said earlier, this must be the beginning of the end for President Putin.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The right hon. Member probably has not had time to see it, because it has only just appeared on the wires, but there is a manifesto from socialists across Russia who absolutely condemn this war and absolutely condemn Putin and the oligarchs. They say the war is actually being fought on behalf of the very wealthy, and they look for a different Russia, one of peace that is not at war with Ukraine. We should send a message of support from this House to people in Russia who are opposed to the war, as well as supporting the people of Ukraine in the horror they are going through at the present time.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend is right: I have not had time to see that declaration. To that extent that it has been made, it is clearly welcome, brave and part of a growing chorus of brave voices within Russia of those who are ready to resist the way Putin has run their country and to stand up and say, “This invasion, this killing, this contravention of international law by President Putin is not being done in my name.” To the extent that they are taking that stand, I am sure that we in all parts of this House would honour them and support them.

I said that I wanted to mention six areas. Further military support for Ukraine is essential. Cutting Russia out of, and taking further steps to isolate it within, the international economic system is essential. The third thing is pursuing Russia for the war crimes it is committing in Ukraine. The International Criminal Court chief prosecutor has confirmed that he already has seen evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He wants to launch an official investigation, and he requires the backing of ICC states such as the UK. This will be a difficult job: identifying, gathering and protecting evidence, and investigating in the middle of a war zone. He will need resources and expert technical investigators. Britain can help with both, so I hope we are going to hear from the UK Government, sooner not later, that they formally support the ICC opening the investigation and that they will support that investigation with the resources that we, as a long-standing, committed member of the ICC, are rightly in a position to provide.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much commend the right hon. Gentleman on his motion. Does he agree that this war, like no other before it, is capable of such a thing, as the evidence will be that much easier to collect, and that there must be no stone that these individuals can crawl under when this is all over that will hide them or protect them? The message must go out loud and clear: if you are in any way complicit in the horrors being perpetrated in Ukraine at the moment, you will be found out and you will be held to account. You will be pilloried internationally, in the appropriate legal setting, for the crimes you have committed.

[John Healey]

I simply endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is very much in the spirit of the unity of this House on all necessary fronts. I say to the Minister, as I have said on the other dimensions of action required in this crisis, that if the Government are willing to take that step to ensure the ICC can pursue those aims, they will have Labour’s full support.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry to be irritating, but would my right hon. Friend mind giving way again?

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend is never irritating. He is a constant presence in this Chamber and I have so much respect for him that I would not dream of doing anything other than give way when he asks.

[Chris Bryant]

I am enormously grateful. I completely agree with the point that the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has made, but there is a difficulty here, as international law has not yet recognised that initiating a war of aggression is itself a war crime. I think it should be, and the British alternate judge at the Nuremberg trials said it should be and declared that it was, but this has not actually been put into law. We need to change that, as I hope my right hon. Friend would agree.

[John Healey]

That was certainly a point raised with the Prime Minister earlier today. For me, action immediately, in the current crisis, given the current invasion and the killing going on in Ukraine, is more important than constitutional change in the ICC. The fact that the chief prosecutor already says that he can see evidence of war crimes and of crimes against humanity, giving him the grounds to investigate and, I hope, pursue and prosecute, means that, as a starter, that is where I want to see the concentration at present.

The fourth area is not within the Minister’s brief. As the Official Opposition, we have urged the Government to take action on this, backed the steps that they have been willing to take, but pointed out that so much more needs to be done, and this, of course, is in helping Ukrainians fleeing the war—Ukrainians who need a safe route to sanctuary. We welcome the Home Secretary’s further steps yesterday, but there are questions about how this scheme will work. There are still gaps and there are still likely to be delays, but to the extent that this really is a route for the reunion of families, it is welcome, and we want to see it in place and working as soon as possible.

However, the fact is that many of those now fleeing Ukraine are leaving behind family members. Their first preference will be to stay as close to their country as it is safe for them to do. What we have not yet heard from the Home Secretary is what the UK Government will do to help those countries that, certainly in the weeks and months ahead, most immediately are likely to bear the biggest burden and have to offer the greatest refuge to those fleeing war. On behalf of the Labour party, may I say that, to the extent that the Government are willing to step up and play that part alongside other European countries, they will, again, deservedly have Labour’s full backing.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Although I share the comments about the Government stepping up and helping those countries and those who have family in this country, does the right hon. Member agree that we have to do more to help refugees in general? When people are fleeing for their lives, often in the middle of the night, under attack, leaving everything they know, everything they own and everything they love literally with what they can put their hands on at that moment, it is unreasonable to expect them to be thinking and planning for making a visa application. We should simply waive it and make it easier for them.

[John Healey]

The first thing that I want Ukrainians now forced to flee Ukraine to know is that if they have family in Britain, they can be reunited. This is about extended family members who need to get out of that country and seek the sanctuary that Britain has a proud record of providing for many decades. That is our first priority. The second must be to support those countries on the refugee frontline, on the borders of this country that is now beset by war caused by President Putin. That is what I want to see the Government doing and that is where I want to see their first priority.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that resistance takes many forms and that one of its forms is that of independent journalism? I know that a number of journalists are now trapped in Ukraine. Many of them have chosen to stay in Ukraine, but some are trapped. They are worried about their families. They want to know that they can have safe passage to the UK or to Europe. Like Members on both sides of the House, I believe that all these restrictions should be lifted, but in the interim I urge the Government to pay particular attention to journalists who are doing an admirable job in reporting on what is happening. We know what Putin thinks of these journalists—he has already attacked the UN public service broadcasting tower. They know what is in store for them. They are potentially on lists. Perhaps my right hon. Friend could make a comment on that.

[John Healey]

Indeed, one of our fundamental values as a British democracy is the right to free speech and information. Those freedoms come at a price, and that is often the price that journalists, under pressure, have to pay. Those brave Ukrainian journalists, especially those who are staying in the country to try to make sure that those of us beyond their boundaries know what is really going on, deserve our honour and our respect. If necessary, we need to be willing to act where we can to assist them.

[John Howell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Healey]

I did promise to be quite brief, but I will of course give way.

[John Howell]

I promise to be as brief as possible. Yesterday, when the Home Secretary made her statement, I made her an offer, which I am not sure the right hon. Gentleman heard. He is right to say that we need to keep contact with the neighbouring countries to Ukraine. I offered to use the good offices of the delegation to the Council of Europe, which knows these countries and their leaders very well, to make sure that we maintain that contact and to help her in taking forward the discussions that she needed to have with them.

[John Healey]

I did not hear the hon. Gentleman’s offer to the Home Secretary, so I did not hear her response, but I sincerely hope she bit his hand off for that assistance —if not, I am sure he will follow it up directly with her.

[John Howell]

She did indeed.

[John Healey]

Then the hon. Gentleman has answered his own question; I am delighted he was able to answer it with an emphatic yes.

I turn now to the fifth dimension, where the Government will have Labour’s full support if they act as they should. It is one thing to confront Russian aggression abroad, but we must also strengthen our defences at home. We know that the UK is not immune to Russia’s aggression. We have had chemical weapons used on our soil to kill people. We have had dissidents murdered on British soil. We have had cyber-attacks against UK Government Departments, our defence agencies and even the organisations trying to develop our covid vaccines.

I say to the Minister that for too long that has been the poor relation of our national security and our national resilience. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report in 2020 said:

“Russia’s cyber capability…poses an immediate and urgent threat to our national security.”

The recommendations of that report have still not been implemented in full. The Government’s integrated review, almost a year ago, promised a national resilience strategy, but that has not yet been published. Our armed forces are essential to both our national defence and our national resilience. With the Army already cut to its smallest size for 300 years, in the light of the circumstances and the threats we now face, Ministers’ plans to cut a further 10,000 troops from Army numbers over the next three years must now be halted.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent speech he is making. I asked the Prime Minister about Russian cyber-activity last week, particularly with the well-known history of bot farms and misinformation, and he did not have a response in terms of taking action. Bot farm activity has reduced in recent days because Russia has limited access to the internet. Is it not the case that we as a sovereign nation should be looking to take action to limit the influence of Russia’s bot farms and misinformation on our economy and society, rather than leaving it to the Russians?

[John Healey]

Indeed, we have been slow to appreciate the scale of the disinformation driven by the Russian state directly and by its proxies. We have been slow to realise the extent to which it is corrupting our public discourse and in some cases interfering with our elections. Once again, the steps the Government could be taking, but that they seem very slow to take, have been set out in this House by my hon. Friend and others who are experts in that area.

Finally, on the sixth dimension, talking is always better than fighting. Even in these circumstances, President Zelensky in Ukraine has displayed outstanding leadership. Even as Russia continued to intensify its attacks, he was willing to hold talks, saying that there was

“still a chance, however small”.

He is also right to say:

“It’s necessary to at least stop bombing people…and then sit down at the negotiating table.”

I see as a significant development today’s confirmation that China is ready to play a role, saying that it is

“looking forward to China playing a role in realising a ceasefire”.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the six dimensions that he has laid out: I wholeheartedly support him on all those points. There are so many other things that I am sure other colleagues across the House would want to add. I just wanted to make my own personal tribute to President Zelensky. He has shown outstanding leadership during this brutal war. He has been asked to step up in the most difficult and most challenging situation facing his country, and he has demonstrated great leadership and incredible resilience. I am sure the whole House would support him, and it was wonderful to be able to show our support for the Ukrainian ambassador today.

[John Healey]

I thank my hon. Friend and endorse what he has said. I hope he will endorse the fact that as a party and, I hope, as a House, we are ready to back calls for a ceasefire. We want to see serious negotiations and we want to see a Russian withdrawal from Ukraine.

Finally, let me turn to NATO. Labour’s post-war Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, was the principal architect of NATO and, in particular, its article 5 commitment to collective defence. When he introduced the North Atlantic treaty to Parliament in 1949, he told this House:

“Unity against aggression has…become more than ever important”

and that this aggression

“usually comes when one man, or a small number of men, start by getting complete control of their own country and then create an atmosphere of fear and mistrust among those around them.”—[Official Report, 12 May 1949; Vol. 464, c. 2016-17.]

Bevin could have been talking then about President Putin today. NATO remains a defensive alliance built on diplomacy and deterrence, with not just collective security but democracy, peace and the rule of law enshrined in its founding statutes.

Over 70 years on from Bevin’s speech, NATO has proven to be one of Britain’s most essential and most successful alliances. However, a decade-plus of Russian aggression, cyber-attacks, assassinations, annexations, disinformation and mercenary groups, culminating now in a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, demands that NATO change. New security priorities, longer-term deployments, more integrated operations, more advanced technologies, better spending to match threats, and closer co-ordination with the Joint Expeditionary Force, with the European Union and with other democratic nations beyond the alliance should become the hallmarks of a stronger NATO.

We have taken settled peace and security in Europe for granted since the end of the cold war. We cannot do so any longer. We will be dealing with the consequences of this illegal Russian invasion for years to come. But for now, through these very darkest days that Ukraine is facing, we must simply stand united with Ukraine.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I should warn hon. Members that there will have to be an immediate time limit of five minutes on Back-Bench speeches, because obviously a lot of people wish to take part in this very important debate.

16:28

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)]

The House stands united today in our support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. We showed that in the way we rose to support the Ukrainian ambassador before Prime Minister’s questions, and, for all the necessary challenge over policy that goes on in this place, we will show it again this afternoon, because fundamentally we in this House are agreed that President Putin’s ill-conceived enterprise in Ukraine must not and will not succeed.

But how we achieve that is not just through the sanctions we impose, the military aid we provide or the breadth of the cultural and diplomatic isolation we secure, as important as all those things are; it is through the beacon of hope we provide, and not only for the Ukrainian people but for the Russian people too. How they would love to have a day where the opposition choose the topics for debate, immediately after a session in which the legislature, without fear, can challenge the Head of Government. Indeed—perhaps no Government Minister has ever said this from the Dispatch Box before—how lucky we are to have an Opposition altogether.

We have grown complacent over that freedom. We do not value it as we should. It is no cliché to remind the House that freedom is not free and that no matter how much we complain about the imperfections of our own politics, people have fought and died so that we can argue in this place and in our national media over whatever we wish. Today in Ukraine, people are fearful that those days may soon be over for them. They know only too well that freedom is not free. In the lifetime of their most senior citizens, they have lost their freedom and recovered it twice already. It is no wonder that so many thousands of Ukrainian men and women are rallying to the flag to ensure they do not lose it again.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I put on record my thanks to the Defence Secretary and the Minister for their actions over the past few weeks. They have shown proper leadership on this. Will the Minister support comments from Gerry Connolly, who is the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly? He is arguing within NATO for a centre for democracy, to make exactly the arguments that the Minister is making, to reinforce among our populations why we have NATO and what it is defending.

[James Heappey]

I think I instinctively support the proposition. It is extraordinary—forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker; I know you were keen on brevity, but this is a tangent too interesting to miss, frankly—but when we came together after the second world war to bring NATO into being, it went without saying that the freedom, liberty and democracy we all enjoy was something we should collectively stand for, but in the 70 years or so that have passed since, we have forgotten what a luxury that is. We have forgotten how to speak proudly about freedom without being criticised as somehow trying to shut down the other side. There absolutely is a market for the west to relearn that we can disagree with each other ferociously and we can have polarised societies in which one side simply cannot abide the very existence of the argument of the other, yet we can still see the good in that and communicate it strongly to those who do not have that luxury.

In this debate today, we must also be clear on who our quarrel is with. When we talk of aggression, deceit and contempt for the international system, we must not talk about “Russia”; we must talk of Putin and the kleptocrats that surround him. When we talk of who must pay the price for this grotesque violation of international law, we must blame Putin, the Russian elites and the hubris of the Kremlin’s military leaders, but again, not the Russian people.

We want the Russian people to enjoy the freedom, democracy and security that we have been taking for granted. We want them to know that NATO and the west mean them no harm. We are a defensive alliance, and we were recasting ourselves for an altogether different future until President Putin annexed Crimea and challenged the sovereignty of so many other countries in eastern Europe and the Caucasus. When President Putin fails—and he eventually will—we look forward to a Euro-Atlantic where Russia and the rest of Europe exist as friends and neighbours. In the meantime, we stand our ground not to intimidate the Russian people, but to deter their President, who is a bully and has caused too many in our alliance to think that they could be next.

I would like to provide the House with a brief update on the situation in Ukraine. Russian forces have met strong resistance and are behind schedule on their intended plans. We recognise, unfortunately, that the cities of Melitopol and Kherson in the south of the country have fallen, but that brave resistance remains in both. Colleagues, those were both day one objectives for the Russian armed forces, and both only fell in recent days after fierce opposition. Everywhere else in the country, no other city or major town has fallen to the advancing invaders. As much as that should be a cause for celebration and hope, it is important we remain realistic about what is still to come. The harder the Ukrainians fight back, the harder Putin will order his military to push. Already, we have seen a horrific artillery and missile barrage on Kharkiv among other places. I am fearful for what is to come in Kyiv. As the Prime Minister has said today, and as the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) rightly noted, there is already clear evidence that in applying indiscriminate force in the way that he has, President Putin and his military leadership have already committed war crimes.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the update. It is an absolutely tragic situation and we all stand in support of people in Ukraine. More than half a million residents have already left the country in a short time, and the UN estimates that the number could go up to 4 million, which would create the largest refugee crisis that Europe has witnessed in decades. Will the Government offer the UK as a place of sanctuary for people regardless of whether they have family here?

[James Heappey]

If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will come to the humanitarian aspect towards the end of my remarks.

Many hon. Members and our friends in the media have been increasingly concerned about the advancing column to the north of Kyiv. They are right to be—it is an enormous concentration of military firepower and it contains the stores needed for a battle in the capital. Let us be clear, however: no Russian military planner wanted to see that column move at such a glacial pace.

There have been cries for the column to be disrupted or destroyed, which is not something that NATO could ever do without entering the conflict, but the reason it is inching forwards so slowly is that it is being held up by blown bridges, obstacles, artillery fire and fierce attacks from the Ukrainians. That column may yet reach Kyiv—it will reach Kyiv—but it will be vastly depleted when it does and we have already given the Ukrainians the tools with which to attrit it further.

The real scandal is not that the column exists—we have known all along that Russia would need to encircle and take Kyiv—but for the Russian people. How on earth could their military leaders think that such a large concentration of military hardware on a single road, backed up in a traffic jam for tens of miles, could lead to anything other than an awful loss of Russian life? Like so many of President Putin’s plans, I am afraid that there is hubris, tactical naivety and a total disregard for the brave young Russian soldiers who he has sent into battle. We should take no satisfaction in their slaughter. The Ukrainians are doing what they must to defend their country and its capital city, but there will be an awful number of casualties because of such dire Russian military planning.

The UK stands with Ukraine in providing further defensive military, humanitarian and other assistance to the country. As I have told the House already, we have trained 22,000 members of the Ukrainian armed forces under Operation Orbital since 2015 and we were among the first European nations to send defensive weapons to the country with an initial tranche of 2,000 anti-tank defensive missiles.

It is an odd feeling, because those missiles are deadly weapons and I am afraid that, every time they succeed, they take young lives. We should reflect, however, that the UK has sent forward a weapon that has become almost a symbol of the defiance of the Ukrainian armed forces, so as brutal as the effect of that weapons system is, it is something for which the Ukrainian people will regard us favourably and be grateful for a very long time.

In the next hours and days, we will provide a further package of military support to Ukraine, including lethal aid in the form of defensive weapons and non-lethal aid such as body armour, medical supplies and other key equipment as requested by the Ukrainian Government. It is not possible to share with the House more of the detail at this sensitive point in operations, but we will do our best to share it with hon. Members after the event as much as we can.

Meanwhile, in response to the growing humanitarian crisis, we are putting more than 1,000 more British troops at readiness, some of whom have started to flow forwards into neighbouring countries. That complements the hundreds of millions of pounds already committed to building Ukrainian resilience and providing vital medical supplies. Last Friday night, the Defence Secretary organised a virtual donor conference on military aid for Ukraine, during which all 27 nations present agreed to provide the country with much-needed lethal aid and medical supplies.

In the midst of this catastrophe, it is important to recognise the importance of the unity that the international community has shown against Russian state aggression. The United Nations General Assembly has been holding an emergency special session, just the 11th in its history, with nation after nation speaking up in condemnation of President Putin and in favour of peace.

We have also seen an extraordinary change in the defence posture of several nations. Germany has increased its defence spending to more than 2% per cent of its GDP, and changed a decades-long policy of not providing lethal aid. Sweden and Finland—nations proud of their respective neutrality and non-alignment—have agreed to donate arms to Ukraine. Even Switzerland has been party to sanctions against Russia. This is a seismic shift in the Euro-Atlantic security situation. If Putin hoped for fracture, he has achieved consensus. Countries such as South Korea and Singapore have also in recent days unveiled sanctions on Russia, despite south-east Asia having largely avoided taking sides in the previous conflicts.

Yesterday, new financial legislation was laid in the House that will prevent the Russian state from raising debt in the UK and that will isolate all Russian companies, of which there are over 3 million, from accessing UK capital markets. Alongside the measures taken by other nations, these crippling economic sanctions are already having an effect. Russia’s central bank has more than doubled its key interest rate to 20%, while Moscow’s stock market remains closed for the third consecutive day in a bid to avoid major slumps. Ultimately, it will not be Putin who pays the price of the economic constrictions, but the Russian people, with soldiers dying, inflation rising and the country cut off from the outside world. As I said at the start of my remarks, we need to show the Russian people some hope for the way that things could be when President Putin eventually fails, as he surely will.

[Dr Murrison]

I am following the Minister’s remarks with a great deal of interest. In his very fine speech, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), who spoke for the Opposition, mentioned China in his sixth point. I hope my hon. Friend will do so also, because there is one country that could turn this off tomorrow if it wished to, and that is China. What position have the UK Government taken on China? Although my enemy’s enemy is my friend, will he be wary and cautious about his dealings with China, given that China of course continues to commit human rights abuses in Xinjiang, potentially in Taiwan and in Hong Kong? While it is commendable that it abstained at the United Nations, we need to be very careful about how we position ourselves with respect to China in the weeks and months ahead.

[James Heappey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Asia and the Middle East will want to talk about China in her concluding remarks. Right now there is an opportunity to work with Beijing to bring about an outcome that is right for Euro-Atlantic security in the short term, but I do not think that that automatically means we close our eyes to our wider concerns about China and our competition with that country over the decades ahead.

Finally, I want to update the House on NATO defence and security activities. In addition to HMS Trent, HMS Diamond has now sailed for the eastern Mediterranean. We are doubling the number of UK troops in Estonia, with the Royal Tank Regiment and the Royal Welsh battlegroups now complete in Tapa. We have increased our fast air presence from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, from where those jets are now engaged in NATO air policing activity over Poland and Romania.

In his excellent speech, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne asked two questions of the MOD about capability. The first was on cyber-resilience, and he will not be surprised to know, I hope, that there has been a series of Cobra meetings on homeland resilience and that the cyber-threat to the homeland has been an important part of those discussions. It is a capability that the UK has invested in through the National Cyber Security Centre. I would never go so far as to say we are well prepared because, frankly, we cannot know fully what is thrown at us, but the right discussions have been had and the right investments have been made, and I think what we have as a defensive cyber-capability is one of the best in the world.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked me a question about the shape and size of the Army, and he knows from his many clashes over the Dispatch Boxes with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it is subject to some debate, but the Secretary of State, to his credit, has always said he is a threat-based policy maker. It may well be that we learn something new from what is going on in Ukraine at the moment, but my reflections in the immediate term, from the operational analysis I am seeing, is that precision deep fires and armed drones are doing exactly what we saw in Nagorno-Karabakh and Syria, on which we based the integrated review. For those in massed armour in a modern battlespace, that is a pretty dangerous and difficult place to be. We may yet see something different when we get into the close fight that will cause us to reconsider. Right now, however, the lessons we are learning from what is going on are exactly the same as those from Nagorno-Karabakh and northern Syria, and the IR was based on that operational analysis, with the Army rightly observing what it would call a deprioritisation of the close fight.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank the Minister for giving way and for his update. He is right to emphasise the unanimity of the international consensus on the invasion of Ukraine and on sanctions. He may be aware of reports that Russian oil producers are not able to find purchasers for some of their oil production; however, there are purchasers and movements of oil shipments in the gulf of Finland. What is our position and the international position on Russian oil shipments and starving Russia of the foreign currency that delivers?

[James Heappey]

I do not feel entirely qualified to answer in the detail I would want, but my analysis of the geostrategic situation in eastern and southern Europe is that we certainly need to have our eyes wide open to who else beyond the obvious western European countries are customers for Russian oil and gas. We need to be having a discussion within the international community about how some very vulnerable countries, perversely including Ukraine, but also Serbia and others in the Balkans, are still drawing on Russian gas, and how we get them off that without causing a situation that completely cripples their economies. But I am somewhat out of lane and dare say the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy would be concerned to have heard me offer even those thoughts.

[Chris Bryant]

Will the Minister deal with something else?

[James Heappey]

I will try.

[Chris Bryant]

If I may take the Minister down another lane, I think Ministers accept that everybody in the House wants the Government to be able to move as fast as possible on sanctions. I just note for instance that Abramovich is now trying to sell his football club, and clearly lots of oligarchs are rapidly divesting themselves of things, including through auction houses, and I hope that Sotheby’s, Christie’s and others are taking action on that today. Can the Minister update the House on the measures the Government will take—perhaps this will be done later by the Minister winding up the debate—to speed up those sanctions? We are a long way short of what the US and the European Union have done; there may be legitimate reasons for that, but we do worry about it.

[James Heappey]

I do my best to inform myself as widely as I can. I suspect the Minister for Asia and the Middle East will be able to give a fuller reply to the hon. Gentleman later. I think there is a requirement to launch the widest and quickest set of sanctions we can in a way that is legally acceptable, but neither should we diminish the effect of the sanctions that have already been put in place thus far. I share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment that we could and should do more, but let us not forget just how punitive what has been done is and the effect it is having.

I want to finish by talking about the humanitarian situation, which I am afraid risks becoming a catastrophe. Ukraine will keep fighting; so it should. Russia must stop. Europe—the world—must be ready to support that situation as it evolves because the fighting is going to get worse. We should explore, and we are exploring, what humanitarian corridors could look like, but they will not be easy and will need the support of both sides.

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister is making an impassioned speech. The scenes in Ukraine are heartbreaking and it is my strong view that we should do everything we can to allow refugees to come here. The Prime Minister said in today’s Prime Minister’s questions that European Union countries were able to move more quickly and waive visa requirements because they were part of Schengen, but that is simply not the case. The Irish Government and Ireland are not part of Schengen—as we should all know by now after the long discussions around Brexit, they are part of the common travel area—but Ireland was able to do it; why are this Government not waiving visa requirements for refugees fleeing Ukraine?

[James Heappey]

Again, the right of family members to come here has already been offered, and it is for 100,000 people, as I understand it, which is extraordinarily generous. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point and his concern, and I know that many hon. Members see this as an increasingly totemic issue.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

rose—

[James Heappey]

I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do want to conclude.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but is this not a moment to reflect that if the Nationality and Borders Bill, which is currently in the other place, were to pass with clause 11 as part of it, any Ukrainian coming here to seek refuge who passed through another country to get here would be criminalised and treated as a second-rate refugee? Does that not make him feel a little uneasy? Is this not a moment for the Government to reconsider that proposal?

[James Heappey]

The right hon. Gentleman, who is a skilled parliamentarian, asks his question in a way that makes it uncomfortable to hear. However, the reality is that the criminalisation of those illegal routes—as they will be—is an important deterrent against the illegal criminal gangs who so viciously and exploitatively bring people across the channel at huge expense and in huge danger. Actually, legislation that might change that situation, provided that it is accompanied with safe and legal routes, and I have every confidence that it will be—[Interruption.] Well, I beg to differ. I do not share his analysis of the Bill or its effect and the need for it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Heappey]

I really want to make progress. Madam Deputy Speaker has already been generous with Front-Bench speakers, and many Back-Bench colleagues want to speak.

This is an important point, because the humanitarian crisis will get worse.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

rose—

[James Heappey]

I am sorry; I will not give way any further. The international community needs to consider what the options could be for humanitarian corridors and, potentially, safe havens. However, that will be challenging.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[James Heappey]

I really will not give way; I am sorry.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Let us make this perfectly clear. If the Minister gives way now, some of the hon. Lady’s colleagues will not get to speak in the debate at all. Actions have consequences everywhere.

[James Heappey]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

That will not be easy, and we should not get our hopes up, because both sides in the conflict will need to agree. However, we should want to explore that urgently.

I believe passionately that Ukrainians do not want to leave their country. As the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said in his speech, they do not want to be refugees. Therefore, once they have reached the west of their country—or, in extremis, crossed the border immediately from it—our mission should be about making them as comfortable as possible there so that they can go home as quickly as they want to, because they are patriots who want to be Ukrainians living in Ukraine.

I am afraid that this will get much worse before it gets any better—that is what keeps me awake at night. We must work out how we can alleviate the humanitarian challenge and the sheer misery of the millions of people who find themselves living in cities that are under siege without risking escalation that could make this world war three.

There is cause for optimism as the Ukrainians are fighting heroically, but we must brace ourselves, as the Ukrainian people are, for something much worse. Putin could stop this now if he wanted to. We must all continue to insist that he does and that Ukrainian territorial sovereignty is restored completely.

16:53

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), for his fine speech and the Minister for his fine response to it. As I am sure others will do as the debate goes on, I thank the Government for the genuine openness that they have shown to Members of the House as the situation has developed. It has made a huge difference to all Members to have that level of access and detail from the Department.

We all look on in horror at what we see on our TV screens with the train stations of a major European capital city and cities across that country filling up with refugees. We thought, did we not, that we had left such scenes behind in our history, but they are back with us once again. Cluster bombs are being used on cities like Kharkiv, a city I visited and know well. It breaks my heart to see what is happening to people in Ukraine: war crimes—war crimes—being committed in 2022 on the continent of Europe. We even have a situation where towns and villages are being surrounded by Russian troops to starve the local population of food, water and other supplies they need to survive. That takes on a particular resonance in a country that in its past suffered, almost 100 years ago, a famine genocide organised by Stalin that killed many millions of Ukrainians and is still very much alive in the minds of Ukrainians to this day. One of the most horrifying things we saw yesterday was the bombing of a holocaust memorial in the capital city of Kyiv. So terrible is it that it puts to bed the utter lie of Putin’s claim to be denazifying Ukraine. Ukraine has denazified itself in the past and will continue to do so in its future.

Like others, I want to pay tribute to the heroism of President Zelensky, the Ukrainian armed forces and the Ukrainian people themselves. I have been in daily contact with friends, MPs and others who I have gotten to know over my many trips there over the years and they still show the incredible resolve, generosity and kindness that we all know them for. They have their own family members and their own safety to worry about, but still they are helping Members of this House to get their constituents to safe places. Some of them are still keeping up their spirits with a sense of humour. Kira Rudyk, leader of the Opposition Holos party, was on UK news this afternoon. It was put to her that she, like every other Member of the Verkhovna Rada, is on Putin’s kill list. She responded by reminding everyone that she is also on the top 10 bachelorette list in Ukraine, so she hopes that that somewhat balances out. To maintain that level of generous spirit and maintain that level of dignity and resolve that we have seen in these circumstances? I suppose we could all hope that we would do the same, but I am not so sure that many of us would.

My party and I have supported the Government over their actions in Ukraine. We have ensured that they get the support from the SNP Benches for the defensive equipment, economic support, and political and diplomatic support they have given to Ukraine, and we will keep doing that. Indeed, like others and, I suspect, the Minister himself, we always want to see the Government go further. That is the job, I think, of the Opposition here. Yes, we are united, but we always want to push the Government to go further where they should.

There are two areas where the Government should. First, on sanctions, it is the case that we are behind other international actors and we want the screws to be turned and turned quickly. Like the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), we agree that there are almost certainly legitimate reasons why we have not done that, but we need to do what we can to fix it. Secondly, on refugees, the Minister is right. Most people will want to stay in a country close to Ukraine, because they want to return to Ukraine. I well understand why people will want to get back there and rebuild their country—it is a proud country and a proud democracy—but we do stand alone in putting in front of people fleeing war crimes all the unnecessary bureaucracy that does not need to be there. I plead with the Government to change that stance and be more open and welcoming, and at least match the offer of EU member states.

It cannot be said enough that our conflict or disagreement is not with the citizens of Russia itself. It is a proud country and it has made incredible contributions over the years to science, innovation, arts, culture and much else. Indeed, Scotland and Russia have shared many connections, not least militarily, over the years. The Russian people, as we are starting to see, are victims of a sort in this conflict as well. As the sanctions start to bite, there will be consequences for them. Indeed, they are already starting to feel it. This war is over one man’s imperial hubris that started not last week, but in 2014. It has already seen the deaths of around 15,000 Ukrainians, and that is before we count the Russian dead. It has displaced about 2 million Ukrainians in their own land.

It is worth taking ourselves back to how this started. It was nothing to do with NATO or the west; it was all because Ukrainians decided that they wanted a European, Euro-Atlantic future, and they wanted Putin’s boot off their neck. Ukraine threatened no one, and remains a threat to no one.

In time—today is not the day for it—we will have to consider exactly what has happened and how the European security architecture has been thrown up in the air like a kaleidoscope. The Minister and the shadow Defence Secretary rightly mentioned the change in German policy. We all watched with our jaws open as the Chancellor reversed 30 years of energy policy and 70 years of defence policy on Sunday. The European Union is now a much stronger military alliance than we ever thought it would be. If someone had told me that that was where it was going two weeks ago, I would not have taken them seriously. That is something for us all to take the time to think about. The integrated review will need to be revisited; only a fool would think otherwise. I was always sceptical of the Indo-Pacific tilt. This is not a time for I-told-you-sos—most definitely not—but all of us in this country and in other countries around Europe will need to rethink defence and security postures going forward.

We are the custodians of the treaties and institutions that were set up to maintain peace and security across Europe, and we need to ask ourselves what we need to do to fix them, because they are more than creaking at the seams right now. How have we got ourselves into a situation where we are seriously contemplating a Government who are accused of committing a genocide against their people—China and the Uyghurs—presiding over peace talks about war crimes carried out by their ally in Moscow against people in Ukraine? I am not sure it could be argued that we have been very good custodians of those treaties and institutions, which have so far by and large held up, but are creaking in a massively unprecedented way.

There will be time to debate those things in the future. Today we must focus on Ukraine, Ukrainians and the war criminals who are carrying out this horror in that nation. For me—if you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker—this is personal, having taken many trips back and forward, like many other Members of the House. We have friends in common, actually. I have phoned friends whose children I can hear in the background being loaded into cars to flee cities—cities in which I have enjoyed meals with their families. I was in Kyiv this time last month. Even then, it did not feel like a city that was on the brink of war. I have been on the phone to friends and heard shells going off in the background—the calls cut off as they have to run. Then there is always that hellish thought when I call someone or text them and for hours do not hear back, and do not know whether they are safe.

It is personal for me, and for many of us in this House. I enjoyed nothing more than welcoming friends from Ukraine to Glasgow for COP26. I had hoped that they would be in my constituency for the Scotland-Ukraine match, although I am not sure what it would have done for our reputation if we had beaten them.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

No chance of that.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Well, a boy can dream. That now will not happen, but Ukraine is a democracy and the Ukrainians are a free people. They need and deserve our support and focus, and the unity of this House—today, tomorrow and going forward. I am sorry to say that the Minister is almost certainly correct that this will get worse before it gets better, so let us focus on how we make it better. It will require some big, bold thinking—a Marshall plan to rebuild that country from the destruction caused and the destruction yet to come.

In that, we must maintain unity. Where we push the Government to go further and faster, it is not because we want to be oppositionist for opposition’s sake—that is in nobody’s interest. Let us keep to the unity that Ukrainians need, because it is not just us watching the war in their country; we should ask ourselves what we want them to see when they read our newspapers or scroll through our social media accounts. I want them to see common cause to end the war, support Ukrainians and ensure that Ukraine’s democratic future, which they took a stand on in 2013 and into 2014, is still there. Ukrainians today are the real leaders of the free world, and they deserve nothing less.

17:04

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

I thank my friend the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) for both his collegiate tone and the content of his speech. I wish I had the time to touch on a lot of it. However, in the time available to me let me say that I share entirely his view of the stunning bravery of the Ukrainian people under incredible duress. Equally, I share his desire to see Putin and all his commanders in court in The Hague as soon as possible.

This is a European city, a European country, a member state of the Council of Europe that is under siege and under attack. While men are staying to fight, women and children are fleeing across the border. I want to pick up on two points made by the right hon. Gentleman. The first is that the receiving countries, particularly Poland at the moment, need our help with humanitarian aid and all the strength we can afford in support of them. I had a call today from a little town called Zamość, with 15,000 people, 100 km from the border with Ukraine. That town is receiving trainloads of refugees at 800 per train. It is becoming overwhelmed. The people there simply cannot handle the volume of refugees flowing through their villages. We have to get help to them fast.

Secondly, we have to get the refugees we are prepared to take into the United Kingdom. Again, the sooner and more efficiently we can do that, the better. In 1956, we took refugees from Hungary in this country. In 1968, we took refugees from Czechoslovakia. In 1972, West Malling airfield in Kent played host to 28,000 Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin. We have done it before and we can do it again. I have spoken with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, both of whom are now on a fast footing to co-ordinate this relief effort. The British people want to help, and we can.

Manston airport in my constituency is mothballed, but the owners have told me that they are prepared to make it available. The runway can be swept and cleared within half a day. The military hardware that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces wishes to see sent to Ukraine can be flown from Manston almost immediately. We have the warehouse capacity and the runway capacity to fly it out. With the back-up of Kent fire brigade, Manston can then be used to fly in refugees from Ukraine and from Poland.

Next door to Manston is a Home Office facility that is capable of processing 1,000 people a day. It also has food facilities and accommodation. I urge those on the Front Bench to take on board the fact that those facilities are available. We do not have the time to wait; the people we are trying to assist do not have the time to wait. We can do this now. We can cut the red tape, and we must do it.

17:09

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

During his abhorrent dictum on the illegal invasion of Ukraine, President Putin used false claims of genocide to justify his callous actions. That is a cruel irony, not least given his appalling track record of international law breaches and human rights abuses. We witnessed his brutality in Georgia and did nothing. We witnessed his brutality in Syria and did nothing. True to form, we are witnessing his brutality once again in Ukraine. This must the last of the suffering that he is allowed to cause.

We are all inspired by the resolve, determination and spirit shown by the Ukrainian people, but there will be inevitable tragic consequences to their heroism. The more they resist, the worse Putin will react, and those unable to defend themselves will pay the price for his petulance. Standing with Ukraine means delivering economic, military and humanitarian support today, but it also means delivering justice tomorrow; it means ensuring that the man responsible for Ukrainians’ suffering is held to account and made to answer for his crimes. The Prime Minister says, “Putin must fail.” He must, but that alone is not enough. Putin must pay.

On Monday, the International Criminal Court announced that it would open an investigation into alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity that have been committed in Ukraine since 2013, and any new alleged crimes. That is a very important announcement. Innocent men, women and children are being murdered in schools and hospitals and in their homes. Amnesty International has now verified four attacks on Ukrainian schools, including the cluster bombing of a nursery, which killed a child and civilians. Human Rights Watch reported an attack on a hospital, again with a cluster bomb, which killed and injured civilians, including healthcare workers. The vicious bombardment of Kharkiv on Tuesday, in which homes were targeted, left dozens of civilians dead. According to Ukraine’s ambassador to the US, a thermobaric weapon was used against Ukrainian forces.

Although Russia is not a signatory to the convention on cluster munitions or to the safe schools declaration, international humanitarian law prohibits the use of indiscriminate attacks with indiscriminate weapons, but it is clear that Putin is already becoming increasingly desperate. As the Ukrainian resistance evolves towards insurgency, civilian deaths will almost certainly surge.

The UK is a proud state party to the Rome statute, so we must now support the ICC with money and people to aid its investigation; I would be very grateful if the Minister gave an assurance that we will, and if he provided an update on where we have got to on the question of a state party referring the case, as per the prosecutor’s request. We must work with the Ukrainian Government, allies and non-governmental organisations to collect and preserve evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity; again, I would be very grateful if the Minister gave an assurance that we will. Most importantly, we must do everything within our power to prevent further civilian suffering, including making the necessary preparations to get aid in and people out safely and effectively.

Putin is safe, a long way away from the frontline, but the blood of the innocent is on his hands. This is his war and it may not end soon, but it is imperative that he pays for what he has done. If he does not, Ukraine will not be the last to suffer.

When the Ukrainian ambassador to the UN learned of the invasion, he said:

“There is no purgatory for war criminals. They go straight to hell.”

It will be difficult—some say impossible—but wherever Putin ends up, the UK must do everything we can to ensure that it is via a court.

17:13

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

Over the past decade or so, we have seen increasing evidence of Russian ambition. In 2007, Russia planted a flag on the seabed at the north pole. In 2008, it invaded Georgia. In 2014, it invaded Crimea. In the same year, we saw Malaysia Airlines flight 17 shot down. In 2018, the events in Salisbury happened. Between 2009 and 2018, there was a 440% increase in cyber-attacks across the world, of which 75% were allegedly from Russia. We have had instability in the Balkans, interference in elections, destabilisation in Bosnia with active intentions to undermine the Dayton agreement—the list goes on.

This is known as sub-threshold activity, and we have got used to it. We have never really been quite sure, but it has been happening. However, there is nothing sub-threshold about the wilful and destructive invasion of a sovereign neighbour. What has happened over the last week is nothing other than abhorrent. For the Ukrainians, this is about hearts; it is about their homes and their lives. It is about survival; it is about repelling an invasion.

We have seen the indiscriminate use of weapons, including cluster bombs and thermobaric weapons—death and destruction. No one knows what Putin’s wider intent is. Perhaps it is to restore the Soviet Union; perhaps it is to expand his country; perhaps it is imperialism. We do not quite know, but the response to this incomprehensible action has been comprehensive and clear. Our reaction in the west is not just disbelief; it is beyond that—this is beyond belief.

The Prime Minister should be praised for his actions to lead the coalition of willing nations. The sanctions have been excellent, and I support 100% the support for refugees. More broadly, I am very comfortable with what NATO is doing, particularly on the supply of aid and equipment. Yes, we have left the European Union, but Members should be under no illusion: we are still supporting Europe. Our engagement with Europe is as strong as ever. I also commend the Opposition Front Benchers, who have been outstanding during the whole crisis. Parliament is at its best when we work together, and there has been an awful lot of sense spoken on both sides of the House over the last week.

Before I finish, I want to make some points to those on the Front Benches. I have three main observations. First, as politicians, we need to be careful and precise with our language. We must not inflame and we must not be careless, because people are watching—both our allies and those in Russia. This is about global leadership. We need, therefore, to be firm but not inflammatory with our language. By the same token, we need to work with the media, and the media must report this conflict accurately and fairly. Operational security is critical, and we must not get ourselves into a situation where carelessness in the media puts people’s lives at risk.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions the media. What is his view on whether Russia Today should be allowed to continue to stream in our country?

[James Sunderland]

My humble answer is that it should not. RT is currently spreading Russian propaganda, which nobody wants to see and nobody believes.

My second point is very important: we must make sure that we are not inadvertently sucked into direct conflict with Russia. The principles of article 5 are sacrosanct. NATO is a defensive alliance. NATO works. We must therefore adhere to our treaty obligations by not intervening directly, until the point that we must. We must resist that, so I say to Ministers: please be wary of come-ons and proxies; please be wary of any attempt by Putin to suck us into a conflict with him and his forces. To be worthy of its pre-eminence, NATO must fulfil the obligations placed upon it as the most successful military alliance ever.

My third point is very serious: whatever happens in Ukraine—our hearts go out to everyone involved in this ghastly conflict—we need to be ready. If Russia attacks or invades a NATO country, in line with our article 5 obligations, we must be ready for what comes next; we will be at war. As much as nobody wants an escalating conflict, Putin must be clear that if he crosses that line, we will have a big problem. NATO is a defensive alliance, but it is also poised and ready to do what it must.

This is about planning and positioning. It is about ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance. It is about our understanding what the Russians are doing. And in the unthinkable event that we do go to war, we cannot afford to watch evil unfold.

17:19

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Can I begin, as others have done, by expressing my admiration for the role that the Ukrainian armed forces—sometimes irregular, sometimes regular—have played? Most of us have been astonished by the resistance they have been able to put up, and I think that that astonishment applies in Moscow as well. Along with that, I want to add my genuine appreciation for the Defence Secretary and the Defence team, who have been exemplary in the way in which they have operated to ensure that we are supporting the capacity of the Ukrainians to defend their own country. That has been absolutely fundamental, and it is a leading example of how we as a nation ought to behave, so well done there. I wish I could be quite as complimentary about the role of our sanctions regime, because we are playing catch-up there. It is a matter of fact that the EU has sanctioned far more individuals than we have, including two who have major UK interests, Alisher Usmanov and Mikhail Fridman. We have not sanctioned those individuals, and it is astonishing that we are seeing the EU sanctioning those with assets here when we do not.

Something else that we now have to look at seriously is the way in which our legal system has been acting to defend the interests of those around Putin and the oligarchs who base their moneys here. An example is the ability to prevent journalists from examining the truth. Inquisitive journalism is fundamental to outing the role of dirty money in the City of London, as we must do. That is a matter of national shame, but we are playing catch-up on that as well. I hope that Ministers will take that message on board, because it is now time now to do this. I think there is consensus that we can do it, but it is not just about the dirty money; it is also about those who protect that dirty money in our society. I think there is consensus around that.

I am also bound to reflect on the potential, even now, for the flow of refugees. We do not know how this situation is going to end. We do not know what will make Mr Putin and those around him pull back from this level of adventurism, and because we do not know that, we have to assume that things will get massively worse and that the flow of refugees will get worse. If the flow of refugees does get worse, and if we are talking about the potential for many millions of refugees, the UK clearly has to be prepared to respond.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Following a point made by the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) about places being unable to cope with the numbers of people coming through and the need to keep them flowing, one of the difficulties is the dog-leg in the UK system that people have to navigate to get visas. I am currently waiting in real time for the Home Office to tell me where a bunch of 12 people can go to get visas. Their travel to Scotland is all arranged, but the difficulty, the bottleneck, is the Home Office. We should not be doing this right now. People can get moving and get going, but they do not know whether to get a bus to Warsaw or where else to go, or where they can get a visa. Hopefully we will know in the next few hours, but the frustration and the angst for their family back in Lewis is huge. I just wanted to put that on record.

[Tony Lloyd]

The hon. Gentleman is right. If we could see the same alacrity from the Home Office that we have seen from the Ministry of Defence, we could make a material difference.

I spoke earlier this week to the ambassador from Moldova. Moldova is a country of something short of 3 million people, yet it has already taken 90,000 refugees, which is proportionately the equivalent of the UK taking in 2 million people. Moldova is a desperately poor country and it cannot accommodate that 90,000. There has to be some process by which the flow of refugees can be moved from the reception countries to those that have greater capacity, but in any case we need to ensure that we are making the necessary humanitarian assistance available to Moldova. The bureaucratic point about the Home Office is inevitably a real one, and it is time for Home Office Ministers to act to ensure that they are part of the solution and not part of the problem.

There is one other point I want to make, and it is a little more wide-ranging. We have to look forward, and we have to do that in two ways. First, we need to make sure that we have a commitment that our role with respect to Ukraine is not just during this period of crisis. We are always excellent at focusing on a crisis before moving on, whether it be Syria or Libya—we can all list them. We have to be here for the long run, because Ukraine is too strategically important both militarily and to the ecosystem of the wider Europe. On that basis, and the time is not now, reconstruction has to be somewhere on the planning agenda of the G7.

My other point will be massively controversial. When the European Coal and Steel Community was created back in the 1950s, the logic was that coal and steel were the key strategic industries of the era of post-war reconstruction. The community worked together to create something a little different. Energy is today’s strategic variable.

Olaf Scholz, the German Chancellor, made an incredible move by saying that he will wean Germany off Russian oil and gas, and we have to begin thinking about how we can play a role in supporting those who depend on that gas. That will be Moldova and Ukraine, and it may well be Germany, too. It will take imagination, but it is the kind of thinking we saw when Ernest Bevin created NATO and when the European Coal and Steel Community was created all those years ago. That may be controversial, but now is the time to do it.

17:26

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

When this crisis started, I looked at the areas for which I have responsibility. My outrage was enormous that the Council of Europe, which is responsible for the rule of law, democracy and human rights, still contained a country that abuses all of them, namely Russia.

Yes, I am emotional about this. I am emotional because I have long campaigned for Russia to be chucked out of the Council of Europe for not following any of its guidance to members. One good thing about the Council of Europe is that we get to know other parliamentarians from across Europe, and we know Ukrainian parliamentarians because we work with them, because we sit with them and because we talk with them.

I was sent a picture the other day by a Ukrainian MP—I will name him because he has named himself—called Oleksiy Goncharenko. He was in full military kit and carrying a Kalashnikov. That really brought it home to me. I thought to myself, “If we were attacked, would I put on full military uniform and go out with a rifle to defend this place?” I hoped I would, and my heart went out to Oleksiy Goncharenko because of all he is doing and because of his bravery in standing up to it.

I spoke very strongly in the debate at the Council of Europe on suspending Russia, and I did so with the backing of the delegation because, as has already been mentioned, it is so much better that we operate on a cross-party basis. I have always tried to run the delegation as a genuinely cross-party operation.

I would particularly like to thank two people who spoke very forcefully at the meeting of the Committee of Ministers—the second Chamber of the Council of Europe—and had to vote on this issue. The first is my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), and the second is not a Member of this House but our permanent representative at the Council of Europe who spoke very strongly and gave a very clear idea that Britain would vote to suspend Russia. During that debate, I also had to put up with listening to people such as Pyotr Tolstoy, who leads the Russian delegation, and who said that Ukraine had nuclear weapons that were pointing at Russia. He lied—it does not have nuclear weapons and it is not pointing any at Russia. Yet that was the message he gave out.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

As a member of the Council of Europe, may I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the leadership he gives to members of the British delegation? He is steadfast and decisive in his work, and he has achieved a result that Europe should celebrate, because it was his efforts and those of his colleagues that put Russia out last week. I think that has been decisive. Will he say something about the punishment that is now going to be meted out to the Council of Europe in terms of financial penalty? We should urge Her Majesty’s Government to give more resources to the Council of Europe in that regard.

[John Howell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks and for raising the point about what will happen in respect of the financial shortfall that will occur when Russia refuses to pay its dues to the Council of Europe. I have already had discussions and I make this plea to the Government: we cannot do this job in part. We have suspended Russia from the Council of Europe, but we cannot let the Council of Europe go down to the difficulties that will occur as a result of the Russians; we need to be prepared to step in and make up the difference that will come about when they do not pay their dues. The amount is not huge. Our permanent representative gave me the estimate that the amount we would have to pay is somewhere between €4 million a year and €9 million a year, depending on how this is calculated; it is a rounding error whichever way one calculates it. Therefore, we should accept that and agree to pay it. The French have already agreed, as have the Germans and the Dutch. Why have we not done so? Will we do that pretty quickly?

Lastly, in the intervention that I made during the statement by the Home Secretary, I offered the delegation’s services in terms of being able to talk to the neighbouring countries of Ukraine and to work with them to sort out the problems of migration. We have, in the Council of Europe, a body that looks after migration very well. We do not need to reinvent it; we have it there, and let us use it to the best of our ability.

17:32

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

I rise to voice my condemnation of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and to give my full support for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. I would also like to voice the support of the people of Llanelli, many, many of whom have been hugely generous, offering accommodation for Ukrainian refugees, responding to an initiative by our Polish community to bring goods to send to Ukrainians arriving in eastern Poland and giving money, through an online facility kindly set up by Llanelli Rotary Club. I have also had lots of messages from constituents urging the Government to relax the visa rules and take a much more practical approach to enable and assist Ukrainian refugees to come here; they feel angry and embarrassed that the UK is not offering the welcome that other European countries are offering, with their permission for Ukrainians to stay for three years. I urge the Government to rethink their approach immediately and open our doors to Ukrainians.

It is understandable, when we see the horrific scenes on TV, to focus on the land, sea and air threats posed by Russia, but in the short time available I want to focus on the need for unity across the free world, and the very powerful threats posed to that united resolve by the use of cyber-attacks and information warfare. Make no mistake, Russia has very considerable expertise in those matters. There is nothing new about propaganda or information warfare, but technological advances and our increasing reliance on technology make it much easier, quicker and cheaper to customise messages ever more precisely, for ever more targeted audiences thousands of miles away.

No longer are we subjected to a billboard slogan merely four times a day or to the same TV advert aired a dozen times in an evening, but, every spare moment, as we idly thumb our phones, we are ready targets to be bombarded with internet messages. Moreover, this bombardment masquerades as our free choice, as we scroll and click, often oblivious to the subliminal messages that target us. Worryingly, some security experts argue that 62% of all web traffic is generated by bots. The potential for such “computational propaganda” to be used by state and non-state actors both overtly and covertly is enormous. It can be used to stir up social unrest and racial hatred and erode the will of the population to defend itself.

We have seen the use of hybrid tactics by Russia in Ukraine to influence not only different sections of the Ukrainian population and the Russian population back home, but opinion much more widely across the free world, which Russia has a very strong interest in. The very nature of this form of hybrid warfare is that it is difficult to attribute responsibility with certainty. Perpetrators may choose to claim responsibility, to create deliberate ambiguity, or to use technology to conceal their involvement completely, creating the impression of spontaneous, indigenous action. Furthermore, targeting and manipulating public opinion, even if systematic and attributable, cannot be prosecuted under international humanitarian law, which focuses on physical harm.

I appreciate the difficulties that Ministers have in speaking about these matters in public, but I simply urge the Government to make considerable investment in our capabilities in respect of information warfare and countering this type of attack, and ask that we urge our NATO allies to do likewise.

That brings me to unity, which is crucial to countering threats from Russia. It has been heartening to see such a unified initial response from our allies in NATO and, more broadly, from countries across the world, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) said from the Dispatch Box, this will not be easy to maintain and we must constantly work at it. I urge the Government to make dialogue and strengthening relationships with our allies, both in NATO and beyond, an absolute priority and to give it the resources that it needs.

17:36

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

Putin thought that when he invaded Ukraine the people there would crack and that the west would split, but he was wrong. We have seen the most inspirational demonstration of courage in Ukraine and of unity in the west. That has been represented in this House since the beginning of the crisis. I personally commend the position taken by those on the Opposition Front Bench in their conduct of this crisis and thank them for it. In particular, I commend the speech made by the shadow Defence Secretary earlier, the position taken by the shadow Foreign Secretary and, indeed, by the Leader of the Opposition. It was also very good to hear the former Leader of the Opposition earlier in the debate speaking on behalf of the socialists of Russia in support of the people there opposing Putin. Putin has brought the whole House together, which is a very good thing.

This morning, in New York, the United Nations voted by a great majority in condemnation of Russia, with countries, including the UAE and Israel, which had abstained in previous resolutions, voting in support. It is worth recording with shame the names of those countries that supported Russia in that vote—North Korea, Syria, Eritrea, and Belarus. What a line-up! I do have some concern about the 35 countries that abstained in that vote, including our friends India and South Africa and I hope that they will come round to a more vocal condemnation in due course.

It is also worth recognising the decision by the Human Rights Council to establish a commission of inquiry into violations of human rights by Russian forces—by forces on all sides. I agree very strongly with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who pointed out earlier that it is by holding soldiers and commanders to account for what happens on the battlefield that we will put the greatest pressure on those troops to resist the orders that they receive, to behave well and to lay down their arms and withdraw.

I commend the UK’s leadership on the sanctions regime. We are squeezing the windpipe of the Russian economy and its tentacles here in this country, which are many and deep because of our role as a financial centre. I do want to emphasise that not every Russian here in London is a Putinist or an oligarch; some are dissidents against the Putin regime. I am concerned about the calls we are hearing for blanket appropriations or expulsions of Russians. That is not the British way. Everybody has basic civil rights, including the right to legal representation. We must uphold the rule of law in this country.

I wish I had advice to give those on the Front Bench on the strategy or the way out of this conflict, but I will focus the rest of my remarks on what might be done to mitigate the horror unfolding in Ukraine. I commend the Government on their commitment to humanitarian priorities, sending 1,000 troops to the borders of Ukraine. I also commend people who are sending help, and particularly those sending money.

It is admirable that we are now working with the Disasters Emergency Committee. It was announced today that we have set up a new fund and are committing £20 million to it to match the donations made by the British people. That is a better way to help refugees than by sending material support. We should send a signal that the best way to support people is financially.

Here at home, I commend the Government on expanding the family route and setting up the community sponsorship programme. We also need a philanthropic fund here to support those community sponsorship groups. The best thing we can do is to arrange financial support for those groups, rather than piling up blankets, toys and second-hand clothes in council buildings; I am not sure that is the best thing we could be doing at this time.

Of course, one thing we cannot do with philanthropy is defence spending. I end by commending the Government on their commitment to the Defence budget: 2.4% of GDP is a tremendous step. However, the fact is that we need to go further. It is great that we have invested in sub-threshold defences, but our allies are now fighting above the threshold. We need more men and women in uniform. We need more tanks and armoured vehicles, but they are vulnerable to being taken out from the air, so we need more cyber-defences. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Minister agrees that the conventional war is not over and we must invest further in our armed forces.

I commend the men and women of the Royal Welsh battlegroup, in particular the Royal Engineers, the Royal Artillery and the Royal Tank Regiment, many of them based in my constituency, who are fighting to defend NATO.

17:41

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The invasion of Ukraine is brutal and it is wrong; the justifications for it are a tissue of lies. The resistance of the Ukrainian people against such an onslaught, with Russia deploying internationally banned illegal weapons against civilian targets, is heroic. I imagine everybody here is humbled by the bravery and courage of ordinary people taking up arms to confront such aggression.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Less than an hour ago, I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway), who is in western Ukraine. He is a military officer and has been talking to the military there, who are pleading, “Please send us defence anti-tank weapons and defence anti-aircraft weapons.” He has emphasised that, and he asked me to intervene in this debate to make that comment.

[Stewart Hosie]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I backed today’s motion precisely because it calls for the provision of further defensive equipment and “humanitarian and other assistance”. Although it ought to be unnecessary, I also join the calls to ensure that the UK’s NATO defence and security obligations are fulfilled to counter the threats from Russia.

Those threats are not simply on the ground in Ukraine today, nor is the action to tackle hostile Russian activity limited to support against the current invasion. We must ensure that the tools required to counter Russia now—our continued work with NATO—and the resources required to keep our guard up against a long-term and growing threat are provided in full. I will turn briefly to each of those strands.

On 23 February, the Minister for Asia and the Middle East said in the debate on the Russian invasion:

“We are committed to bringing forward the economic crime Bill. It will establish a new public register of beneficial ownership of overseas companies… It will ensure that individuals and entities can no longer hide in the shadows.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2022; Vol. 709, c. 336.]

I very much welcome that, but given that the ISC Russia report published in 2020 included a chapter on tackling crime, it is hugely disappointing that we do not already have the necessary legislation on the statute book. That is particularly the case given that the Russia report contained the warning from the National Crime Agency that, for example,

“there are several ways in which the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 is too restrictive.”

The report also described the changes the NCA would wish to see to the legislation. I therefore welcome the new legislation, but can we have it brought forward with immediate effect?

On my second point, our relationship with NATO, again, the ISC Russia report was clear, saying at paragraph 129:

“NATO remains at the heart of strategic thought…Diminishing the strength of NATO is therefore a key aim of the Kremlin, as is undermining the credibility of Article V of the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty, and ‘delivering NATO and non-NATO deterrence’ therefore forms a key part of the 2019 cross-Whitehall Russia Strategy.”

The ISC was

“encouraged to note that Defence Intelligence shares its intelligence assessments with NATO, which we were told aim to try ‘to ensure as common an understanding of the nature of the Russian threat and situation that we face’. Defence Intelligence highlighted several ‘really important parts of how we feed into the NATO system’”.

It is self-evidently the case that with the attack on Ukraine, and for our future defence, that work with NATO will have to be supported and enhanced.

That leads me to my final and most important point—resources. The ISC asked this question:

“If we consider the Russian threat to have been clearly indicated in 2006 with the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, and then take events such as the annexation of Crimea in 2014 as firmly underlining Russian intent on the global stage, the question is whether the Intelligence Community should—and could—have reacted more”.

MI5 was clear that there was an inevitable reprioritisation due to the terrorist threat. Defence Intelligence viewed it similarly. SIS and GCHQ saw it as due to the longer lead time required for work on Russia. SIS said:

“I don’t think we did take our eye off the ball. I think the appetite for work against the Russian threat has sort of waxed and waned.”

GCHQ agreed. The ISC fully recognised

“the very considerable pressures on the Agencies…and that they have a finite amount of resource, which they must focus on operational priorities. Nevertheless, reacting to the here and now is inherently inefficient and—in our opinion—until recently, the Government had badly underestimated the Russian threat and the response it required.”

I hope that no one now underestimates the scale of the Russian threat, or the resources necessary, now and in future, and not least to the intelligence agencies, to counter it.

17:48

[Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate. It was an honour to welcome the ambassador to Ukraine to the House earlier today and, on behalf of my Ynys Môn constituents, to give him and President Zelensky our support and respect.

This debate is about standing in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Ukraine, and standing united as a Parliament and as a people. We must give support in every way we can. I can talk about economic sanctions and military support, but today I would like to talk about people—the British people. Like many of my colleagues in this place, I am experiencing an avalanche of emails from concerned constituents asking how they can help. When the people of Ynys Môn faced covid, their incredible spirit of community, togetherness and resilience really took my breath away. I think it is something to do with being an island community. I am seeing that again now: the outpouring of love and support for a country that many of the people in my constituency have no connection with and have never visited. My constituents want to do something to help. From families in Llanfairpwll, Cemaes and Menai offering rooms to refugees, to an enterprising chap in Holyhead wanting to collect vanloads of supplies and a lady in Valley wanting to know how she can donate blankets, the offers of help are pouring in. My colleagues and their teams will be working just as hard as me and my team to signpost and co-ordinate these generous offers. We cannot and will not stand by and watch the war unfold with all the unnecessary suffering that goes with it. We need as individuals and communities to do something—anything—to help.

We do not want to feel impotent in the face of this cruelty, so I want to use this opportunity to share how we can direct our support most effectively. When donating money, it is important to give to a registered charity. The charity British-Ukrainian Aid and the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain both have fundraising pages online. Big multinational charities such as the Red Cross, UNICEF and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees are also raising money to provide large-scale support.

If, like my lovely lady in Valley, people want to donate supplies, the Ministry of Defence has informed me that the Ukrainian Red Cross is the best central point of contact. It can direct people to local collection points to drop off supplies, and the most-needed items are fresh batteries, flashlights, warm clothes, shoes, sanitary products, baby formula, towels and bedding. If people would prefer to donate their time or their property, such as my constituents in Menai, Cemaes and Llanfairpwll, please co-ordinate and contact the Refugee Council, which is co-ordinating offers of housing and accommodation. It is also looking for volunteers to support refugees who arrive here.

Finally, the Ukraine embassy is also keeping its website regularly updated with information about the different ways in which people can help. We all desperately want to help in this abhorrent situation, but I urge everyone to make use of those central agencies to co-ordinate our efforts. I hope the Minister in closing will highlight this Government’s humanitarian sponsorship pathway. By working together, we can make best use of the resources we have to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our brothers and sisters in Ukraine.

17:51

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I read a tweet this morning from a fellow MP and mum of three in Ukraine—Lesia Vasylenko—that quite frankly tore my heart out. She said:

“I don’t know what to write anymore. Second time in 3 months I had to hand off my 9 months baby girl, not knowing if I will ever see her again. This is a pain only a mother can know. It’s more painful than all of war put together.”

We can only imagine the pain that Ukrainians are going through. Like many Members, I have been inundated with emails from constituents who desperately want Britain and our allies to do everything we can to help, and that is what I stand up in the debate to convey. We are all in awe of the bravery of the Ukrainian people, and we all want to help.

The European Union expects 7 million Ukrainians to be displaced in this tragic, bloody war. According to the UN’s refugee agency, more than 500,000 have already fled to neighbouring countries. We have a proud history of helping people fleeing violence and persecution, and we must do everything we can to support people seeking safety. For everyone who believes that democracy is worth defending—I know we all do here in this House—we must unite and stand to ensure that President Putin and his kleptocratic cronies do not achieve their objectives. That means doing everything we can to help Ukraine defend itself against this invasion and the occupation of its territory. It means reinforcing our NATO allies in eastern Europe to ensure this conflict does not escalate, and it means the toughest possible and most urgent sanctions to increase the cost of war and occupation in Ukraine, so that it becomes untenable.

It also means helping the people in Ukraine as much as we can. Yesterday, I chaired a meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on the friends of CAFOD, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, where we heard about the incredible work undertaken by partners in Caritas Ukraine. It has been active there for 30 years, and through its local connections, it is already working to transport people to shelter and to organise spaces where children can play, to help them cope with the harrowing experiences they have been through. All those who want to help can donate directly to that work. They can donate to agencies on the ground or through the Disasters Emergency Committee. Everyone who feels that they want to do something to help has that option available to them today.

[Danny Kruger]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that by sending convoys of material out to Poland, we might risk interfering with supply chains of medical and military equipment and confusing the situation on the ground? I do not speak with great authority, but I have heard that concern. Does she agree that the best way to support refugees in the region is through financial gifts through the DEC?

[Catherine McKinnell]

People want to do everything they can to help. Local communities are working incredibly hard to support those communities in Ukraine in every way possible here in the UK and in the neighbouring countries. I think everybody should do what they can to help through local organisations and advertised means. BBC Radio Newcastle, for example, has published a list of places in the north-east where people can offer support and donations. Everybody who wants to help can and should do so, because that is something we can all do today.

[Sir Roger Gale]

I discussed exactly that circumstance with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities yesterday. He will be issuing details about how we can go about that, because many communities clearly want to help. The hon. Lady will find that it is in the pipeline.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. That is an important example of how important it is to work together on a cross-party basis in this House. We are all working in unity to stand up on the issue.

The debate is important because we know that President Putin is banking on cynicism and apathy to win the day. He has doubted the west’s outpouring of solidarity. He thinks that it will not last and that it will wane, and that in the longer term, we will not want to bear the economic costs of what it will take to continue to stand in solidarity with the Ukrainians. We need to show the world that we are better than that and that we will not wane. I say in all support that our Government need to ensure that any economic pain that we have to shoulder as a country is borne by those who can bear it. That is the responsibility of our Government.

Our country has done what is necessary to defend democracy on this continent before and we will do it again. I stand today to declare my support and that of the thousands of constituents who have contacted all hon. Members, and to ensure that it is known that we have that support.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. To ensure that we get everybody in, the time limit will now be four minutes.

17:57

[Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)]

When communism collapsed in the 1990s, the shadow of war in Europe appeared to have been lifted. Our expectation of peace has been fundamental. It led to our values being taken for granted, cynicism about our institutions flourishing, and some even nurturing scorn for the idea of the west and our open democratic societies.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine ended that era. There can be no doubt about where we stand or why it matters. The horrifying images of tanks rolling down residential streets, flats being shelled, rockets hitting playgrounds and innocent civilians dying mean that there is no ambiguity. There is right and there is wrong. The invasion is utterly wrong and those acts are war crimes. At the same time, we have seen the heroic defiance of the Ukrainian people—their bravery, fortitude and humour and their refusal to surrender their country, even at the cost of their own lives.

The contrast between President Zelensky and Vladimir Putin is stark. Putin’s attempts to mislead and confuse succeeded when it came to Crimea, Syria and beyond. This time, he has succeeded only in confusing his own army and uniting most of the world against him. German politics has undergone a watershed; Switzerland is no longer neutral; sanctions, asset freezes and banking suspensions stretch the globe from Latin America to the far east; and even China has stopped talking about NATO provocation. The clear and repeated warnings from the United States and our intelligence agencies proved entirely correct, while every assurance from the Kremlin and its fellow travellers was a lie.

We can be proud of the role of our country. The UK has trained over 22,000 members of the Ukrainian army. We sent 2,000 of our anti-tank weapons before the invasion began. We continue to send supplies and hardware. The Prime Minister has been speaking to President Zelensky every day, and led the effort to exclude Russia from the SWIFT banking system. Nothing is off the table when it comes to further sanctions.

Putin must fail, his morally bankrupt regime must fall and the Russian oligarchs who have based themselves here, while maintaining their role there, must choose. We have asked too few questions of the foreign money that has bought high-value property, serviced by London lawyers, accountants and advisers. Tolerance needs to be replaced by transparency and action.

Yet equally, our issue is not with the Russian people, or many Russians living in the UK who share our horror at Putin’s war crimes. Most are as opposed to his actions as Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Peterborough is home to so many from eastern Europe. We have relatives not only of those under siege in Ukrainian cities, but of those from countries nearby, who understandably fear what may happen next. The Baltic states and Poland are members of NATO. Our commitment to defend their borders from Russian aggression is absolute.

It is heartbreaking that we cannot go further to help Ukraine without risking direct war with Russia, with consequences that would be hard to contain or control. Nevertheless, Putin is not achieving his objectives. As his frustration grows, the deliberate bombardment of civilians is increasing to appalling effect.

For my family, this is personal because Anton “Gido” Petela, who died only very recently, was from Ukraine. While his family originally lived in the Habsburg empire, in Austria-Hungary, following world war one it became part of Poland, but in 1939, the Soviet Union came— déjà vu and he told his family of the horrors on finding bodies walled up in cellars when the Soviets retreated in 1941. He ended up here in the UK, had two sons and three granddaughters, and I married one, hence for me this is a personal experience.

18:01

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

Let me first pay tribute to my colleague Zoryan, who is an LGBT activist. He and other human rights activists in the west of Ukraine—and his mum—are digging in. They are the reason Ukraine is going to win, because they are digging in and they are going nowhere. Ukraine’s struggle is our struggle because it is a moment of clarity. Our choice is between democracy and authoritarianism, because neither option can be taken for granted and the pendulum can swing both ways.

Let me be clear that there is no side of this House and no shade of opinion contained within it that has not found itself sullied in some way by association with these malicious actors. Most of the time, they did so because they thought no one would particularly notice or because maybe there was a bit of money in it for them. However, too many did it because stations allowed them to amplify messages they thought were somehow not being heard. For those on the right, RT was quick to reinforce the ideas they had about the west, and Europe in particular, being decadent and in decline. For the left, it was the so-called anti-imperialists’ message of the contrast with the corporate media we have here.

It is no great pleasure to say that too many in my own party have done that dance with the devil, most prominently when the former leader and former member of the SNP, Alex Salmond, accepted the lucrative offer of a show on RT. What was his excuse? Other than narcissism and the money, I can imagine that he probably thought this moment would not come to pass and that Scotland’s concerns were somehow not connected with the wider problems posed by Putin’s regime. He is wrong.

I can say all this with a relatively clean conscience, as I wrote my first article in the Glasgow Herald to speak out against Scottish nationalists appearing on RT back in May 2016. None the less, I feel a great pang of shame every time I am asked about this, whether it be by people outside Scotland or closer to home inside Scotland. I feel shame because I know I campaigned for someone who proved himself to be so craven and naive, shame because he has been useful idiot for a TV station that promoted far-right, homophobic, Islamophobic and anti-vaccine messages during a global pandemic, and deep shame because I know that in some way it has hurt the cause of Scotland, which we on these Benches hold dear. I only hope that he finally has the decency to announce that he will not return to that station as the allegations of war crimes mount. But that is the point: these platforms seek to delegitimise all standpoints in the democratic system to weaken the whole body politic. They do so through false equivalence, through gaslighting and through the breathtaking cynicism that says all of these systems are as bad as one another really.

So what all of us need to do is be ruthless in confronting those in our own parties and movements who act in ways that are deleterious to the good functioning of a democratic system, those who facilitate despots and hard men, those who take money—and money that has been looted from less wealthy places—and those who allow criminals to escape accountability. Finally, the best time to have done all of that would have been in 2006 after the murder of Alexander Litvinenko; the second-best time is now.

18:05

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

It is a week since our world changed, and for eight nights children have worried in their beds and their bunkers about whether they will wake in the morning or lose their parents. Putin has placed the fate of his legacy on this invasion and that makes him dangerous, so we must focus on limiting the bloodshed however we can.

On the humanitarian situation, there is much worse to come. We must record and document war crimes and ensure that we finally have an atrocity prevention strategy in place across every war zone and conflict zone. We must plan for the use of chemical, incendiary and thermobaric weapons and have meaningful repercussions in place should they be used. There is a lot of discussion at the moment of a humanitarian corridor, but I am afraid I do not support these because they only work when all sides agree and we cannot trust the Russians. Small corridors are insufficient in a nation this size to get the aid that is needed through, and ultimately these corridors become political footballs with much political energy wasted on them. One example of that is the Aleppo enclave.

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is somewhat of an expert on foreign affairs. Is she finding that there is an outpouring in Rutland and Melton of constituents wanting to support the humanitarian effort and lend their help to refugees trying to flee Ukraine?

[Alicia Kearns]

My constituents are definitely determined to help people and they can do that best through financial donations. The Ukrainians have been clear with me that they fear that clothes, food and medicine could be laced with all sorts of appalling weapons; we have to make sure we offer what they ask for, which is financial donations.

Humanitarian corridors become political footballs. There are no examples of where they have worked in the world, and the UN Security Council more often than not has to approve every single aid delivery. We have to make sure aid gets to where it is needed. However, there is a problem when our sanctions regime is stopping the effective delivery of humanitarian aid. We need a humanitarian exemption like that agreed through UN resolution 2615 (2021) in December, which the US has also passed domestically, because currently humanitarian aid organisations are unable to negotiate with sanctioned entities. We may not like it, but they have to engage with all parties to ensure aid can reach those who need it, so I urge the Government to pass a similar motion to that which the US and the UN passed on the Afghanistan debacle to make sure we get what we need so that aid can get to everyone in Ukraine.

We also need to make sure the UK holds a donor conference, as we did on Syria in 2016, to bring in the funds needed from around the world. I also urge the Government to make sure we have balloons ready and waiting to go up to keep the internet on in Ukraine, because there is no question but that the Russians will at some point decide that they have truly lost the information war and they will switch off the internet; we have the capabilities to keep it switched on.

On sanctions, I welcome what the Government have done particularly on the Russian central bank, which was a true economic strike. I also know that it is due to the British Government that Russian access to SWIFT has been banned across the world, and it was the Prime Minister who made sure in G7 calls that that happened when others were reluctant.

But now we need to go further. Secondary sanctions are required on those cynically filling the gaps made by the sanctions we put in place. We also need to sanction Shoigu and the military generals and chief of staff Gerasimov, and to use our family of overseas territories, which can help us because they hold information on these shell companies and are willing to play their part. We also need to impose restrictions on rouble clearing, and the No. 10 business group should work to make sure it is not just the oil companies that stop working there; we need retail and consumer companies also to pull out of Russia now.

On the military effort, I welcome the fact that since November we have been planning and arming our friends. We now need more air defence systems. We also need to launch deniable cyber-attacks against the Russian Government if we do not see them pull back and we see chemical weapons used in any form. We should also look at defection offers and rewards, which of course should be deniable as well.

I turn briefly to the nuclear threat that Putin has made. It is a sign of weakness. It is a sign of the importance of Ukraine to him, the impact of the measures that we have put in place and the unity of our alliances. However, unfortunately, we must take the threat seriously.

On information operations, we have done an incredible job. The UK has led on this internationally, exposing the reality of what is happening on the ground and the false flags. I pay tribute to Bellingcat and the Centre for Information Resilience, which have done incredible work. We must deny Russia plausible deniability and ensure that future prosecutions can take place. We must also amplify unease and protest within Russia and amplify the costs of its actions.

On diplomatic measures, yes, Putin has united us, but we must ensure that that does not push him closer to China. We must also expel Russian spies. The peace talks are a charade. There has been no ceasefire. When I worked on Syria, we saw exactly the same ridiculous measures, and they made no meaningful contribution.

This is one man’s invasion, and one man is responsible. The bravery of the people of Ukraine is something of which songs will be sung for many years to come. In the Ukrainian national anthem, it says:

“The glory and freedom of Ukraine has not yet died”,

and it must not. Slava Ukraini! Heroiam slava!

18:11

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Not a single one of us in this House would not do anything that could be done to bring the slaughter in Ukraine to an end, and not a single one of us in this House does not feel a certain helplessness because we cannot make that happen, particularly when we think of the children. That makes it all the more important that we do everything else that we can to support the people of Ukraine in their hour of need.

First, the Government must continue supplying the weapons—do not tell us how; just carry on. Secondly, the sanctions must be tough, and they must remain in place. We must isolate Putin for the pariah that he has become. I say that because the only sure way to remove the risk presented in the long term not just to Ukraine but to the rest of Europe is for there to be a change of leadership in Russia. That may not happen today or in the next two years, but at some point the Russian people will say, “Why are we experiencing all these hardships for the sake of a war with our brothers and sisters in Ukraine, the purpose of which we do not understand?”

Thirdly, we must collect the evidence for the ICC. It is essential to bear witness to the crimes being committed. We can see them thanks to the courage of President Zelensky, who has been inspirational—any puppet that Putin installs in Kyiv will have no credibility—and thanks to the journalists who have stood by their posts, filing and broadcasting to counter the lies and disinformation that are as much a part of the war as the rockets that Russia is raining on the people of Ukraine. Fourthly, for those who are streaming across the border, it is the responsibility of all of us to offer them a warm welcome.

We must also think about what this means for the future, as was just said, because the world that we thought we understood has been turned upside-down. Now that President Putin has invaded Ukraine, who is to say with any confidence that he would not be prepared to do the same to the other countries that surround him? We have made a pledge to those who have joined NATO that an attack on one is an attack on all, and we will have to reinforce their defences with our presence to make clear to Russia that this is a line that it does not cross.

We need to invest more in military capability to be ready for the conflicts of the future. Look at the announcement made by Chancellor Scholz on Sunday—that would have been unthinkable even a month ago. We must rebuild our alliances with the European Union. This is no time to be falling out over fish or customs procedures, because, whether a country is in or out of the European Union, we are all Europeans, we face the threat together and we must be ready to make peace together when, one day, there is a change of the leadership in Russia.

What we are witnessing is an attack on the values that bind us together as democratic countries: the freedom to say what we think; the power to choose by whom we are governed; the ability to make those decisions free from the fear of violence at the hands of others; and hope. What we have to do is offer hope that, by those means, we can build a better and more peaceful world to hand on to our children and the children of Ukraine, who are uppermost in our thoughts today and in every day that is to come.

18:15

[Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)]

As countries in Europe and around the world rally in support of Ukraine, so too have Members of this House—this afternoon and ever since the crisis emerged. It proves that in these dark times there is always far more that unites us than divides us. What is more, across the country there are charities, communities and individuals eager to show their support, pitch in and help. In my constituency, I am continually inspired by the outpouring of solidarity that I am witnessing. The work of one such group, spearheaded by Rob Scammell, Ed Maxfield and Doreen Joy, will involve driving vans to the Ukrainian border to deliver food and supplies. These are remarkable people in their own right, but what is more, in just 24 hours, largely through the generosity of local people, they have already filled one van load. Their willingness to brighten such dark times serves as a powerful reminder of the abiding presence of kindness and decency in Britain today.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I totally take my hon. Friend’s point, but may I re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns)? I have personally seen what happens when people jam up the lines of supply with supplies that are not necessary, so I totally take my hon. Friends’ point that it is better to send money rather than goods, because money gets through quicker.

[Duncan Baker]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point, which has been heard loud and clear. The overriding point is that people want to help, and they will have heard that message loud and clear throughout the United Kingdom. Schools also want to help, pitching in with collections. Happisburgh primary school is already filling tables. A collection from Blakeney, a beautiful village in North Norfolk, is driving to Lviv today, and a van is going from Cley on Saturday. The point is that I do not represent a metropolitan constituency, with a large population in a city centre; these are small rural villages, where there is an outpouring of people who want to lend their support. Mr Deputy Speaker, you can only imagine the pride that I have to represent my own home at such times as this.

The reality is that humanitarian crises are never simple, and where there is displacement and mass movements of people there lie individual human beings, each with their own life, needs, hopes and fears. Such a multi-faceted situation requires a multi-pronged approach. I am pleased that the Government recognise that, and are working to deliver it. The United Nations has today reported that 800,000 people have left Ukraine. A herculean effort is now needed. For what it is worth, I think our expanded humanitarian route to support British nationals and anybody settled in the UK to bring grandparents, parents, children and siblings here is the right thing to do. Expediting the route to safety and cutting through bureaucracy by waiving the normal requirements, other than security checks, is the right thing to do.

Establishing a scheme for Ukrainians who have no ties to the UK to come here is the right thing to do as well, and we have committed to do that at speed. As we have heard, that scheme will allow sponsors such as communities, individuals and local authorities to bring Ukrainians into the UK. It is imperative that those communities and individuals who want to sponsor people do so as quickly as they can. That approach will not only offer sanctuary to many but allow willing citizens of this country to play an active part in helping others. I have already had numerous requests in my constituency office to provide that help.

I want to end by saying that many Members will be familiar with the adage that history does not repeat itself; but it often rhymes. As many refugees flowed westward across Europe in the 20th century, once again in the 21st century Europeans are displaced and heading west. Humanity is on the move. Our response now will indicate who we are and what we stand for. Policies are in place, and we should commend the Government and the Ministers in the Chamber today, who have worked tirelessly around the clock, for all that they are doing in Ukraine’s hour of need.

18:20

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

In the last week, the terrifying wail of air-raid sirens has been heard on the European continent for the first time in decades. The heroic reports of the resistance of the Ukrainian army alongside brave civilians bearing arms, theoretically outgunned, outmanned and outmatched, are legion. However, Putin’s imperialist and indiscriminate invasion has not only killed women and children sheltering in their homes as so-called collateral damage, but there is increasing evidence of civilians, including families, being explicitly targeted by Russian forces. He is encircling civilian areas to block off supply routes, he has used cluster munitions in residential areas and there are reports, unverified at this point, of even worse. In short, Vladimir Putin has brought war back to the continent of Europe and in doing so has shown blatant disregard for the Minsk protocol and, crucially and shamefully, the Geneva conventions. Vladimir Putin’s enduring legacy will be that of a war criminal. I very much hope, although sadly doubt, that he will pay for his crimes in The Hague at some future point.

The only heartening thing—the only bit of hope—beyond, of course, the bravery and skill of the Ukrainians, is the cohesion and unity of purpose of the western alliance, including our friends in the European Union who have taken some hitherto unimaginable decisions and acted at a speed that runs entirely counter to the usual sedate Brussels pace. If Putin thought that he could divide the EU, weaken NATO and break the international community, not only has he fallen short, but he has achieved the polar opposite.

The antithesis of Putin’s cowardice as he cowers from covid and criticism in the Kremlin is President Zelensky and the Ukrainian people. I have been asked by a great many constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire North to send our very best wishes to the people of Ukraine and to state that we stand in solidarity with them. As many others have said, everyone wants to help. We are assisting a group of Polish residents in Renfrewshire who are collecting essential items for Ukrainian refugees. My office, despite the advice of the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) earlier, has been acting as a drop-off point since yesterday and we have already been inundated. Some of those people speak to me, sadly and almost in disbelief, about their own UK Government’s refusal to match the EU’s offer of refuge for three years without a visa requirement. Although the changes announced yesterday are welcome, they still fall short of where we should be.

We gave the people of Ukraine an assurance in the Budapest memorandum against threats or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine. I do not want to be naive about just how difficult that undertaking was and is, but we have singularly failed to do that. Far worse, in my opinion, is the failure to offer unconditional refuge to the people of Ukraine. This Government have done a great many things right in the past few weeks, but that failure, alongside the refusal to close the Russian sanctions loopholes and failing even to sanction some key individuals already sanctioned by our allies, is a stain on this Government and this country.

Of course, the villain in all of this is Vladimir Putin. His actions are severely damaging the long-term interests of Russia and, crucially, of the Russian people. I suspect that despite Putin’s best efforts, an increasing number of Russians understand that as well. Thousands march against the invasion, for peace and freedom, and end up thrown in the back of a police van. In Putin’s Russia, the mildest criticism will not be tolerated. History tells us, however, that that cannot last and that ultimately the longing for peace and freedom cannot be silenced. We stand with those Russians who seek peace and a Putin-free future just as much as we stand with the people of Ukraine.

18:24

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

We stand united in this House with the people of Ukraine. These are dark days, as we see daily on television; it is also a dark time for Europe. We are seeing the invasion of a sovereign independent state and scenes that have not been seen since the second world war. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said that a way of life and a world order are being challenged; they are.

The institutions put in place after the second world war were created by men and women who had lived through the horrors of the first and second world wars. They established rules to avoid what we are seeing now in Ukraine. My party was proudly involved in the establishment of NATO—not an aggressive pact, but one that meant collective security and keeping peace in Europe. When Clem Attlee visited Berlin in 1949 to see the airlift around the Soviet blockade, he said that the system that operated behind the iron curtain was a “ghastly travesty” with no true freedom of speech—a system in which scientists, poets and artists were arrested for deviating from the ruling orthodoxy. That is what modern Russia has today.

May I dispel the arguments from all the individuals who say that it had to be like that? It did not. Look back to 1994, when we had the NATO-Russian partnership for peace and the Euro-Atlantic partnership—a way of trying to build with Russia a secure future not only for Russia, but for the rest of Europe. The reason that that approach has not borne fruit is President Putin, who has systematically raped the economy of Russia and who has impoverished people, with a smaller and smaller clique of individuals making the terrible decisions that have led to the invasion of Ukraine.

Did it have to be like that? No, it did not. Have we taken our eye off the ball? Yes, we have. The report by the Intelligence and Security Committee, on which the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and I serve, is now two years old. It spells out very clearly the opportunities missed. I have to say that the Government have turned a blind eye and are doing so even now. They laud themselves for the sanctions that they have brought in, which I support, but has it taken the invasion of a European sovereign nation for them to wake up?

Even now, more can and should be done. We have to ensure that whatever we do now, we are united across Europe. Forget Brexit, forget political slogans about whatever the Germans or others do—we have to stand united in Europe with all those who oppose what is happening in Ukraine.

We also have to ensure that what we do will endure. There will not be a quick fix—I fear that the tragedy unfolding on our television screens will get a lot worse, alas—but we owe this to the people of Ukraine. To defend the way of life that we take for granted, we have to stand up in this House and speak our opinions freely. We also owe it to ourselves to ensure that the sanctions remain in place and that we work to protect those freedoms.

18:28

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

To reiterate the comments of the SNP spokesperson, who is no longer in his place, yesterday a Russian bomb exploded at Babyn Yar, the largest mass grave from the holocaust, where 33,000 Jews were killed one by one in a two-day period and where 100,000 people were ultimately buried. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because on 24 and 25 January, I attended a European Jewish Association delegation to Kyiv to attend Babyn Yar. Just five weeks later, the site where I lit a candle in remembrance has been attacked.

When I was in Kyiv, there was pro-militia graffiti on most streets. The Ukrainians I spoke to on the street had a growing feeling of anxiety, of not knowing what was coming, while we all expected the worst. That has now been realised and they have been attacked. They have been invaded, and it is right that the world supports them.

World Jewish Relief and many other community groups across Prestwich, Whitefield and Radcliffe are raising vital funds for those in Ukraine and those who have already fled Ukraine, and I put on the record my thanks to them. I also thank the Government; so far, I think they have set just the right tone with their humanitarian, economic and military support for Ukraine, all of which has rightly been offered on a swift and resolute basis.

However, with attacks like yesterday’s, perhaps we need to look forward to what support we can offer our friends when this brutal, illegal conflict is over, to repair, rebuild and regenerate, and to protect Ukraine’s heritage. As someone of Ukrainian heritage myself, this is an incredibly challenging time. My family over there are still there, but I know that they are safe; the region they live in has not yet been attacked.

Sanctions have been proposed for many weeks. While I think the Government have got the tone right and Parliament is at its best when it is united, Parliament is also here to act as a scrutineer and sometimes to say, “We don’t think you’ve quite got it right. This is what we think you should do.” Many individuals have been highlighted to whom sanctions should be applied. Where sanctions have not been applied, they need to be applied swiftly and meaningfully.

However, we also need to ensure that many more supportive actions are taken. I appreciated the comments by the Minister for the Armed Forces about what further support is coming in the form of air defence and military support. Having worked with the Minister for Asia and the Middle East many times, I know that she is resolutely committed to ensuring that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office tackles this situation very seriously.

We are in a very challenging time, and we all know that it will last longer and get more serious. With Putin’s heel on the throat of Europe, we all need to take this situation extremely seriously; there will only be more bloodshed before he finally sees sense. I do not think that will be for a while yet, but we must ensure that when he does see sense, the international courts and the rest of the world see him for what he is—a deranged megalomaniac. Hopefully, that will not be too far off. There will be one message from this House, from the rest of the country and, hopefully, from the rest of the world: Slava Ukraini.

18:32

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

Putin’s inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn.

Let us be in absolutely no doubt—not that I believe anyone in this House, or anyone across these islands, Europe or the wider west is—that this is Putin’s war. It is his war of choice—a war against Ukraine, a war against its people, a war against its democracy, a war against its freedom, and a war against that most precious thing of all: its hope. But let Putin be in no doubt that we are united. We are unified in our opposition to his barbarity, and that will not change. We will stand in solidarity and in support of President Zelensky and all those who stand at the forefront of the fight for democracy at this moment.

It is some 30 years since the USSR collapsed. When it did, I was but a bairn—a toddler in my mum’s arms. I could not have envisaged that in my lifetime I would turn on the phone with my own wee boy in the room and look at an image that a woman had posted of her child on the bathroom floor in a makeshift bed, because that is where her bairn goes when the air-raid sirens go off. It does so of its own volition. She says that her child has now become an adult. Putin’s inhumanity to man has caused that.

This Government have done much good in recent weeks. The military support that they have provided is to be commended and their humanitarian response is a start, but we can and must urge them to go further. I believe that they will, in time, do just that. On the humanitarian response, we are of course no longer within the European Union, but we are Europeans and we should have a collective sense of purpose when it comes to our response on this most severe of issues, this refugee crisis that is in front of us. We should have a collective unified European response.

On sanctions, the Government can and must go further. The SWIFT mechanism is indeed a remarkable success, but the reality is that there are oligarchs in this very city who have built their reputations on money laundering, who have turned this city into a laundromat and who are taking their time at this moment to shed their wealth before the sanctions come into play. That cannot be allowed to happen. We must not allow that to happen, particularly when these are the very same people who, like Roman Abramovich, say they have no interest in politics. He says he has no links to the Kremlin, but at the same time, his spokesperson tells us that he is trying to broker peace. He cannot be doing both things at the same time. People like him and his colleagues must feel the full brunt of our force, and they must do so now. I have said it once, I have said it twice and I will say it a third time: Putin’s inhumanity to man makes countless thousands mourn.

18:36

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

This has been a very good debate to be part of this afternoon. Martin Luther King once said:

“Those who love peace must learn to organise as effectively as those who love war.”

That statement has been ringing in my ears in recent days. Vladimir Putin has been organising for this illegal war for years. Our world-leading intelligence capability predicted the invasion weeks before it happened, but we should have been preparing for it, and organising for peace, years before war became inevitable. We should have seen the path Putin was going down when he started his war on Georgia in 2008. We should have seen that his aggression would not end with his annexation of Crimea in 2014, and we should have seen the strategy behind his decision to tighten his grip on Belarus and central Asia.

The result of Putin’s war is playing itself out on our TV screens and social media news feeds. The next few days will be some of the most difficult. Ballistic missiles, airstrikes and Putin’s 40-mile long convoy of artillery will test the strength of Ukraine’s army, but they will not break the spirit of the Ukrainian people, who have our full solidarity in these dark times, as was illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) as he explained his Ukrainian heritage.

The attack on Ukraine marks a new era, a tectonic shift that will have long-term consequences for our country and for Europe. We must ensure that this is an era of unity and strength among our allies, founded on the values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. In the days since the war began, we have seen a rapid and remarkable recognition of this shift across Europe. Putin would have hoped for, and perhaps expected, a weak and divided Europe. He has banked on our indecision, bet on our divisions and gambled that we would not make sacrifices ourselves or challenge his actions. Instead, he has been met with unity and resolve.

NATO’s fundamental importance has been restated and reaffirmed, with new deployments to eastern European allies. Chancellor Olaf Scholz has taken the brave decision to cancel Nord Stream 2, to increase German defence spending and to export military equipment. Sweden and Finland—non-NATO members with histories of neutrality—have exported weapons to Ukraine. The United States has restated its absolute commitment to the security of Europe. The EU has agreed unparalleled sanctions, and the energy transition towards a low-carbon future for Europe, free from the shackles of dependency on Russian energy, has been accelerated, as has been underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd).

[Bob Stewart]

A famous American journalist said that democracies are too pacific in peace and too belligerent in war. Mr Putin has watched us be too pacific. Now war has come, he may be surprised by just how blooming belligerent we can be.

[Mr Lammy]

I suspect this is going to be a long fight, and the short-termism that has sometimes been a problem in the west and in democracies has to end. Corrupt Russian money is finally being targeted. The west has stood together, and so have other nations, in condemning this aggression. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) made it clear that we have to do that.

Putin’s campaign is driving the very things that he claims to oppose. We must use and sustain this unity to maximise the pressure on the Russian regime to end this bloody campaign, and we must be prepared to sustain our focus, as the right hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) illustrated with his experience and expertise, because the struggle to confront the values that Putinism represents will be long. We should have begun organising for a secure peace years ago, but it is no use to the Ukrainian people for us to be defeatist now.

We must be clear that we cannot take some of the actions that the Ukrainian Government are requesting, such as a no-fly zone, which would bring NATO and Russia into direct conflict. There are many such actions that we should avoid, as the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) illustrated, but there are many actions we can take now.

First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) set out in his opening speech, we must continue with our NATO allies to supply lethal defensive weaponry to the Ukrainian armed forces, which need our support in their courageous defence of their sovereign nation state.

Secondly, we need to make our sanctions strong and robust. The measures the Government have taken are welcome, but there is still more we can do. We should target other sectors such as insurance. The EU has sanctioned the Russian insurer Sogaz. Why have we not done that yet?

We should move quicker and broader against Russian banks. The designations to freeze the assets of individuals are moving, but they are moving far too slowly. A week into this war, we have sanctioned only 11 people, most of whom have no assets or minimal ties to the UK. There are people who have already been sanctioned by the United States and the EU, in some instances for several years, whose assets remain liquid in the UK. The Government have said we must move in lockstep with our allies. We agree but, on this matter, we appear to be falling behind. This delay only magnifies the risk of asset flight.

We know that the effect of our sanctions is directly linked to how tightly the tentacles of dirty money are wrapped around our economy and our democracy. We cannot freeze people’s assets if we do not know where those assets are. Sanctions work only if we know who owns what. We urgently need transparency in the system, from property ownership to company ownership.

Although the Government finally seem to be moving after years of indefensible inaction, they are now offering oligarchs 18 months to reorganise their assets—one and a half years for criminals to move their money. That is unacceptable, so I hope the Minister will commit to working with us to change this timetable.

Thirdly, we need diplomatic action to build the widest possible opposition to this war. If a sovereign state can be carved up on the whim of one man, all nations are threatened. Putin believes he is locked in a struggle with the west, and he will have expected our opposition. We must ensure that he feels pressure from other countries around the world, many of which have commercial or other ties to Russia. Some have stepped up eloquently to denounce his new imperialism, but others must find their voice, including allies of our country and fellow democracies.

Our diplomacy must be focused not just on other nations but on the Russian people. These sanctions, necessary as they are, will inevitably have difficult consequences for ordinary Russians, who did not choose this illegal war pursued by Vladimir Putin in their name. We must always be clear that it is the Russian Government, not the Russian people, whose actions we condemn. It is Putin who is responsible for the economic consequences of this war for the Russian people.

We seek only friendship and peace with the Russian public, and the last few days have seen brave acts of protest and criticism. It takes true courage to protest in a police state, and I pay tribute to those in Russia standing up against this invasion. Putin thinks his authoritarianism is his strength, but it is, in fact, his weakness. It is our task to help amplify the voices against war in both Russia and Belarus, standing behind those with the courage to stand up to Putin, from influencers on social media to Orthodox Church leaders on the ground. We must make sure objective news sources can still reach Russia, so that the Russian people can hear the true story of what is unfolding in Ukraine. Will the Minister ensure that the BBC World Service has the capacity to reach as many people as possible in Russia and Ukraine in their native languages?

Fifthly, we should ensure that there is accountability in this conflict. Russia must abide by the laws of armed conflict. But we have all seen horrific violence that appears to target civilians and uses munitions outlawed by international conventions. The scenes from Kharkiv were devastating. Russia must know the world is watching. We must gather the evidence so that anyone responsible for a war crime is held to account, however long it takes. I hope that the Minister will assist the international chief prosecutor in that regard. Members ranging from the hon. Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) have talked about the importance of humanitarian support, and I hope those words are heeded.

I was in Kyiv just a few weeks ago. The Ukrainians I met were dignified and resolute, in the face of hundreds of thousands of Russian troops standing at their gates. Life in the city’s cafes, shops, bars and restaurants buzzed as normal, just as it does in London and across our nation today. The Ukraine I visited was not perfect, but it knew where it was going. The pride the Ukrainians showed in their nation was a reminder that national feeling does not have to be narrow; it can be a powerful force that drives a public towards a democratic and liberal future. It has been heartbreaking to watch what has happened, with this unprovoked attack on not only the Ukrainian people, but the values we share. It has been an assault on democracy, freedom and the rule of law. The Ukrainians’ heroic defence in the face of this invasion should inspire the whole House. Together, we must face down Putin’s grotesque attack on our way of life, organising for a secure peace—a secure Britain, in a secure Europe. Our values are worth defending.

18:47

[The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)]

Let me start by thanking colleagues from across the House for this debate and the Opposition for tabling it, because one thing it has demonstrated is our united support together, and with other people around the world, for the people of Ukraine. I will make a few points about that in a moment.

We are united in our horror and condemnation of the attacks in Ukraine. During Prime Minister’s questions, the House, a full House, applauded the Ukrainian ambassador. I know that there are no party lines on this in terms of how united we are in our support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and in our condemnation of Putin’s unprovoked attack. I thank Members from across the House for their contributions and passionate speeches. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces for his opening remarks. I join him in paying tribute to the courage and resilience of Ukraine’s armed forces. As we speak, Russia continues with its illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine.

As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary outlined to the Human Rights Council yesterday:

“The consequences of Vladimir Putin’s unjustified aggression are horrific…Putin is responsible for civilian casualties and over 500,000 people fleeing—with the numbers still rising fast…He is violating international law, including the UN Charter and multiple commitments to peace and security…The UK stands united in condemning Russia’s reprehensible behaviour.”

Last week, we joined more than 40 countries at the OSCE in condemning Putin’s aggression. The Council of Europe also voted to suspend Russia. May I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) for everything that he did to see Russia suspended and for how he spoke so passionately and strongly on this matter?

At the UN, we joined more than 80 members to back a resolution condemning Russian aggression. Meanwhile, Russia stood alone in opposing it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) mentioned during the debate, the UN General Assembly has just passed a resolution condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine by an overwhelming majority. That demonstrates the international strength of feeling on condemning this invasion.

I also want to pick up on a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on China. We recognise that Russia and China are neighbours and have an important relationship, but Russia is not the same as China, and China claims a policy of non-interference. As fellow permanent members of the Security Council, the UK and China have important diplomatic roles to play in the coming days and weeks. The world will be looking at what China chooses to say and do. China needs to be clear that it does not support Russia’s action in any way.

We have joined forces with the US, the G7, the EU and other partners to take decisive steps through hard-hitting sanctions. These consequences will only increase in breadth and severity as the conflict goes on. I am proud to represent a nation that is so strongly and publicly supporting the people of Ukraine and standing up to the barbaric behaviour of Russia. With our allies and partners, the UK is supporting Ukraine and our partners in the Western Balkans, and we are already providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) and other Members mentioned, today the Disasters Emergency Committee launched its Ukrainian humanitarian appeal. We are matching the first £20 million donated to this appeal—our largest ever aid-match contribution. We have pledged £220 million of aid, which includes £120 million of humanitarian assistance, providing Ukrainians with access to the basic necessities and vital medical supplies.

We call on Russia for unhindered humanitarian access into Ukraine and safe passage out for civilians. This funding will help agencies respond to the deteriorating humanitarian situation, creating a lifeline for Ukrainians with access to basic necessities. We have deployed humanitarian experts to the region to bolster our support to countries receiving those who are fleeing from violence. We are ramping up support for trade in priority industries, such as technology and green energy, to £3.5 billion, including £1.7 billion to boost Ukraine’s naval capability.

[Danny Kruger]

May I endorse the point that my hon. Friend made about the contribution of the British Government to the Disasters Emergency Committee? It is an absolutely tremendous and unprecedented thing that is being done, but, of course, it will only work if it is matched by the generosity of the British public. Will she make that appeal on behalf of the House and urge people to support the Ukrainian refugees financially rather than by sending goods?

[Amanda Milling]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. Hon. Members have talked about their constituents who are desperate to be able to support Ukrainians, and this appeal is the way to do so. I urge people to look at the DEC’s website to see how they can offer support by donating to the appeal.

The UK and our international partners stand united in condemning the Russian Government. Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated and barbaric attack on a sovereign democratic state.

[Alicia Kearns]

I know my right hon. Friend is trying to make progress, but before she moves on from humanitarian aid I want to press her on the point I made in my speech. Our sanctions regime is so important, but at the moment it is preventing humanitarian organisations from doing the deals they need to do, even with sanctioned entities, to get the aid to those who need it. Will she kindly commit to taking that issue away and look at whether we need to introduce the same legislation as the Americans have and that the UK backed at the UN Security Council in December for Afghanistan, to overcome this exact problem?

[Amanda Milling]

I will come on to sanctions, but we must ensure that the humanitarian assistance gets to those who need it, and I will happily follow up with my hon. Friend afterwards.

Putin has chosen a path of wanton bloodshed and destruction, and he must pay a price for the innocent lives lost. The events of the past few days have shown the world that the Kremlin was never serious about engaging in diplomacy; it was focused on deceit and blinded by territorial ambitions. A number of hon. Members from all parts of the House have asked about the role of the International Criminal Court. We agree that it is vital that perpetrators of war crimes are held to account, and we welcome the statement by the ICC prosecutor that he intends to open an investigation into the situation in Ukraine.

[Duncan Baker]

In my speech, I mentioned the enormous outpouring around the community in all our constituencies of people who want to help with the refugee crisis. Can the Minister just say that we will accelerate every single plan we have to ensure that we can sponsor, support and help refugees who are trying to flee the crisis?

[Amanda Milling]

As I noted earlier, in terms of humanitarian assistance there was an announcement today on the campaign that the Disasters Emergency Committee is running. I must make progress, because we are going to run out of time.

A number of colleagues mentioned sanctions. We have been at the forefront of the international response, and I reassure colleagues that we have been acting in concert with our allies. Our measures will deliver a devastating blow, as we have already seen, to Russia’s economy and military for years to come. Our sanctions combine our partners’ strongest measures and have already had an impact on the Russian state.

Over the past week, we have announced punishing new sanctions that will strike at the heart of Putin’s inner circle and the financial institutions and military-industrial machine that prop up his regime. I could go into detail on the number of designations and how many businesses and individuals will be affected, and the statutory instruments that were announced and have entered into force through an affirmative motion. The two motions approved on Tuesday 1 March brought into force new financial measures covering sovereign debt, sterling clearing and securities, as well as new trade measures.

I could list a number of other measures in this space, but they are only the beginning. We have a rolling programme that will continue to ratchet up the pressure on Russia. We will designate additional companies and members of the elite over the coming weeks and months. The sanctions will strike at the members of Putin’s inner circle, wherever in the world they are based.

In conclusion, the Russian Government have lied to the world and to their own people. It is vital for the safety of every nation that Putin’s venture should ultimately fail and be seen to fail.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House condemns Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine; stands in solidarity with Ukrainians in their resistance to Russia’s invasion of their sovereign state; supports the UK providing further defensive military, humanitarian and other assistance to Ukraine; recognises the importance of international unity against Russian state aggression; and calls on the Government to ensure that the United Kingdom’s NATO defence and security obligations are fulfilled to counter the threats from Russia.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

This excellent debate and, at the start of our proceedings, the outpouring of love and solidarity for the Ukrainian ambassador, who was present, with that long standing ovation that the Minister mentioned—unprecedented in my 30 years as an MP—clearly demonstrate in a graphic way the 100% support that this House of Commons has for the brave people of Ukraine. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Business without Debate

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Civil Aviation

That the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Question agreed to.

Deferred Divisions

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Mark Spencer relating to Estimates (Liaison Committee Recommendation). —(Gareth Johnson.)

Question agreed to.

Estimates (Liaison Committee Recommendation)

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145(3)),

That this House agrees with the Report of the Liaison Committee of 1 March:

That a day not later than 18 March be allotted for the consideration of the following Estimates for financial year 2021-22: Department for Education, insofar as it relates to the National Tutoring Programme and Adult Education; and Ministry of Defence.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Question agreed to.

Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gareth Johnson.)

19:01

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate, which is the first such debate on the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979 since 24 March 2015.

Vaccines have been our major public health defence against covid-19. This debate is not about all those millions who have benefited from vaccination; it is about the tens of thousands who did the right thing, were vaccinated but then, as a result, suffered death, serious injury or other life-changing adverse consequences. The vaccine damage payment scheme was extended to cover covid-19 vaccinations in recognition of the potential importance of this issue.

I am delighted that the Prime Minister also clearly believes that this is an important issue. On 11 August last year, he wrote to Kate Scott, whose husband Jamie, a fit 44-year-old software engineer, spent 124 days in hospital following severe brain injury caused by the vaccine. The Prime Minister said, referring to Kate’s husband Jamie and his family from Warwickshire,

“you’re not a statistic and must not be ignored”.

The Prime Minister went on to thank Kate Scott for her suggested changes to the vaccine damage payment scheme and promised that the Government would consider the case for reform.

Why, then, is there no tangible evidence of the Government having done anything in the six months since the Prime Minister said those words? The Government have repeatedly blocked my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill, which was briefly debated in this House on 10 September. Why have they not even uprated the £120,000 payment under the scheme to take account of inflation since 2007, when it was last reviewed? On this basis, the maximum should now be over £177,000. Why have no payments yet been made under the scheme, even where a full inquest has established that the vaccine was the cause of death?

That, sadly, is the situation of Lisa Shaw’s family. The 44-year-old BBC Radio Newcastle presenter died from a brain haemorrhage confirmed by a coroner in August as having been caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine, as reported in The Sunday Telegraph on 5 December 2021. Another case about which somebody has written to me arose from a decision by the Westminster coroner who recorded the AstraZeneca vaccine as the cause of death on her mother’s death certificate. Neither of those families is yet to receive any acknowledgement that they qualify under the VDPS, let alone that they will be compensated. Are the Government disputing these coroners’ verdicts? I sincerely hope not, and perhaps the Minister can confirm that in her response.

The Sunday Times reported on 27 February this year that 920 coronavirus vaccination injury claims had been registered, but none has been accepted or been the subject of any payment. That article referred to Zion Spit, described as “a ridiculously healthy” 48-year-old antique dealer from Cumbria, whose death was confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine. His partner of 21 years and fiancée, Vikki Spit, has been in touch with me to express her solidarity with my efforts to obtain redress from the Government and her frustration at the Government’s refusal to engage with victims and their families.

Will the Minister please tell us now when the first payments will be made under the VDPS, and why, despite having told me that 26 staff are now processing claims—11 more than in December—no payments have yet been made? Will she also say how many medical assessors are currently reviewing outstanding cases, and when the backlog will be cleared?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this debate. He has been a doughty campaigner on this issue, and we all recognise that and wish him well. Does he not agree that while it is right and proper that we have confidence in the vaccine—including those of us who have taken the vaccine; the two doses and then the extra one—there are undoubtedly occasions where things go wrong, as he has outlined, and on those occasions there should be appropriate compensation? The Government and the Minister have a duty of care, and indeed a moral obligation to stand up for those people, and when it comes to being appropriately compensated, that must move in line with the times and reflect not just the loss alone, but dealing with the consequences.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman. I describe him as a veteran of this issue, because he was one of the Members who participated in the 2015 debate to which I referred.

Many of those who have written to me have indicated that even a payment of £177,000 would be totally inadequate for the injuries and financial losses that they have suffered, including loss of earnings and the cost of care. The range of adverse conditions caused by the vaccines is extensive. By way of example, Mr Julian Gooddy of Henley has given me permission to disclose his circumstances because of his frustration at the lack of understanding by the Government.

Two weeks after his vaccine, Mr Gooddy experienced acute pain throughout his body. He developed Bell’s palsy, required treatment for his left eye, which would not close, and suffered bowel incontinence and severe fatigue. Peripheral numbness and pain in his upper legs, feet, neck and hands then developed. He was in and out of the accident and emergency department at the John Radcliffe Hospital for two weeks, being prescribed steroids, pain killers and undertaking multiple MRI and CT scans, electromyographs and nerve conduction studies. He then collapsed at home in pain and was admitted as an in-patient for five days of intravenous immunoglobulin in an effort to halt the continuing nerve damage caused by the autoimmune response to the vaccine. He was then diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, which is an autoimmune disease in which the body attacks its own myelin sheath.

Does my hon. Friend the Minister, having listened to the circumstances of Mr Gooddy, believe that his case meets the 60% disablement threshold? I have received so many other reports of complicated symptoms, which have been a real nightmare for our hard-working NHS to address and for which there are, in many cases, no cure.

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

As we can tell from the distressing stories that my hon. Friend is telling, this is an important debate, and I regret the empty Chamber. He is a brave Member of the House who speaks his own mind in defiance of conventional wisdom. Does he agree that the same goes for a large number of doctors and scientists who are also defying conventional wisdom to raise concerns about the safety and efficacy of the vaccines, particularly when it comes to the vaccination of children, which the Government are now encouraging? Does he also agree that the Government should be as transparent and open as possible about the risks and the safety and efficacy of the vaccines?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Absolutely. I have been in correspondence with constituents who work at the Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Poole Hospital who have expressed their concerns. One of the reasons many people with medical expertise are worried about it is that they have seen such examples in their work.

My hon. Friend refers to the issue of encouraging more child vaccines to be administered, but if we are going to do that, as well as it being important for the parents of those children to appreciate the risk as they are thinking about it, surely we should be able to give them the secure knowledge that if something goes wrong and if against everybody’s expectations, those vaccines turn out to have dire and life-changing consequences that last for 40 or 50 years or longer, the Government are on their side. At the moment, I am afraid that there is no evidence that the Government are on the side of those hapless victims of vaccine damage.

In recent months, I have received hundreds of emails reporting deaths and serious illnesses involving immune thrombocytopenic purpura, which causes the number of blood platelets to be reduced. On 10 January, in question 100420, I asked the Minister what was being done to investigate the 427 suspected cases of that and if the Government will make it their policy to inform those affected of the availability of the vaccine damage payment scheme.

Following my point of order yesterday, complaining about the Government’s failure to respond to my questions, I received a response from the Minister yesterday evening, which stated:

“Following a scientific assessment of all the available data and a review by the Commission on Human Medicines’ COVID-19 Vaccines Benefit Risk Expert Working Group, it was determined that an association between the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine and TTS”—

thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome—

“was likely.”

I hope that she will unravel the jargon in that answer and confirm in simple terms that that means that in the cases to which I have referred, causation has now been established and there should be no bar to the compensation scheme coming into effect.

Will the Minister also answer the part of my question relating to whether the Government will notify those 427 families affected by that particular aspect of the availability of the VDPS? Surely that would be the most basic humane response. Why have the Government not responded to that at all? As you can probably tell, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is making me angry. In my point of order, I referred to five other named day questions that had not been answered and they remain unanswered. Will she apologise and explain?

Many correspondents from constituencies across the United Kingdom remain sceptical about whether they will qualify under the VDPS. The issue has all the hallmarks of becoming a bureaucratic nightmare for victims and their families. Why should the Government force those people to go through the ordeal and delay of having to seek expensive legal help instead of enabling their representatives in Parliament to be given the information necessary to establish their claims? That is why those parliamentary questions and this debate are relevant, because it would enable our constituents to establish their claims without having to go to the law.

The scale of this vaccine nightmare is now such that the number of vaccine damage cases exceeds all cases arising from previous vaccine programmes. In answer to question 92799, the Minister confirmed that, as at 15 December 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency had received and analysed a total of 410,232 yellow card reports: 145,446 from people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 240,065 from those who received the AstraZeneca vaccine and 24,721 from those who received the Moderna vaccine. Some patients were reported to have died shortly after vaccination: 666 in the Pfizer reports, 1,164 in the AstraZeneca reports and 23 in the Moderna reports. There are people dying from this vaccine, but not many—well, actually quite a large number, and far more than we see in the tragedies that quite rightly detain this House for hours on end. I think this is a tragedy that demands the attention of the House and of the Minister.

As not all those who died shortly after vaccination will have died because of the vaccine, I thought it was fair to ask a further question as to the number of such cases where the yellow card analysis showed that the death would have happened regardless of the vaccine or medicine being administered. I asked this question to help promote vaccine confidence and to prevent inaccurate conclusions from being reached. Much to my disappointment and dismay, that question has not been answered in a timely fashion or at all. Why not, one asks? Surely the Government must have this information, and their failure to produce it can only help further raise suspicions of a lack of transparency. The Government almost seem to be in denial about all this.

The reluctance of the Government to provide timely information is further exemplified by the delay in updating the information provided as at 15 December. Almost three months have now elapsed since then, and the Government have ducked my further question about sharing the results of the MHRA analysis of yellow cards for patients in respect of whom they were received. Since the last report, we have had a mass of booster vaccines, and some people have written to me saying that they have suffered dire consequences as a result.

I expect that, in her response, the Minister will point out that the vaccine damage payment scheme does not preclude individuals from bringing claims against the manufacturers for product liability. We know, however, that the Government decided to indemnify and thereby exclude manufacturers from potential liability, but we do not know the terms. In her answer to question 92800 of 14 February 2022, the Minister said that her Department is

“providing indemnities in the unexpected event of any adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures put in place.”

She said, however, that she was unable to provide information about the terms of those contracts between the Government and vaccine manufacturers as they are commercially sensitive. In those circumstances, should those who have suffered adverse reactions that could not have been foreseen through the robust checks and procedures put in place be making claims against the Government or the manufacturers, or both? I hope the Minister is listening to this question, because it is in the public interest that she gives a definitive answer. People are champing at the bit in wondering whether they need to make claims against the manufacturers or the Government, or whether they can rely on the VDPS.

In introducing the vaccine damage payment legislation in 1979, the then Secretary of State for Social Services, David Ennals, referred to the “humane motivation” of the legislation, and said that

“it is important, since its aim is to provide a measure of financial support to people severely disabled as a result of vaccination, and to their families and others involved in looking after them. There can be no doubt that those concerned pay a high price in terms of personal disablement…and that their families share in that price.

For most people, vaccination is a beneficial procedure, and it is right for the community to give financial aid and support to those who suffer as the result of vaccinations given as part of the public policy programme.”—[Official Report, 5 February 1979; Vol. 962, c. 32.]

That is what he said all those years ago, and those sentiments remain as relevant as ever today. I hope that, as a result of this debate, the Government will, through their actions, show that they share those sentiments. As the Prime Minister said, the victims of covid-19 vaccine damage are not statistics and “must not be ignored”—not for any longer, anyway.

19:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for bringing this debate to the Floor of the House; it is an important debate that raises important questions.

Vaccinations are an effective health intervention which can save lives and promote good health. We have one of the best immunisation programmes in the world and are at the forefront of rolling out new initiatives, and I am very proud that the vaccine programme has been a key factor in getting us through the covid pandemic. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there are extremely rare and very sad circumstances where individuals have experienced severe disablement with a possible link to the vaccine.

The VDPS that we are debating today is one of the many ways in which the Government support individuals and their families where that has happened. It recognises that vaccines themselves remain the best way to protect us, particularly against covid, and that people have done the right thing in coming forward and having the vaccine. I want to assure people today that the vaccine is safe, and we are still encouraging people to have their vaccination, but I do recognise that some people have had experiences from the vaccine that we need to address, and that my hon. Friend is asking very important questions.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I know my hon. Friend the Minister is about to talk about the types of support available, so I want to make my pitch at this point: I have a wonderful 38-year-old female constituent, a mother of three, who after her first shot of AstraZeneca has had horrendous, life-limiting conditions. The NHS seems to have closed its doors to her: for 10 months she has been asking for help, but no one will give it. She has had to go to Germany to get the specialist blood analysis she needs. So can the Minister kindly say what medical ongoing support and pathways the NHS has created within its support specifically to ensure that people like my constituent get the help they so desperately need to live healthier, happier lives?

[Maria Caulfield]

If my hon. Friend contacts me after the debate I will be happy to find out what specific help is available for her constituent in the local area. But we do have a robust safety mechanism in place, dealing with not just covid vaccines but all medicines, and the VDPS was established in 1979 as a one-off, tax-free payment, with the aim of easing the financial burden on individuals when, on very rare occasions, vaccination has caused severe disablement.

For the specific groups of vaccines that are covid-related, the Prime Minister announced on 21 September 2021 that responsibility for the operation of the VDPS would transfer from the Department for Work and Pensions to us in the Department of Health and Social Care on 1 November 2021. We are picking up that mantle and are working at pace to address the many issues my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has raised.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the compensation scheme to which the Minister referred apply across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—will people in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales qualify if they have ailments such as those to which the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) referred?

[Maria Caulfield]

My understanding is that it does, but I will clarify that for the hon. Gentleman as I do not want to inadvertently mislead the House if I have got it wrong.

The NHS Business Services Authority has taken over the process and is looking to improve the claimant journey on the scheme through increasing personalised engagement and reducing response times, which was one of the points made today. A difficulty we have with the covid-19 vaccines is that they are new; we are still learning about them and the scientific evidence on potential causal links between the vaccine and instances of disablement is still developing. That is part of the reason for the delay in claims being addressed.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend will not have time to answer all my questions, so will she meet me to discuss the issues I have raised that she is unable to deal with now? Also, on this issue of evidence, does she require more evidence than a coroner’s verdict to enable the relatives of somebody who died following the vaccine to get compensation?

[Maria Caulfield]

The ruling on a causal link between a medicine and an adverse event, and whether that has led to death or injury, is made by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority. A process has to be followed—the process is independent of Government —and that has started on this range of vaccines. It remains vital that decisions are made on the evidence presented. Currently, the MHRA is going through the notes of affected patients to gather that evidence and look for causal links.

If these vaccines were perhaps five, six or seven years old, we would be in a very different place. However, as of 18 February this year, there have been 920 claims to the vaccine damage payment scheme related to covid-19. The work currently going on is establishing whether there is a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse events that people have been suffering. The yellow card scheme, which we have for all medicines, helps us to gather information, and I encourage people, whether they have had severe or minor symptoms—whatever they are—to report them, because that is how we gather evidence on medicines.

For all the claimants who have applied to the VDPS in relation to covid-19, while we are gathering evidence from their medical records, the approach will be to look at the assessment criteria and ensure that we are in the strongest possible position before we put the evidence to the medical examiner. That in turn will help ensure that claims are assessed as quickly as possible. We think that will take about six months. I will certainly meet my hon. Friend and ensure that we hold people’s feet to the fire so that there is not a longer delay than is needed. The NHSBSA is working as quickly as possible to progress claims. I understand that it has been in touch with claimants to update them on progress and will continue to update them as it has news.

We estimate that the process will take on average six months. It requires gaining access to people’s medical notes and their previous medical history, because, while someone may have had a reaction on the day, we cannot say for sure until we have looked at all the evidence that that is a causal link between the vaccine and the adverse event, even though there may be a strong suggestion that it is. It is therefore important to follow that process correctly.

My hon. Friend touched on payments. The payment was set originally at £10,000 in 1979, and it is currently £120,000. We have not made any payments in relation to the covid vaccine, but we are working at pace through all applications to the scheme and, once a causal link is established in those cases, we can look at those claims more swiftly.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to a meeting to discuss the further issues that she cannot cover tonight. On the £120,000 payment, that has not increased since 2007, so in effect it should now be worth £177,000. Why will the Government not give in on that point? That would be a great victory tonight.

[Maria Caulfield]

I am not going to commit tonight to increasing the payment—I think that is above my pay grade. Perhaps we can discuss that further when we meet.

I reassure people watching the debate and right hon. and hon. Members that the safety of the covid vaccine and its benefits outweigh any adverse events that may be caused by it. With any medicine—even a simple paracetamol—if people look at the yellow forms and the side effects mentioned on the leaflet in the packet, they will see that there are always side effects. We want to reassure people that the vaccine is still a safe and effective way of protecting them and their loved ones from the virus. However, where there have been concerns, we need to identify causal links and, if they are established, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) pointed out, we must be better at supporting people. I am very keen to do that.

Although these vaccines have been with us for nearly two years, they are still new in the lifespan of medicines and we are still learning about both their efficacy and their side effect profile. Each vaccine is assessed by a team of scientists and clinicians on a case-by-case basis. We are acting at pace, although it can feel like a long time for people affected by side effects. I will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to discuss the matter further. I am keen to get support and payment in place for those affected, if we can, as quickly as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

19:29

House adjourned.

Deferred Divisions

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

Division 204

Ayes: 302

---

Conservative: 296
Democratic Unionist Party: 6

Noes: 1

---

Labour: 1

Division 205

Ayes: 303

---

Conservative: 296
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Independent: 1

Noes: 11

---

Labour: 8
Independent: 2
Scottish National Party: 1

Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance and Information- Sharing) (Consequential Provision and Modifications) Order 2022

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Christina Rees

† Bacon, Gareth (Orpington) (Con)

† Bowie, Andrew (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)

† Edwards, Ruth (Rushcliffe) (Con)

† Fellows, Marion (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)

† Harris, Rebecca (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)

† Howell, John (Henley) (Con)

† Linden, David (Glasgow East) (SNP)

† Mackrory, Cherilyn (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)

† Mills, Nigel (Amber Valley) (Con)

† Mishra, Navendu (Stockport) (Lab)

† Mohindra, Mr Gagan (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)

† Murray, Ian (Edinburgh South) (Lab)

† Osborne, Kate (Jarrow) (Lab)

† Russell, Dean (Watford) (Con)

† Stewart, Iain (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland)

Stringer, Graham (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)

Sultana, Zarah (Coventry South) (Lab)

Guy Mathers, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 2 March 2022

[Christina Rees in the Chair]

Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance and Information-Sharing) (Consequential Provision and Modifications) Order 2022

09:25

[The Chair]

I remind Members to observe social distancing and to wear masks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Disability Assistance and Information-Sharing) (Consequential Provision and Modifications) Order 2022.

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. This order is made under section 104 the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for a necessary legislative amendment in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. It will support the implementation of welfare powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament under the Scotland Act 2016.

The order amends legislation as a consequence of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018, which was passed by the Scottish Parliament, and of regulations made under that Act. Through the 2018 Act, the Scottish Government can introduce new forms of disability assistance using the social security powers devolved under section 22 of the Scotland Act 2016. Section 31 of the 2018 Act allows the Scottish Government to provide financial assistance called “disability assistance” for people in Scotland with a disability. Disability assistance will replace three existing UK-wide payments that are currently delivered by the Department for Work and Pensions: disability living allowance, personal independence payments and attendance allowance.

Through their devolved powers, the Scottish Government are legislating for an adult disability payment to replace the personal independence payment, beginning with a pilot on 21 March. Applications will be accepted from individuals of between 16 years old and state pension age. At its introduction, adult disability payment will operate in broadly the same way and for broadly the same group of people as personal independence payment. The intention of the UK Government and the Scottish Government is that while there are individuals in Scotland who remain in receipt of either adult disability payment or personal independence payment, there is equitable treatment of the approximately 300,000 individuals whose personal independence payment awards will be transferred to adult disability payment.

In respect of the equivalent reserved benefit, the UK Government allow eligibility for a driving licence at the age of 16 rather than 17 and provide for an exemption or a 50% reduction in vehicle excise duty, a VAT zero rate for the leasing of vehicles to individuals under the Motability scheme and a VAT zero rate for the onward sale of vehicles previously let under that scheme. We also provide an exemption from insurance premium tax on the insurance that covers vehicles leased under the Motability scheme. The order extends those provisions to ensure that people on adult disability payment will benefit from those reliefs.

The order also extends the definition of “disabled person” in certain taxation legislation to include individuals who are in receipt of a qualifying rate of adult disability payment, thereby ensuring that people in receipt of adult disability payment will receive the same tax treatment as those who receive equivalent reserved benefits. That will apply to the early withdrawal of funds from a child trust fund or junior individual savings account if the young person is terminally ill, and to the tax treatment of property held in trust for the benefit of a disabled person.

The order ensures that the adult disability payment will act as a qualifying benefit for the Christmas bonus, carer’s credit and carer’s allowance in England and Wales. That will support the continued entitlement to those benefits of an individual in receipt of adult disability payment who has left Scotland and moved to another part of the UK. In that situation, the Scottish Government would continue to pay adult disability payment for a period of 13 weeks, to give the individual time to make an application for personal independence payment in England and Wales. Corresponding provisions for entitlement to carer’s allowance and carer’s credit have been included for Northern Ireland, should a new carer need to apply for support in respect of their caring responsibilities to the individual who is receipt of adult disability payment, for those 13 weeks only.

The order also makes changes to allow an individual who is entitled to adult disability payment to apply for a proxy vote at a UK parliamentary or local election or for a proxy signature for a recall petition without the need for their application to be attested. Similarly to the other provisions I have outlined, that will ensure that the system for disabled people in Scotland who receive a Scottish social security benefit operates in the same way as the system for a disabled person who is entitled to the equivalent corresponding reserved social security benefit. Those changes are not within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, so it falls to the UK Government to facilitate them through this order.

The order is a sensible and pragmatic move on the part of the UK Government in their commitment to make devolution work and reflects strong co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

09:31

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees.

We will not divide the Committee on this order; we fully agree with it. We have continued frustrations that such provisions, which are transferred under the 2016 Act and the subsequent legislation, are taking a long time to get through.

I have some questions for the Minister. There is interaction between the new Scottish systems and existing UK infrastructure, including in respect of the DWP and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—I am sure the Minister’s inbox is as full as mine with messages from constituents who have problems and are struggling to get a response from the DVLA—so how do we ensure the seamless transition of the benefit? Even more importantly, how do we ensure seamless passporting to other benefits and other attachments to the new benefit?

How do we ensure that people who are on PIP in particular are aware of the different timescales for when people can apply and of who to apply to? There is no doubt that the DWP system is, by its very nature, incredibly complicated—we see from the experience of our constituents who apply for PIP and other benefits how complicated the process can be—so what support will be put in place to ensure the seamless transition from previous benefits to the new benefits administered in Scotland? How can we ensure there are no delays in the process? Personal independence payments go to some of the most vulnerable people in the country so we would not want things to be delayed.

If I was being slightly playful at this time in the morning, I would have asked the Minister to emphasise the fact that if someone moves from Scotland to another part of the UK, the Scottish Government will continue to pay for 13 weeks, and to comment on how that would relate to pensions in an independent Scotland, but I shall not push him on that today. Perhaps the hon. Member for Glasgow East could enlighten us when he makes his contribution for the SNP.

I have asked several questions but we will not divide the Committee. It is great that orders such as this are now coming through and that powers are being transferred, as set out in the 2016 Act and promised after the Smith commission. We fully support the Government in respect of this order.

09:33

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees, and to follow a slightly playful hon. Member for Edinburgh South. I am glad that he and his party are now finally entertaining the idea that a Scottish referendum is coming and that we will have a great debate on pensions. I gently suggest to him that changing his party’s logo from a rose to a thistle is probably not the answer that people in Scotland are looking for in respect of whether Scottish Labour is now relevant.

I very much welcome the order and we will certainly support it. The Scottish Government are using their limited devolved powers to tackle inequality for disabled people, to ensure that everybody has a chance to reach their potential. One of my great frustrations throughout the pandemic was seeing how 2.5 million disabled people in the UK were shamefully overlooked when it came to the £20 increase to universal credit. It is incredibly disappointing that 2.5 million people who were legacy benefit claimants did not receive that.

The new ADP is going to be one of the most difficult and complex things that the Scottish Government have had to deliver within the new devolved framework, but we are very much looking forward to the challenge. It is important to put on the record the fact that the Scottish Government have abolished the controversial DWP assessment system. Instead, we will hold person-centred assessments, where absolutely necessary.

If our social security system is to work for the most vulnerable, there must be a root-and-branch review of it south of the border and, yes, of the limited powers we have in Scotland. However, bearing in mind that 85% of welfare spending is still controlled here in London, it is incumbent on the UK Government to conduct a root-and-branch review of the social security system, because the overwhelming message in my constituency back home in Scotland is that social security from Westminster is not working. We are told that powers will be transferred to the Scottish Parliament, but until all those powers are transferred, I rather fear that that will continue to be the resounding message from my constituents week in, week out.

09:35

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. First, will he talk us through the 13-week run-on? Does it apply both ways? If somebody leaves England and moves to Scotland, for instance, do we fund 13 weeks of PIP while they go through the Scottish application process? What happens if a claim cannot be completed in 13 weeks? I am sure we all have many constituency cases of PIP claims not being approved within 13 weeks, especially if people are refused and have to appeal. Does the person effectively have a complete gap in their benefit payment until the claim is resolved in England, and do they lose all the knock-on benefits in the meantime? Indeed, they might effectively lose their right to vote, because they think they can cast a proxy vote but then cannot because it somehow drops away.

Secondly, I think the Minister said that for as long as the new Scottish benefit remains broadly equivalent to PIP, the provisions in the order apply. However, I do not see any measures to automatically terminate the add-on provisions if at some point we think the Scottish benefit has diverged too far from PIP. What is the process if the Scottish benefit becomes much more generous, or has completely different triggers, or is no longer seen as equivalent to PIP? Would we have to come back with a new order and start disapplying all these things? How will the situation be monitored? Will there have to be a continual assessment of Scottish Government legislation to decide whether the trigger has been met? Or does the Minister think that is unlikely because most of the things we are extending in the order are so automatic and uncontentious, and it is hard to believe that the Scottish system could ever become so different that we would ever need to withdraw any of them?

09:37

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and particularly to the hon. Members for Edinburgh South and for Glasgow East for indicating their support for the measure. They and my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley all raised perfectly fair questions, which I will endeavour to answer.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South asked about the transition process. Initially, there will be a pilot scheme for new claimants only in three parts of Scotland—Dundee, Perth and Kinross, and the Western Isles—before existing claimants are gradually transitioned over later in the year, so there will not be a cliff-edge or big-bang transition. I hope that will allay the hon. Member’s perfectly valid concerns about ensuring, as he rightly said, that the most vulnerable people in society are not disadvantaged.

It is very tempting at this hour of the morning to enter into a broader constitutional debate, but I am not sure my Whip would be particularly accommodating of that. In the same spirit, I will not rise to the bait of some of the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow East. I am sure there will be plenty other occasions in the weeks, months, years and decades ahead—

[Ian Murray]

In the generations ahead.

[Iain Stewart]

Generations, indeed. I am sure we will return to these matters.

I should also say that such things are complex to transition, and we have been co-operating with the Scottish Government to ensure that it can happen in their desired timescale, with the pilots starting later this month. I also pay tribute to officials from both the DWP and the Scottish Government for doing the detailed preparatory work to ensure that this change can happen.

Finally, on the sensible questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, the situation does apply both ways. If a person in England claims PIP or one of the other benefits and moves to Scotland, the DWP would look to ensure that they had an equivalent transition period. The 13 weeks is a safety net, and applications can be made in advance. It is there to ensure that payments can continue if there is some delay, so that no one is disadvantaged.

On my hon. Friend’s further sensible point about whether the matter would need to be revisited if the Scottish Government chose to change the adult disability payment so that it did not capture broadly the same cohort as PIP, that is not the case at the moment. The definition of eligibility is very similar, and the quantum of payment is broadly similar. Until that diverges significantly—I have no crystal ball to see whether it will—the current carry-over remains sensible. Of course, we will always keep things under review to ensure we were not missing anyone out. I hope that reassures my hon. Friend.

This order is a sensible and pragmatic move on the UK Government’s part to make devolution work and reflects strong co-operation between the Scottish and UK Governments.

Question put and agreed to.

09:41

Committee rose.

Draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 General Committees

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: Sir Gary Streeter

† Ali, Tahir (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)

† Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Exeter) (Lab)

† Churchill, Jo (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)

† Dines, Miss Sarah (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)

† Glindon, Mary (North Tyneside) (Lab)

† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)

Johnson, Kim (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)

† Marson, Julie (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)

† Moore, Damien (Southport) (Con)

† Saxby, Selaine (North Devon) (Con)

Smith, Nick (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)

† Smith, Royston (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)

† Stuart, Graham (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)

† Sunderland, James (Bracknell) (Con)

† Thomas, Derek (St Ives) (Con)

Twigg, Derek (Halton) (Lab)

† Zeichner, Daniel (Cambridge) (Lab)

Dominic Stockbridge, Niamh McEvoy, Committee Clerks

† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Wednesday 2 March 2022

[Sir Gary Streeter in the Chair]

Draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022Genetically Modified Organisms

14:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jo Churchill)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 20 January 2022. The Government’s 25-year environment plan sets out our continued commitment to protecting and restoring natural resources and to supporting sustainable agriculture. This statutory instrument will help to ensure that we have the regulations that we need to address that.

As a country, we are internationally renowned for our scientific excellence in genetics and genomics. We want our scientists and researchers to be at the forefront of exploring what technology has to offer. The draft instrument uses existing powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to simplify the process of research and development in plants that have been produced by genetic technologies, such as gene editing, where genetic changes could have been developed using traditional breeding methods. It will help us to adopt a more scientific and proportionate approach to the regulation of gene editing, allowing our bioscience sector to test the benefits and safety of new products by simplifying the system, while ensuring that checks and balances are still in place.

Gene editing can improve sustainability and productivity in agriculture by helping farmers to grow plants that are more nutritious and need less fertiliser. The existing regulations are more than 30 years old, and are outdated and restrictive. Over the past decades, advances in genetic technologies have been rapid, but the regulations have not kept sufficient pace to allow us to benefit from advances.

Last year, we ran a consultation on the regulation of genetic technologies, receiving nearly 6,500 responses. All were considered carefully. We sought advice from independent scientific experts, the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, ACRE, which concluded that gene-edited organisms do not pose any greater risk than organisms produced through traditional breeding methods.

The draft instrument will remove certain technical barriers to research and development, such as processing applications, advertising and post-trial monitoring. It will simplify the need for the Secretary of State to give consent on an individual basis. The territorial extent of the instrument is England and Wales, but the application of the SI will be England only. We conducted an impact assessment that is available on legislation.gov.uk.

To be clear, the draft instrument is for non-marketing research and development purposes only. We want to ensure that we are moving forward carefully. The change operates within our existing robust regulatory framework on GMOs and field trials. Any commercial cultivation of such plants will still need to be regulated in accordance with our existing GMO rules. In addition, our established GM inspectorate, run by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, will continue to act as an inspecting body of GM field trials, including the ones enabled by this SI.

I am most grateful to the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of and report on the draft instrument, to which we have responded. I want to be absolutely clear that the gene-edited plants captured by the SI will not contain DNA from different species; they will have precise targeted changes made to their existing DNA. That means that they are considered gene edited, rather than genetically modified. Traditional breeding methods could be used to develop the same plants, but with less efficiency. This will allow us to optimise the benefits faster and with greater ease.

Across the world, other countries are surging forward. We need our scientists and growers to be part of this future. The draft instrument is the first step in our scientific but cautious, step-by-step approach to enable the benefits of gene editing to be realised and to help us to adapt to the impact of climate change, to reduce emissions and to help meet our ambitions in the 25-year environment plan. Indeed, Professor Dale Sanders from the John Innes Centre said that

“Defra’s announcement today is a step in the right direction”,

as

“Gene editing offers an opportunity to revolutionize our food systems.”

In a second step, we will be seeking primary powers to review the regulatory definitions of a GMO to exclude certain organisms produced by gene editing and other genetic technologies from GMO regulations. That will be followed by a review of our approach to GMO regulation more broadly.

Unlocking innovation in genetic technologies will help to harness nature’s genetic resources to make our farming systems productive, sustainable and resilient. We have seen first hand how useful technologies such as CRISPRs—clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats—can be in the medical field, particularly in the rapid roll-out of vaccines and the treatment of cancer. This first step will help to emulate the success of those benefits in agriculture, and will take us a step further towards the goal set out by the Prime Minister of our becoming a science superpower. As such, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

14:36

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Gary, and I am grateful to the Minister, not just for her helpful introductory remarks but for the pre-meeting discussion we had a few days ago. She has set out clearly the Government’s view on this important piece of legislation. I will make Labour’s position very clear from the outset. We are not going to oppose this SI, but we are not satisfied that the Government have yet set out the clear and strong regulatory framework that is needed to provide the certainty that investors need, the reassurance that the public need, or the protection that the environment needs. All those things are important, but they are also interrelated, because investor confidence does not come without public confidence.

Labour is pro-science and pro-innovation. We want our scientists to succeed and use their skills for good here in the UK, and we know that crop development and innovation has brought us all huge gains. As Henry Dimbleby observed in the opening comments to the national food strategy—to which, of course, we still await a Government response—

“The food system we have today is both a miracle and a disaster”

providing

“enough calories (albeit unevenly distributed) to feed 7.8 billion of us…But the food we eat—and the way we produce it—is doing terrible damage to our planet and to our health.”

We agree, and it shows that we need to find ways to maintain and improve that efficiency, but also address the environmental and health damage that the modern food system has caused.

Some will say that more innovation just brings more problems, risks and dangers. We do not take that view, but we strongly believe that it is right to be careful, because this is about balancing risks, knowing that alongside the benefits—which absolutely should include significant environmental gains, such as reduced use of pesticides—there may be the danger that either mistakes are made, or there are things we simply do not know. That cannot paralyse us from action, because every intervention has risks attached, but we need a system that allows us to manage those trade-offs and those risks, and I am afraid that this SI does not do any of those things.

I am sure the Minister would say that it is not trying to do them: that this is a small step and, as she has indicated, that more will follow. That may be the case, and we agree that this is a relatively small step. It is important to be clear that this SI is about research, not products that reach consumers. However, I am afraid that the failure to provide the necessary structures and reassurances could turn a small step into a much bigger mistake if it fails to provide the necessary public reassurance.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is fantastic to hear the hon. Member for Cambridge speaking enthusiastically in favour of one of the benefits of Brexit. Does he agree that the EU got this wrong and that, with the right provisions in place—I note that he is not opposing this SI—this is a journey to a better place, and one that the EU turned its face against?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to have the opportunity to point out that this has nothing to do with Brexit, because of course the EU has embarked on much the same kind of path. It is already consulting on where it is likely to get to, and it is quite likely that we are going to get to a similar place at a similar time, as I will come on to later in my speech.

It is not just the Opposition who have concerns. The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has made a series of strong criticisms that Ministers should take seriously, and that I hope Committee members have had the opportunity to consider. Committees in the other place often have comments about statutory instruments, but these are much more substantial than normal. The issue made it into the national print media, and on to national radio. When that level of public interest is generated by a report on the inner workings of this place, it should give the Government pause for thought. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says in its report, the regulations

“are politically or legally important and give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House.”

I will briefly outline its concerns.

The Committee quotes the Government’s impact assessment, which makes interesting reading itself, and which I have looked at closely. The Committee cites the view widely held in the industry that the 2018 European Court of Justice judgment has held back research in the UK and the EU. The Committee says—this mirrors comments made elsewhere in the Government’s documentation—that

“the Government now intend to change the law…to allow GM plants that could have occurred naturally or through traditional breeding methods for release for non-marketing purposes. This is to enable the bioscience sector to test the benefits and safety of relevant new products ‘without the burden of unnecessary regulatory processes’.”

That is what this statutory instrument sets out to do, but the act of deregulation does not always lead to innovation; frankly, that is an ideological assertion. Page 1 of the impact assessment says that there is “some evidence” for the Government’s claim, but it does not say what that evidence is. The Minister may have it, and may be prepared to offer it, but others, myself included, would argue that in general it is good regulation, not a lack of regulation, that spurs innovation.

The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says:

“Regrettably, the EM”—

the explanatory memorandum—

“does not provide any further information on the Government’s plans for wider reform.”

The Minister said in her opening comments, which I welcome, that primary legislation will be forthcoming, and I think she has confirmed that. Perhaps she can tell us a little more, because she mentioned that in our meeting earlier this week. The crucial question is what that primary legislation is designed to do—whether it will deregulate further, as I suspect it will, or whether it will set up, as I would much rather it did, a proper, fit-for-purpose regulatory system. Perhaps she can clarify that.

I am sure that the Minister has read the submission from the Royal Society of Biology to the consultation run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It is lengthy, substantial and raises a number of interesting suggestions—it is in my pile of papers. It includes ways in which short-term improvements could have been made under existing legislation. Will the Minister tell us whether those suggestions were considered? It also sets out ideas for a future regulatory framework. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister commented on those.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also highlighted points made strongly by organisations such as Beyond GM and GM Freeze about the introduction of the term, “qualifying higher plant”, which is introduced in the SI. The Organic Farmers & Growers group described it as a term it does not “recognise in any way”. This is clearly a thorny issue, as a number of the submissions to the consultation confirm—as far as we can find out, I should say. I do not think that the Government chose to publish the submissions; I am not sure why. Most of the ones I have were found by going back to the organisations that submitted them. Let me give some examples. The Roslin Institute says:

“it is exceptionally challenging to define which changes to the genome could have been produced by ‘traditional’ breeding.”

The Royal Society says:

“this question is problematic as there is a difference between what could be produced by traditional breeding in theory and in practice”.

The Royal Society of Biology says:

“No clear criteria can be described that would determine whether an organism produced by genome editing or other genetic technologies could have been produced by traditional breeding. This means no clarity can be achieved using this principle, and it is not appropriate as the basis of regulation.”

That is a strong statement from experts in the field. I will read out that last sentence again:

“it is not appropriate as the basis of regulation”,

but that is how the Government are proceeding.

DEFRA’s response when pressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was that the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment

“is in the process of developing guidance”

that

“will be available shortly.”

What is “shortly”? The response from the Lords was:

“We regret that the guidance has not yet been published, especially as the Department would have been aware of the concerns which were raised during consultation. The House may wish to press the Minister for an explanation why the guidance has not been made available in time for it to be taken into account by Parliament in its consideration of these draft Regulations. We urge the Department to ensure that the guidance is published in good time before the new rules come into effect and that this guidance is communicated effectively, in order to provide clarity to researchers and those who have concerns about the new policy.”

Well, quite. The guidance should have been ready when the draft SI was laid. Why was it not, and when will it be?

ACRE might be struggling to do something that the Royal Society of Biology and others say is simply not possible. Given that much of this is about retaining public confidence, I took a look at ACRE, on whose advice so much of the draft SI depends. They are seven very eminent and experienced people, and I am sure they do an excellent job, but in the declaration of interests, six of the seven record very direct links with companies that might well benefit from the technology—no fewer than three of them quote Syngenta. I simply say to the Minister: if or when the public look at this, I suspect we know what they are likely to think. Is there sufficient balance and independence? Is she sure that the regulatory framework is right?

The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s next concern follows from that uncertainty about the definition of qualifying higher plants, in that GMO developers in effect self-declare whether their product is in that category. Question 5 in the Committee’s list of questions to DEFRA queries that. The answer is that the advice from ACRE is that the risk from genetic technologies is no greater than traditional breeding—well, frankly, they would say that, and that is the nub of the argument. Will the Minister explain why she believes the public will have confidence in that approach, given that there is no way of anyone knowing or being able to find out whether something is being developed with the technology unless those developers choose to declare it? Frankly, with this draft SI, it is just down to trust.

Organic farmers are particularly concerned, given that the new notification measures do not include location, scale or details of containment measures. The DEFRA answer puts the onus on researchers, again relying on trust, which is not enough to reassure organic growers who risk loss of certification. When asked about who would be liable if something went wrong, DEFRA’s answer is, in essence, that it does not believe that that will happen.

Once again, I find myself with the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on this. Its sensible conclusion was that

“the Department should consider conducting and publishing an evaluation of…new rules and of any environmental or economic damage, to inform the wider reforms that the Government intend to take forward in this area.”

Will the Minister agree to do that, and if not, why not? I appreciate that she may not have an immediate answer to hand on all or many of my questions, but if she committed to writing to me, that would be helpful.

The Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also points out the devolution issues: the draft SI applies to England, as the Minister said, while the Scottish and Welsh Governments have expressed concerns and are not pursuing equivalent changes. That may not be an issue now but, given the discussion about the UK internal market rules—some of us will remember them from some months ago—it is worth noting that there may well be challenges ahead as different parts of the UK take different approaches.

Finally—you will be pleased to hear, Sir Gary—from the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee came the bigger constitutional question of whether this is the right way to proceed on an issue of considerable public interest. The Committee makes a strong case that this should have been done through primary rather than secondary legislation, not least because there is no opportunity for amendment. Within this SI alone, it is clear that there are provisions ripe for amendment and debate, which cannot be done in Committee today.

Let me conclude by returning to the wider argument. The Government’s case, as I understand it, is that the existing safeguards mean that GE research is going elsewhere, not just from the UK but from the EU. As I said, the EU takes the same view and is consulting on similar changes. I suspect it will get to a similar place, but possibly—this is a risk for us—with a better overall regulatory structure. We need to be mindful of that.

If the aim is to allow small and medium-sized enterprises and start-ups to compete against much better-funded bigger players—and that is to be welcomed—they would be making a judgment about which regulatory regime will give them the best future. The Royal Society of Biology makes that point in its submission. That is why we need the right regulation; not only is no or limited regulation dangerous in itself, but it will not be attractive to those who want to take their research further, with regulatory approval from a much larger entity that serves a much bigger market. We want to know if and when that broader regulatory architecture will be available. When is the primary legislation going to be laid? How advanced is the thinking on it? What does the Minister have in mind? These are all reasonable questions that should have been answered before, not after, this initial step.

Will the Minister commit to ensuring that the guidance to be published clearly lays out how the current architecture works and explains precisely who does what and what the roles of ACRE, the Genetic Modification Inspectorate—which is, as the Minister said, a part of the Animal and Plant Health Agency—and the Food Standards Agency are? It is not obvious to many people how those fit together so it would be helpful to have it clearly laid out.

This relatively short SI raises many complicated, important and substantial questions, which will no doubt be returned to when we have primary legislation. As I said at the outset, Labour wants this technology to work. We want our scientists to be at the forefront, but that will happen only if everyone has confidence in the regulatory framework in which they operate. That is the way to get ahead—for consumers, producers and the environment. Get the framework right and we are on to a winner.

[The Chair]

Thank you for such a comprehensive response; I learned a lot.

14:51

[Jo Churchill]

I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness for their contributions. I hope to canter through the questions from the hon. Member for Cambridge, but if I have not fully covered them, I will write to him. I set out in my opening speech that we will seek primary powers as we go forward. I urge him to have a little patience and wait for the Queen’s Speech, when he should be availed of more information as to the timings we hope to have. I am, though, grateful that, through his myriad questions, he showed his underlying support for our industry and for allowing farming to be unleashed.

Many countries around the world have taken the investment of those who are looking into this technology area and flown with it. That is why we have less than 5%—I think it is 4.8%—of the investment in CRISPR technology in agriculture in this country. We should make sure we can drive that investment forward for the 400 researchers who work in this area and for the 20% of capital investment that is spent on research into our seeds and agriculture, so that we can benefit from our advances in this area. That is exceedingly important.

Gene editing can help us to grow crops that are more nutritious, beneficial to the environment and resistant to climate change, disease and pests, which the hon. Member for Cambridge said he appreciated. We also need to support our international reputation of scientific excellence in genetics. This statutory instrument is a cautious first step in our new approach to gene editing. It will help us to take steps towards building international collaboration in science and technology.

[Graham Stuart]

Is it not so important that, first, we get this right—the hon. Member for Cambridge was right to highlight questions in that respect—and secondly, that we send a signal to the industry, which is going to be so important in tackling the issues my hon. Friend has raised on the future of humanity, that the UK is open for business, is going to be led by science and will have a regulatory regime that is friendly to business and will allow us to be a major centre for tackling some of the biggest threats facing mankind?

[Jo Churchill]

I thank my hon. Friend for the vast experience he brings as a former Trade Minister. Having recently been on a trip to the Dubai Expo, where I talked about some of our agri-innovation opportunities and we looked at how different societies around the world can beat some of the challenges of ensuring food security, I could not agree with him more.

I wish to reassure the hon. Member for Cambridge, who took some time to articulate how he was not satisfied with the framework in respect of both guidance and investors. The rest of the GMO framework remains unchanged and will do so until we consult in the future, as I set out.

Let me turn to the scientific criterion for the “higher plant” equivalent to plants that could have been produced by traditional breeding methods. The composition of genetic material in individual plants of the same species is subject to high levels of natural variation and selection, which plant breeders have exploited for centuries. Our understanding of plant genomes and the accompanying advances in technology have increased significantly since the previous legislation and enabled scientists to utilise variation more efficiently by making precise changes to the plant’s DNA. Such changes are equivalent to those that could have been achieved by traditional breeding methods. That is what we mean by the classification of a “higher plant” in the provision.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I hear what the Minister says, but the submissions from a range of learned organisations suggested that it is rather a difficult distinction to make. That is the nub of the argument, which is why the ACRE guidance is so important. Will she address that?

[Jo Churchill]

Yes, I will indeed. The guidance will help those who conduct the field trials. ACRE is currently in the process of developing the guidance that will help developers who use genetic technologies such as gene editing to make the plants that they want to grow and test in the field for research purposes.

I can provide a summary of the guidance, if that will help. Developers will need to know whether their plants are exempt from GMO restrictions on the basis that they meet the criteria for qualifying higher plants, as defined in the SI. The guidance makes it clear that notification is required in all cases, so I push back at the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that it is not required. The guidance demonstrates which type of genetic changes can result in higher qualifying plants and highlights examples to illustrate how key criteria on natural processes and traditional methods and selection might be applied. The guidance provides further detail for cases that do not fit into that precise description. We make it clear that developers can always seek a view from DEFRA if they are unsure. As the hon. Gentleman said, if the EU is not currently consulting, it will be shortly, and will move along a similar trajectory.

I think I have covered investment, other than to say that the legislation will unlock private investment because we have some of the greatest scientists and they have been leading some of this work. It is important that we do not hamstring them. Argentina began to regulate GE more proportionately to risk in 2015 and approved 22 new products for research and development purposes—we are only talking about research and development—between 2016 and 2019. We have had only three come forward since 2017. This SI is all about enabling our developers and scientists to move forward.

The hon. Gentleman asked about protection against cross-pollination and the potential impacts on the organic sector. I refer him to the fact that we have 30 years of experience of genetically modified field trials and thus far there has been no evidence that pollen, seed or other plant materials capable of reproduction from GM field trials have affected businesses in the UK organic sector. When researchers notify DEFRA of a field trial, they have to confirm that they will put in place measures to minimise the possibility of reproductive material from the qualifying higher plant that they are to trial affecting commercial crops. The scientists involved are keen to ensure that they are looking only at the results of that trial. Arguably, it is as important to them as to those who surround them that the trial is done in a competent scientific way so that they can rely on the data it gives them.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I quite accept the point that the Minister is making, but of course the difference is that for the past 30 years people have known where those things have been happening, there have been containment measures and they could make necessary adjustments. The key difference now is that they will not know.

[Jo Churchill]

There will still have to be a notification of where the trials are ongoing. Arguably, we are talking about looking at traditional breeding methods. We go back to what I know the hon. Gentleman and I will disagree on; however, this is about proportionate risk, and the fact is that we have been doing this for some 30 years. That adds to the bank of knowledge to reassure us that we are safe in the knowledge of moving forward with this very proportionate small step to ensure that we can optimise in the marketplace what we are trying to do, which is to support the plant-breeding sector. As I said, it spends 20% of annual turnover on R&D activities, and it is incumbent on all of us, given the positives that can come out of this, to support it.

In the past three years, we have approved through DEFRA three field trials involving GM or GE crops: camelina plants to produce omega-3 oil; a brassica to lower the level of sulphur-containing compounds, which although beneficial, at higher levels can cause adverse effects in livestock, such as reduced feeding and growth; and a wheat that, when used in food production, results in lower acrylamide, which has been found to be carcinogenic.

Development of GE products can take up to 10 years. In my opening speech, I laid out that we are progressing at a measured and proportionate pace in order to get this right. My intention is to get this right. That is why I can assure the hon. Member for Cambridge that, as we move forward, the consultations into the broader GMO framework will take place. We propose to come forward with primary legislation; that will give him and others the ability to challenge, as we do in this place, to ensure scrutiny.

Moving forward with the broader approach to the regulation of technologies such as gene editing, we recognise the strong public interest to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, but we also recognise that there are gains to be made. He mentioned many of the submissions but he did not mention the one from the John Innes Centre in Norwich, which alluded to the benefits. Many others also highlighted the benefits. We will be taking this step by step. Our approach to regulatory reform will be measured. We want a proportionate, science-based regulation that protects people, animals and the environment.

The UK agriculture sector now faces a situation in which it must do more with less. We must provide nutritionally high-quality food while reducing our use of water and energy, all in the context of a changing climate that makes food production through existing methods more difficult. As I outlined, the changes introduced by the statutory instrument will help researchers and scientists to harness the benefits of genetic technologies with greater ease. I therefore commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Genetically Modified Organisms (Deliberate Release) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2022.

15:04

Committee rose.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 2 March 2022

[Mrs Maria Miller in the Chair]

High-rise Buildings: Remediation

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

00:00

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of remediation works on residents in high rise buildings.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. As the Member for Ipswich, I have been involved on the issue of cladding in more ways than one. My first surgery appointment was with a leaseholder from St Francis Tower, which is an incredibly prominent building on the Ipswich skyline; it is right in the heart of the town. The appointment had to do with making sure that leaseholders did not have to pay for the remediation works. On that particular issue, we have come quite a long way. St Francis Tower was one of the first beneficiaries of the building safety fund, and in that respect we have moved forward.

St Francis Tower was built in the 1960s. There were extensive refurbishment works between 2005 and 2008. In August 2018, a decision was made that the cladding needed to be replaced, and in September 2018 the work began. In many respects, St Francis Tower was a precursor to the many other buildings in Ipswich where leaseholders were affected. Those leaseholders have had significant periods of huge anxiety and concern about being chased for bills to do with fire defects that the leaseholders had absolutely nothing to do with. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland) for the work that he has done on that issue.

Although I appreciate that some hon. Members will believe that we still have a way to go in providing full support for all leaseholders and making sure that none is left behind, the debate today is specifically to do with the impact of remediation works on the residents who are expected to live in those buildings while work is taking place. It was good news that St Francis Tower was one of the early beneficiaries of the building safety fund, but in some respects it has almost become a victim of the fact that it was such an early beneficiary. The residents of the tower have had to endure something that I hope, if we continue to shine a spotlight on what has happened through debates like this, residents in other high-rise buildings like the 17-storey St Francis Tower will not have to experience.

In Ipswich, almost overnight, it seemed, a giant shrink-wrap emerged and covered the entirety of St Francis Tower—I was absolutely astonished. A very large number of my constituents assumed that the residents of St Francis Tower had been relocated somewhere else; they could not actually believe that any human beings would be expected to live in those conditions. Of course, in short order I visited my constituents in St Francis Tower. I went to four or five of the flats—some on the top levels, some on the bottom levels—and I was astonished by what I saw. What I came across were conditions that I would feel guilty about an animal living in, never mind human beings, my constituents. The shrink-wrap was put on the building in June 2021, leading to virtually no natural light at all in the building. Bars across the windows were added, meaning that even getting fresh air was very hard. Of course, that was in the midst of the pandemic. There were concerns and anxieties about potential periods of self-isolation, lockdowns and having to work from home. The flats have no balconies.

I will always remember one of the conversations that I had with a constituent. She spends a huge amount of time in her flat. To her, it was a precious place—her home. She derived enjoyment from her plants, which were on the window, and the view that she had across the town. Those plants died. I know that some might say, “They were just plants,” but they were important to my constituent. I will remember that conversation with her in particular.

Block Management UK is responsible for the building, and Oander is the company that is carrying out the work. My constituents were given very little notice that the shrink-wrap was even going to go up—very little notice at all. Initially, those companies were incredibly difficult to get hold of, or for residents to meet, so I got involved and met the residents, and I was incredibly vocal in the media. I thank the East Anglian Daily Times, the Ipswich Star and BBC Radio Suffolk, because they got their teeth into this issue. Emily Townsend, who is a former journalist from the East Anglian Daily Times, was particularly passionate about it, and I honestly think it was only the front pages that ran in the local media that brought Block Management and Oander to the table at all.

I have to be honest: I have long given up expecting these companies to act in a moral way. I have essentially come to think of it like this: on the one hand, they could have the inconvenience and cost of potentially replacing the shrink-wrap; on the other, they have the reputational risk of me continuing to bang on about it in this place, and the local media rightly continuing to cover it.

Residents were told that this shrink-wrap would be up for 12 months—12 months of living in those conditions—which has led to serious anxiety and mental health problems for many of my constituents. It is very sad that this has been the case. I have raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions and in different departmental debates. In fact, I remember talking about it in a summer Adjournment debate to which the Minister, in his previous role, gave a very positive response, so I know that even before this debate—even before his current role—the Minister had some understanding of this issue and how important it is for me.

In essence, St Francis Tower covered in that shrink-wrap has become a scar on our landscape, and it is incredibly visible every day. In a sense, as the local MP, I also see it as a little bit of a sign of failure on my part every time I get back to the town and see that tower. I think of the people living inside it, and of the fact that the shrink-wrap is now going to be up not for 12 months, but for around 18 months, because there have been delays, as is often the case. My current understanding is that the shrink-wrap is likely to be on the building until December 2022, so even at this point, my constituents are looking at another nine or 10 months of that shrink-wrap being on the building.

St Francis Tower was the precursor in Ipswich to the leaseholder issue; my concern is that it will also be the precursor for issues to do with the living conditions that constituents who live in high-rise buildings are expected to endure. We have had other examples; in particular, there is Orwell Quay, another building in Ipswich. Initially, I was given hope that a different approach would be taken there, one more based on consultation. I heard that a netting material was going to go up, as opposed to shrink-wrap; it would be more breathable and would allow more natural light in. Having seen the material in question, frankly, it is borderline whether it is netting. It is a slight improvement on the shrink-wrap, but it still is not where we need to be.

What is the issue here, in a more general sense? For me, it is recognition that the work that is taking place is vital. We need to ensure that everybody lives in safe buildings, particularly in the wake of the Grenfell tragedy; we all accept and understand that. We want that work to happen as quickly as possible, and to be as effective as possible. We also recognise the moves that the Government have made, and we appreciate the building safety fund. However, the point I am trying to make is that we need to balance the need to carry out that work with the mental health of those who are expected to live in those buildings while the work is carried out, and I do not believe that a single Member in this place would think it acceptable that any human being has to live in the conditions that my constituents in St Francis Tower have had to live in for well over a year. We need to get to a position where the work is carried out, but in a way that is sensitive to people’s needs and their mental health.

I have been told by Block Management that the shrink-wrap is 100% necessary—that there is no other way to do it. I simply do not believe that, Minister. I do not believe that there is not another way of carrying out this work, one that is more sensitive to the mental health of my constituents. I put it to the Minister that we should work up a better way to do this, whether that is by introducing new regulations that stipulate the use of more breathable material that lets in natural light, or by making available relocation funds to ensure that it is an option for those in buildings such as St Francis Tower to live somewhere else. I am loth to say that, because I appreciate the huge pressures on the public finances.

That is my ask today. There are examples like St Francis Tower across the country; I am aware of similar case studies, so I know this is not an issue just for Ipswich. During the recent storms, the shrink-wrap was partially ripped off St Francis Tower. I have wanted that shrink-wrap off since the moment I saw it, but not in that way, which caused significant distress to a number of my constituents. Yes, we welcome the building safety fund. Nobody disagrees that the work needs to be carried out, but it must be done in a way that is sensitive to the mental health and welfare of the individuals expected to live in that building while the work is carried out.

09:41

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate with you overseeing it, Mrs Miller, and I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for securing it. I join him in paying tribute to the work done by his colleague, the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), throughout this entire debacle. I have seen the former’s comments about St Francis Tower on Twitter and elsewhere. He is right to highlight the issue because many of our constituents will face similar problems as this crisis reaches the next stage. He rightly describes this as a precursor.

Along with the hon. Members for Ipswich and for Stevenage and others, I have made representations on behalf of many constituents in buildings affected by the scandal. Part of the scandal is that in the vast majority of cases, we are still so far off remediation, but for those who are at that stage, there are real problems of the sort described by the hon. Member for Ipswich.

I have recently been in touch with leaseholders in Mandale House in the heart of Sheffield, who are in exactly that position. After all the other traumas that they have faced—the uncertainty over so long; the waking watch costs; the trebling of insurance costs—they now face the problems of remediation work. Their building is to be clad—understandably and necessarily—in scaffolding, which requires the removal of balconies. We all know that in recent times, any piece of outdoor space has been precious. Losing a balcony is bad enough, but the work also involves blocking the opening of the window by the balcony. In many of those flats, that is the only window. People have been condemned to live in a space with no source of natural light and no ventilation. They anticipate that they will be in that position for two and a half years, but as we know, it could be longer, given the way these things unfortunately go.

Mandale House residents will lose access to their car park, as will those in other buildings in the same situation. That might be a comparatively small issue, but in city centre complexes, having somewhere to park a car is important. Residents paid for those spaces, but there is no sense of what alternative provision might be available—provision that they will have to pay for. There are issues about coming back late at night; young women will have to walk through the city, when they would rather park in their building and have direct access to their flats.

There is a range of problems, and in any other situation in which people were facing these sorts of difficulties, they would have someone to turn to for compensation, or perhaps to facilitate their relocation while the work was taking place, but none of that is available to these people. People might want to move temporarily, but their flat will be unrentable. People might want to move in order to move on with their life—we know that is a big aspect of this crisis—but their flat is also unrentable. The remediation work is directly impacting not only how they live, but how they can take their life forward. As the hon. Member for Ipswich suggested, that adds to the stress that many leaseholders have long suffered while anticipating the difficulties that they will face in living without access to their balcony, and with no source of natural light or ventilation.

Leaseholders recognise that that the remediation work is necessary—vital, as the hon. Member described it—but they are being asked to pay substantial amounts of money to repair faults for which they have no responsibility, and will, through those repairs, experience a substantial reduction in their quality of life over a long period. What is happening to them is obscene. It is having a very significant impact on their mental health, as the hon. Member pointed out; and as I have said, these people have already been traumatised.

The impact on mental health has been explored in a report by Dr Jenny Preece of the University of Sheffield, who also works with the UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence. It published the report, entitled “Living through the building safety crisis”, at the end of last year. Dr Preece started her research before many leaseholders started to make payments or faced the impact of remedial work, but they were, at that stage, facing all the other worries, and were having to pay out for a waking watch; at Mandale House, they had to pay a substantial amount for a new alarm system. They were paying for interim measures while still uncertain about their future. It has to be said that the Government’s recent proposals will not lift the worries of most of these people.

Many leaseholders have had their whole life taken over by this crisis. One is a GP. This has completely affected his career development, because he has become almost a full-time organiser, helping the voices of those across the city who are suffering these injustices to be heard. Dr Preece’s report points out the practical impact of the worries that many people face. There are leaseholders who have a bag packed by their front door in case their building reaches the point of unsafety and they have to move out in a hurry. Another building in my area, Wicker Riverside, was evacuated before Christmas 2020 with three hours’ notice, so these are real worries.

However, the continued lack of support from the Government has meant that, for most leaseholders, the financial worry has overtaken the question of safety. That came through very powerfully in Dr Preece’s report. From her extensive interviews with leaseholders, she concluded that the negative impacts on mental wellbeing ranged from constant worry and an inability to concentrate and focus on work, to anxiety, depression and suicidal feelings. One mother wrote to me to say that her son was seriously contemplating suicide because he felt so blocked in by the crisis imposed on him.

There is real fear of a dangerous fire breaking out, but that fear, as I have said, is eclipsed by the financial impacts. The anticipation or receipt of bills that are simply unaffordable—that break people financially—has created enormous stress, alongside the day-to-day attrition of increasing costs for insurance, a waking watch and other things. All the participants in Dr Preece’s survey

“reflected on the impact…on their ability to control their own lives”.

That is a point worth reflecting on for a moment: their inability to control their life and plan for their future. Many are young people at the start of their life, planning careers and families, who are unable to move or to commit to having an extra family member in the household. That is an important point about all those life stage transitions—family planning, moving to a larger home, retirement. Some of these people have invested savings into a retirement plan and are similarly trapped. For many people, the pressures have challenged their self-perception and self-confidence, and have put a strain on relationships.

I do not want to score a party political point here—there has been a lot of cross-party unity on this issue—but the Prime Minister was recently asked on ITV about the concerns expressed by one of my constituents in Wicker Riverside, Jenni Garrett. He said she had

“a frankly unnecessary sense of anxiety”.

I challenged the Prime Minister on that point at Prime Minister’s questions, and asked him to meet Jenni so that they might explain why she and so many others were worried. I was surprised by his response. He doubled down on the assertion, and told me that it was my responsibility to tell her that her building was safe. That is shocking, but is perhaps an insight into why the Government are still failing to treat the issue with the urgency it deserves, and in the appropriate way.

Although I recognise that the recent announcement was a step forward, it does not address the commitment that the Prime Minister previously made, and which we should be committed to as parliamentarians. These people have faced an extraordinary injustice. The solution that the Government are proposing will lead to a long road of resolution for many of those affected, heaping more worry on them, as well as potential litigation that they will not be able to afford or organise. We should be taking responsibility for fixing the buildings quickly and then using the full resources of the state to hold those responsible to account and to recover the public money that we need to put in to secure the situation, so that we can live up to the commitment that the Prime Minister made at one stage—that every affected building is fixed without delay, and at no cost to leaseholders. That is what will lift their worry.

09:52

[Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I am grateful to be following the wonderful speech by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who gave an emotional account of the GP who has had to put his whole career on hold. That is something we have seen up and down the country. Lots of people have had to become experts on building safety.

There is a grave misunderstanding of how many people are affected. There is still no register of how many buildings and people are affected. The estimates vary, but they suggest that up to 5 million people are affected, and that hundreds of thousands of buildings are currently deemed to be unsafe in one way or another.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for securing this important debate. Since the emergence of this issue, he has led the way on a range of points. Once again we are celebrating the Government’s wonderful intervention, and my hon. Friend is moving us on to the next stage of the debate and the next stage of the campaign by leading the way, as he always does—standing up for his constituents and making sure that they get the best possible service they can from their Member of Parliament and the Government.

I welcome the Minister for Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), to his place. This is our first opportunity to debate this issue and I am grateful that he is here. I feel this will be a positive relationship. It is quite well known that we did not always see eye to eye with the previous Ministers and Secretary of State, but we feel we are now in a much better place, and that everybody is listening and working together. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), is also working with us incredibly well, as did his predecessors. This is all about working cross-party and making sure that we represent our constituents up and down the country.

In terms of remediation, my constituency has a building called Vista Tower, which has been iconic during this campaign. Leaseholders paid about £200,000 for their properties and the remediation bills they received were £220,000, so the remediation costs are more than the value of the properties. That is why my constituent Sophie Bichener reached out to me. At the beginning of the campaign I found it difficult to understand what the issues were, because I am not a building safety expert; neither was Sophie. We worked on the issue, and that was when we got the ball rolling some 18 months ago, but it remains incredibly difficult.

I thank the Minister because the Government’s intervention means that those leaseholders will not face costs of £220,000. At most, they would be capped at £10,000. As the Minister knows, I am keen that the £10,000 cap is a waterfall, so the developers were first, then the freeholders, and in the last possible scenario it would be the leaseholders, but with a cap of £10,000. The cap should take into consideration costs, such as a waking watch, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central mentioned, where my constituents were paying more in waking watch costs every month than they were paying on their mortgages—and that was just one fire safety cost.

On mental health, as the hon. Member for Ipswich said, residents were told to work from home because the global pandemic made it not safe to go outside, but they were in a building that was not safe to live in, so they had nowhere to go. They had to lay their child’s head down to sleep every night in a building that was unsafe. The fire department and everybody else were talking about how unsafe the building was and how anything could happen. People are having to walk up and down the building 24 hours a day, seven days a week to ensure that it does not catch fire and that if it did, everyone would be able to get out in time.

The impact on leaseholders’ mental health, during a global pandemic, was intolerable. As the hon. Member said, animals would not be treated like that in this country. It is incredibly important to understand how those leaseholders feel. I welcome the Government’s commitment of over £9 billion. They have done the waterfall that we suggested. We are trying to get a commitment from Government that any costs incurred to leaseholders over the previous five years would be taken off that £10,000 cap. If that was the case, my constituent would not be facing a bill of £220,000; it would be zero. That is the level of the Government’s intervention on the issue. I welcome that and thank the Government, who have tried to work with us.

Now we need to move towards remediation. We are winning the debates and the arguments, but the reality is that none of the buildings up and down the country are being made safer. A dialogue is still taking place. People are still living in those buildings. One building that I visited during my campaign that is also iconic is New Providence Wharf, where a fire took place. It had a waking watch, but they could go up only so many flights before they had to leave themselves because it was so difficult.

Again, it was very hard meeting people who lived there. I met NHS consultants and a lady who had a number of children. During the fire, she was sitting on the floor because she did not know which child she had to leave behind, and the neighbours came and picked the other children up and got them out of the smoke. It was the people in the building who rescued each other. Everything failed—the smoke alarms and fire doors. They had all the kit, but none of it worked.

At the moment the building is shrink-wrapped in Monarflex. It has to be Monarflex because it is weatherproof. Those people have been living in this shrink-wrapped, weatherproof place, which currently looks like shredded toilet paper because the storms have shown that it is not remotely weatherproof and it has been ripped apart. They have been living in darkness for 12 months, and working from home during that time. As the hon. Member said, animals would not be allowed to be kept in darkness for 12 months.

Residents have reached out and given me a few examples. They came up with a wonderful idea, which we would like the Minister to take away and think about. It is something that the hon. Member for Ipswich and I have talked about, which is to develop a code of practice for remediating buildings. If a building is going to be shrink-wrapped in Monarflex, what needs to be done to prove that is the right material? How long can it stay up for, and what measures can be put in place instead? Cladding rightly had to be removed quickly, so the scaffolding went up, the cladding was removed and the building was shrink-wrapped. Then there is a 26-week delay as everybody works out what to do, but people live in that building during that 26-week delay.

People gave me examples of security. Obviously, the buildings are accessible if people climb on scaffolding. One lady had somebody peering into her flat in the early hours of the morning—they had climbed up the scaffolding. I was given examples of noise. People often do not understand how intrusive the remediation works are. We are talking about knocking walls down and the noise is intolerable, especially when having to work from home. There is probably a health and safety issue. If we put a noise monitor in a flat, would we find that the noise exceeded acceptable levels?

Another issue is the scheduling. We have talked about the huge delays. That does not sound like much of an issue, but it is. I have been told about tiles that had to be removed and then they were going to go back up, but five months later the tiles are still being removed because of the need to fix the firebreaks. The tiles insulated the properties, so people now have no insulation and their heating bills have gone through the roof. They are in a concrete box shrink-wrapped in darkness. Those are the conditions that people currently live in.

I am incredibly excited that we have more than £9 billion from the Government. They have accepted that leaseholders are the innocent parties. We have to remediate the buildings now, but no one has been prepared. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has seen it at first hand in his constituency, but none of us is prepared for what will actually happen. That is something else that I would like the Minister to take away and think about, and it might help him. Some of the buildings are probably so bad that leaseholders do not consider them to be homes any more; they consider them to be millstones. So will the Minister consider compulsorily purchasing some of these buildings from the leaseholders, or give them the opportunity to sell them to the Government? We could knock the buildings down, hand them over to housing associations and allow them to be rebuilt properly as new affordable homes. We would be replacing stock. Instead of remediation, we would be starting afresh and creating huge affordable housing stock up and down the country, and people would not have to live in buildings that had been remediated because they were so bad.

Oddly, the more remediation work the building needs, the more intrusive and difficult it is for the leaseholders living in the building. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich mentioned, we need to find a balance around mental health and living in those buildings. Perhaps we could offer leaseholders the opportunity to sell and allow the housing associations to go in and provide affordable homes. Many leaseholders want to have a child—or another child—and move on with their lives away from those buildings. Will the Minister consider that?

Another thing I want the Minister to consider is a building safety-type register. The Building Safety Bill creates a new regulator. According to the insurance industry, one reason why premiums are so high is that they do not know what the buildings are made of, so they assume the worst-case scenario, and as a result the premiums have to stay high and could go up at any time. Although a lot of the buildings are safe, insurers do not know what materials have been used. If the Building Safety Bill stated that there had to be a register of all new buildings and what exactly they were made of, as in Scandinavia, in the case of any new buildings built from, say, January 2024, we would know exactly what they were made of and we would not be in this position, going forward.

In the case of applications to the building safety fund for support or remediation works, we could say that the buildings had to be analysed to identify what they were made of. We would then have a database of buildings in the country and could identify which were the worst affected. We would know that buildings are made of x, y and z. That could help with insurance costs and would allow the Department to prioritise which buildings need to be fixed quickly, because we would know which were the most dangerous. I urge the Minister to talk to the insurance companies. It is in their interests because they do not want to pay out, and they know which of their insurance products are the most effective for insurance purposes.

We need to work with each other to try to resolve these issues on a cross-party basis, as we have done throughout the campaign, and we need to continue to listen and try to move forward. I am grateful that we have £9 billion to end our cladding scandal, and I thank the UK Cladding Action Group and the Leasehold Knowledge Partnership for all the work that they have done to get us to where we are today. As we move into the remediation of buildings, however, it will be very much as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich has described: it will be a living hell for a number of people who are already close to breaking point because their mental health has suffered. I urge the Minister to consider those points, and I look forward to meeting him a number of times to discuss them.

10:05

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for securing the debate. As he always does, he set out an excellent viewpoint, as have other speakers, whom I thank for their contributions. I welcome the Minister to what I believe is his first Westminster Hall debate as the Minister for Housing, and I look forward to his contribution. I have already asked him for a meeting on a separate issue; I thank him for agreeing to that meeting and look forward to our working together. As always, I look forward to the speech by the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook).

This issue is of some importance to me, and I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on healthy homes and buildings. It is an issue that has been discussed numerous times in the main Chamber and in Westminster Hall over a long period. I believe that the right home, built in the right way, with all remediation work having been carried out, contributes to a person or family’s wellbeing; that is why the debate is so important. It is not just about the structural work that the hon. Member for Ipswich mentioned; it is about the effect it has on the wellbeing of the people who live in the properties. If we get this right, we improve their wellbeing as well, which is really important.

Remediation works have a number of positive effects on residents and our constituents, and it is great to be here today to highlight those and discuss how we can move forward with remediation works and building safety for high-rise buildings. Not one of us in the Chamber or across this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was not affected by the Grenfell tragedy in 2017. It was horrendous to watch, and it was even worse to see the effect on the bereaved families and others. It has had implications for those who own or rent properties in high-rise buildings, including the need for remediation works.

I want to put it on the record that the Government have rightly introduced a building safety programme with the aim of ensuring that residents of high-rise buildings are safe and feel safe from the risk of fire; but there are still many who want to know exactly what that means. What is the Government’s plan? When will the strategy get to those people, and when will they feel safer in their homes? No one can deny that remediation works come at a significant cost, and someone has to pay for them, so there has to be system in place whereby we can draw some succour from a safety point of view and know that properties are okay to live in.

The proposed cost of remediation works for high-rise buildings is £15 billion. The Government funding allocated to date is £5.1 billion, so there is still a shortfall and there is still a strategy and timescale to put in place to make sure that we are getting there. There is no doubt whatever that developers have a responsibility to ensure that the correct remediation work is carried out on cladding. We look to the Government, the Minister and the Department for a response, but the developers have a role to play and must be actively engaged. I am sure the Minister will discuss the role of developers and the Government’s expectations of them and what they should do. There must be the correct remediation works for cladding, which is ultimately what made the Grenfell disaster spiral out of anyone’s control.

Remediation works for cladding should be at the forefront of our priorities. I refer specifically to ACMs—aluminium composite materials—which have been proven to be ineffective for high-rise buildings. Many residents are unaware of that type of cladding, which is used on their buildings. The Minister will undoubtedly have done a lot of homework for this debate, so I hope he can give an indication of where that issue sits in the system. Have there been checks and assessments on ACM cladding, and if so, what have they said? After seeing the devastation that cheaper alternatives can cause, there must be more onus on repair and replacement. Could the Minister or his officials give us an indication of where we are with that?

The Minister has no responsibility in this area for Northern Ireland—which he will be glad to hear—but I always like to bring a Northern Ireland perspective to debates to show how important such issues are to us back home. In Northern Ireland specifically, a £1 million fund to remove potentially dangerous cladding from residential high-rises opened this September past. For example, the Victoria Place apartments in Belfast still had the ACM cladding but, unfortunately, there is no legal requirement in Northern Ireland to replace cladding. Given that the funding is focused on the most high-risk buildings, what sort of reassurance is provided for residents, who know that the developers of their homes have no legal responsibility to ensure they are safe?

The Minister for Communities back home must do more to ensure residents are protected. I would be pleased if the Minister here today would see whether any discussions have happened to ensure that Northern Ireland is in line with the Building Safety Bill here. I do not expect an answer on that today, even though his civil servants are incredibly energetic and studious and would be able to provide one. I have had discussions with the Minister on this matter, so it should not come as a shock that I would be grateful if he could let me know if discussions have taken place and how they have gone.

The moral responsibility to replace dangerous cladding should not be down to the leaseholder alone, who may already be struggling to make ends meet. The fear of not feeling safe is unnecessary. It was reported last year that 75 high-rises across the United Kingdom that still use ACM cladding will not have had any remediation work done by the end of 2021. We are now a couple of months into 2022, so will the Minister provide an update to the House—in this debate or afterwards—because it is important to all Members who are contributing? We are in the third month of 2022, and I hope that some of these works have now been completed. Has that happened?

Surely, five years on from Grenfell, lessons surrounding building safety must be learned. The real sufferers are the residents, who are worried about their properties, the remedial work that has to be done, which has to be done with the developer’s contribution, and their wellbeing and peace of mind. We must take steps to ensure that another disaster like Grenfell does not occur. We must also put on record our thanks to the developers who have taken the extra step for the benefit of their tenants, as their efforts have undoubtedly reduced the risk of danger. There is a clear commitment by many to voice the importance of remediation works. While it is a costly and time-consuming process, the assurance of our constituents’ safety makes it worthwhile.

To conclude, I put on record my thanks to Government and the Minister for the funds allocated so far, but there is still work to do. I urge the Secretary of State and the Minister to have conversations with the necessary developers to ensure the safety of all high-rise buildings across the United Kingdom and to ensure that there is a strategy in place for all of them. I asked the Minister earlier to have those discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is not a measure included in the Building Safety Bill, and to ensure that the regulations that are in place are fit for purpose and have positive effects for the residents living there. I believe, as we all do in this House, that our responsibility is to look after our constituents and residents who need help. We are privileged to have the opportunity, in this House, to put forward the case on their behalf. The hon. Member for Ipswich and others have done that, and I very much look forward to the shadow Minister and Government Ministers’ responses.

10:15

[Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller. This has been an incredibly worthwhile debate on an issue that we all agree deserves more attention. That will only increase in significance in the months and years ahead as more and more buildings compromised by historical cladding and non-cladding defects undergo remediation.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on securing the debate. He spoke forcefully on behalf of his constituents in St Francis Tower. I add to the general and well-deserved praise bestowed on the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their contributions, and for bringing to the attention of the House the plight of constituents in Mandale House, Vista Tower, and other affected buildings.

Each Member has touched on this, but any hon. or right hon. Member whose constituency contains buildings with historical cladding or non-cladding defects will know of the abject misery that the building safety scandal has caused to residents. At the point that they learn that the home they believed to be safe is a fire risk, they are immediately trapped—physically, mentally and financially.

The point at which remediation works finally begin—particularly when the full cost has been met by either the freeholder or the building safety fund—should be the moment at which that misery begins to somewhat dissipate. However, as the hon. Member for Ipswich brought home in his introductory remarks, and as others have argued on the basis of cases in their constituencies, those vital remediation works, for too many residents, are a continuation of the distress that they have been experiencing.

Whether it is the psychological damage of having their home shrouded in plastic sheeting for months on end, if not years, the associated physical and mental health implications of being denied natural light or fresh air, the security risk, which we have touched on, or the financial impacts of buildings being exposed to the elements, there is no doubt that remediation works that are not undertaken with the appropriate sensitivity can and do have a detrimental impact on residents in high-rise buildings.

We have heard several suggestions this morning about how the issue can be tackled. I think that the hon. Member for Stevenage raised the idea of a digital register of new and remediated buildings. I think that is absolutely unarguable, and I hope that the Minister will give it serious consideration.

Several hon. Members raised the idea of relocating residents from buildings. That may be necessary in some cases, but the idea that all affected residents could be provided with alternative accommodation for the duration of remediation works is deeply problematic, not only because of the astronomical cost, but the practical difficulties that would be involved in such an undertaking, given the thousands of buildings that must be made safe over the coming years.

I actually agree with the hon. Member for Stevenage: surely the simplest way to minimise the impact of remediation works on residents in these buildings is for the Government to look to introduce some kind of code of practice that would seek to ensure that remediation works are carried out as sensitively as possible. There may be a standard alternative to that opaque plastic sheeting, which we can encourage developers to take on board. Even if that is not possible, and plastic sheeting is required, there are ways, and examples around the country, of how freeholders, managing agents and those they contract, can undertake those works in a more sensitive manner, often as a result of extensive consultations with residents about their particular needs.

He is sadly not in this morning’s debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) was telling me about a block in his constituency just the other evening. The landlord, Plymouth Community Homes, has ensured that a young boy with autism who loves looking out of his window at the ships coming and going from the dockyard—an important part of his daily routine, I was told—can still do so, despite the cladding remediation works, because the builder installed see-through plastic sheeting around his family’s flat.

That is just one example, taken at random, of what considerate remediation could look like. We know that there are many others across the country. It would surely be an incredibly low-cost initiative for the Government to bring forward that code of practice to ensure that all building owners and managing agents properly engage with residents in drawing up remediation management plans. I very much welcome the Minister’s views on the matter, as I once again welcome him to his place.

Remediation works are not being carried out as sensitively as they could be, and there is an additional problem related to that. As has been raised, residents are having to endure for longer than necessary the inevitable daily noise, dust and general inconvenience that come with building works, often because of a shortage of skills, personnel and materials. We know that there are many obstacles to the building safety crisis being resolved any time soon. However, shortages of suitable replacement materials and appropriately skilled remediation experts have been known about for some time.

All the evidence suggests that the sector is working at full capacity, with many of the firms able to undertake remediation works being booked up years in advance. There is anecdotal evidence that the constraints on people and materials are impacting on the duration of works on individual sites. That is why there is a need to ensure that the remediation works are carried out not only as sensitively as possible, but as quickly as possible. The need for both those things, I would argue, reinforces the case for the Government to look to establish a new building works agency, as Labour has proposed: a single body, accountable to Ministers, that could go block by block to determine which works are necessary under the new PAS 9980 guidance, commission those works, look at the ways in which the impact might be mitigated and certify buildings as safe at the end of the process.

At present, the debate around the building safety crisis is, for completely understandable reasons, focused almost entirely on the issue of who pays. However, if—and I do say if—and when that issue is finally resolved, as we hope it will be if the Building Safety Bill is overhauled as required in the other place, Ministers will have to confront the very real problem of tackling the remediation challenge across the country at pace, and in a way that best limits the harm to the blameless residents caught up in this scandal.

To ensure that, Labour argues that the Government will need to be more interventionist; otherwise, the work will simply never get done. The hon. Member for Stevenage argued that none of us have prepared for the scale of the forthcoming remediation challenge. However, it has been on a lot of our minds for some time. As the Minister will know, various professional bodies have for some time been urging the Government to grip this issue, whether by the Department chairing a taskforce or by creating a body of the kind for which Labour has advocated.

Labour remains of the view that the Government could learn many lessons from the model adopted in Victoria, Australia. As the Minister may know, Cladding Safety Victoria provides a dedicated officer for each affected building, who then appoints a project manager directly. It is obvious how that arrangement could help ensure remediation works are carried out swiftly and considerately. I urge the Minister to look again, if he has not already, at the Australian experience and at what might be learnt from it.

This has been a valuable debate and I welcome the opportunity to hear the concerns of hon. Members from across the House on the effect of remediation works on residents in high-rise buildings. Labour has long pressed the Government to bring forward a comprehensive solution to the building safety crisis that will restore common sense and proportionality to the system, resolve the fundamental issue of leaseholder liability, clear the backlog of building safety fund applications and accelerate the agonisingly slow pace of remediation. However, mitigating the impact of remediation works on residents should not be an afterthought in all this, and I look forward to hearing what the Government will do to ensure that it is not.

10:24

[The Minister for Housing (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Miller. It is also a pleasure to take part in this important debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) for securing it. As he mentioned, he has raised this issue with me before, even before I was in this new role as Minister. I know that he is passionate about trying to resolve many of the issues that his constituents face.

Other hon. Members have also raised important experiences that their constituencies have faced. One of the many things that struck me when I took on this role was the challenge that many of those constituencies have faced. Residents of high-rise buildings across the country probably went into those buildings with the dream of home ownership and the prospect of living in a nice new apartment, which rapidly turned into a nightmare the day they discovered that their flats were clad in dangerous and unsafe materials. That is why the contributions of hon. Members this morning have been so very important. I am deeply aware of the harrowing cases that many have discussed.

Although I am very new in post, I know and have known about the importance of remediation. I am obviously keen to get a grip of it during my time in this role, but I am also very keen to work with colleagues and to continue the cross-party relationship that has clearly delivered some important results for constituents. My door is always open to any colleagues who want to speak to me.

I will in a moment address some of the specific points that were raised. I want to reiterate that I hope that the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), will indicate to the House how seriously the Government take this issue. The whole package of measures that has been announced and the amendments being introduced in the other place as we speak show that there is a shift in addressing the issue. Those who live in high-rise properties can be assured that this matter is being taken seriously, and that we will address their safety concerns. We will also bring a good deal of proportionality into the issue; there are some people living in perfectly safe accommodation who are also feeling very frightened, so we need a sense of proportion.

To come to some of the points that were made, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich talked specifically about St Francis Tower and other buildings in the town. The lack of consultation with residents is, frankly, unacceptable. It does not cost any money to consult with the people who live in those buildings and to explain the processes that have to be undertaken. There are some elements that are necessary: some of the shrink wrapping ensures that residents do not face astronomical heating bills as a result of the cladding coming off. That said, we perhaps need to look at the types of wrapping. He says that he does not believe that there are any other ways. Lord Greenhalgh is dealing with the detail of those things, and I will speak to him when I get back to the Department about the really important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich raised.

The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked about Mandale House and the lack of natural light. I do not think any of us could understand how that would feel—lacking the only source of natural light in one’s building. Those are the sorts of experiences that we have to listen to and learn from, because this will become a bigger problem as remedial works happen all over the country.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland). I know that when he gets his teeth into a subject, he does not let go—he is like a terrier—and he gave me a bit of a Christmas list of asks. He talked about developing a code of practice, and I will speak to Lord Greenhalgh about the merits of that. My hon. Friend raised the issue of compulsory purchases. That is a big ask, but these things are always worth exploring. I obviously cannot commit to that here, but it is an interesting point.

On the issue of a building safety register, for the high-risk buildings and buildings over 18 metres that are about to be occupied, there will be a register under the new Building Safety Regulator. However, if my hon. Friend has other concerns about that issue, perhaps we can talk about them later. Of course I will happily speak to my counterpart in Northern Ireland. Sharing best practice is right, as it is for the benefit of all the people of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland: it is important that we share the vital lessons that have been learned.

I hope that we have come a long way in recognising that this is an important issue that needs addressing and that that gives people confidence that the places they live in will have the remedial works that they need, so that they can get back to enjoying the houses and the accommodation that they are living in and enjoying the things in them. I get the point about my hon. Friend’s constituents’ plants; such things are important to people. Someone’s home is the most important place in their life and they want to ensure that they are able to enjoy it safely.

I will touch on the pace of remediation, because that is an important point. We are forcing industry to step up to the plate and take responsibility, of course, but we are also pressing ahead with getting dangerous cladding removed from buildings without delay. As I have said, we have provided the £5.1 billion to address fire safety risk caused by unsafe cladding on these buildings in order to protect residents and we have made great progress in making safe high-rise buildings with the most dangerous form of cladding—ACM cladding, the type that was on Grenfell Tower. Some 93% of all high-rise residential buildings identified with unsafe ACM cladding have now been remediated or have workers on site as we speak, finishing the job, and that rises to 100% in the social sector. For high-rise buildings with unsafe, non-ACM cladding, £1.073 billion has already been allocated from the building safety fund, with £945 million relating to the private sector and £128 million relating to the social sector. So, in total, 892 private sector buildings and 123 social sector buildings are proceeding with a full application to the building safety fund.

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not put the Minister on the spot with a question, but I will just request that he go away and consider how we can speed up that application process, because far too many buildings without ACM cladding that have applied to the building safety fund face, even with the portal and the information on it, inconsistencies about the information that is said to be required and submitted, as well as very severe delays in receiving that funding. We are talking about remediation works that can take a year or two, but these buildings are not even at that point because they are still being held up in terms of getting a final award or final decision on remediation. Can he consider what more he can do to speed up that application process for all the buildings across the country that are affected?

[Stuart Andrew]

I will happily commit to go away and look into that issue for the hon. Gentleman, and I will get in touch with him afterwards to update him on that. It is important to say that we have also improved the information available to leaseholders and residents about the building safety fund, with the new online services that provide real-time updates, but I take the point that he has just made.

Clearly, the mental health aspect is a very important issue. I have outlined the steps that the Government are taking to meet a lot of the financial costs of removing the cladding and how we are doing everything within our power physically to speed up remediation. However, in response to the points that hon. Members have made today, I will also say that we also recognise that the building safety crisis has taken a very heavy toll on people’s mental health. Of course, my Department regularly engages with leaseholder groups who have shared with us terrible examples of people being sick to the stomach with stress over the last few years because they are trapped in homes that they are unable to sell or that they cannot afford to fix. We believe that bringing these matters to a swift conclusion through the measures that I have spoken about today is the best way to alleviate the stress and concerns of so many leaseholders.

We know that many residents living in these buildings, including many who have had to endure 24/7 waking watches or who have faced acute financial difficulties, understandably need access to proper mental health support. That is one reason we are working across Government to ensure that all people, regardless of their residential situation, get that help and support they need. Where residents in buildings fitted with flammable cladding need specific mental health support, we are encouraging them to contact their GP to discuss these issues and ensure they are referred to appropriate mental health services. I recognise that we have to look at that in greater detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage asked about the contribution of costs to waking watch being offset under the £10,000 cap, and I confirm that is the case. I am sure his constituent will be happy with that.

[Stephen McPartland]

On behalf of my constituents, especially those in Vista Tower, I would like to say thank you to the Minister.

[Stuart Andrew]

That is very kind. I want to conclude by saying that I know there is a united desire across the House to ensure that people are safe and that, more importantly, feel safe in their own homes. Debates such as this are incredibly important, as we work together to achieve that goal, protecting leaseholders while pursuing ambitious reforms, to create one of the strongest building safety regimes in the world. In doing so, we will ensure public confidence in the sector and bring about lasting change, to ensure that the industry always puts residents’ welfare first.

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich and everybody who has taken part in the debate that the Government will not take their foot off the gas in making buildings safe. We are determined to ensure that residents’ concerns are properly allayed, by driving meaningful change in the building industry, and ensuring that residents know that they are being properly supported and, more importantly, listened to. We can help drive the biggest improvements to building safety for decades, which will restore public confidence in our housing sector and create a robust, strengthened building safety system that places the welfare of residents at its heart. I conclude by praising again my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich. I know he will not rest until his residents feel that they are being properly listened to, and have those remediation works done as quickly as possible. I look forward to working in this role with him in future.

10:37

[Tom Hunt]

I thank everyone for contributing to the debate: the Minister, shadow Minister and all hon. Friends and Members who have made powerful contributions. In many senses, I have got what I wanted from the debate, inasmuch as it has been not only an opportunity to talk at length about specifics of St Francis Tower and Ipswich, but has put a spotlight on the issue.

More experienced colleagues have been able to share their experiences, teach me and explain various matters that I perhaps did not know. Being more experienced, they have come up with potentially workable solutions for some of these problems. This debate in itself has been a positive development. Lord Greenhalgh will visit Ipswich and St Francis Tower, though I will be coy about the date.

I welcome the Minister in his post. The impact on the mental health of leaseholders and residents, such as those in St Francis Tower, has come up a lot in the debate. Because of that, it is incredibly important that the Minister in charge shows good levels of emotional intelligence. The Minister has that in spades and, having got to know him since I became an MP, I think that the start he has made in his role is promising. I am confident that he gets the seriousness of this issue and the extent to which my constituents have suffered. I am very pleased about that.

I think we all agree that this work needs to be carried out, like the work that is happening at St Francis Tower, and I think that my constituents are realistic: they expect some disruption and disturbance. They accept that, and are happy that the building is being made safe and that those works are being paid for through the building safety fund. They expect a degree of disruption, but not to the extent that we have seen and in a way that has had such a negative bearing on their mental health, so clearly with St Francis Tower, the right balance has not been struck.

I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook): if relocating people were a general policy, it would be incredibly expensive and not ideal, because people want to stay in their homes. However, in relation to the cases in St Francis Tower, it would be preferable to what they are having to endure, or have endured. I think there is a third way, for want of a better phrase, that would mean that residents could stay in their homes but not be as adversely impacted in terms of their living conditions and mental health.

As such, my advice to the Government is to get ahead of this issue, because it will not go away. There will be many more St Francis Towers, and many more colleagues who will come to these debates, talk about this issue and share their experiences. Today, we have had a small number of colleagues present, but a similar Westminster Hall debate in three or four months’ time could have many more colleagues sharing similar stories, so my advice to the Government is, “Let’s get ahead of it.” What my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage has suggested with regards to a code of practice sounds very sensible, looking in detail at what is needed and what kind of material could be used that does not have such a negative impact.

Since I have been a Member of Parliament, very few issues have been as point blank and black and white to me as this one. I will always remember the day I went to St Francis Tower. Sometimes in politics, things are not always this black and white—they are not this clear cut, in terms of what the morally right thing to do is—but that day, it really was black and white to me, and I made a pledge to the residents that I would do everything I could to get that shrink wrap off. I hope that even though I have been unsuccessful in that goal so far, by having this debate, those people at least know that their plight is getting the attention it deserves, and hopefully feel that they are not alone. It is not just me who feels very strongly about this: it is everybody in town.

I pay tribute to the Ipswich Cladiators, who are the campaign group in Ipswich on this issue, and in particular Alex Dickin, who heads up that group. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned a constituent who is a GP, who has dedicated so much of his time to this issue: Alex is very much in that category as well. He has been so effective because he is incredibly committed, dedicated and passionate about this issue, but is also incredibly polite, lovely and understanding. Yes, we have sometimes had discussions in which he has felt that the Government have not gone far enough, and on certain occasions he perhaps thinks that I could have done more, but he has always been an absolute pleasure to work with. I thank him, and the Ipswich Cladiators more generally.

That code of practice could be what we are really after here. It will require some Government action, because sadly, we have seen in Ipswich that we cannot always rely on the companies in question to take the responsible and morally right decision. They certainly have not done so in Ipswich, and I do not think that Block Management UK has covered itself in glory. I say that with some reticence, but I think it is necessary that I say so.

I thank everybody for contributing to this debate, and particularly the Minister for the comments he has made. It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller—I do not think it is the first time, and hopefully it will not be the last. Have a very good rest of the day.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effect of remediation works on residents in high rise buildings.

10:45

Sitting suspended.

What Works Network: Centre for Food

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Mrs Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

I will call Alex Norris to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as that is the convention in 30-minute debates.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the addition of a centre for food to the What Works Network.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Miller. I have brought today’s debate to bring attention to what would be a terrific addition to the What Works Network and a significant opportunity for the Government to help make the national food strategy report a success. I suspect that the Minister might be glad that for once I am taking a break from pressing her on fish mawl, although I am grateful for all the work she has done in that area. So we will move on to food more generally.

The agrifood sector is a crucial part of British life. It is a major driver of our economy. In 2018, the wider system employed 4.3 million people and contributed £121 billion—nearly 10%—to our national gross value added. It is an anchor sector in our economy and it touches all of us every day. However, we are living in a challenging period when it comes to food.

People are struggling to meet their living costs, of which food is a major part. According to the Food Foundation, 4.9 million adults, or 9% of the population, are affected by food insecurity. In comparison, 5.6% of the population experienced food insecurity five years ago, based on the threshold set by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation. At the time, the FAO also considered that 2.5% of the UK population would be considered undernourished, with 1.8% facing severe food insecurity.

We know from global trends, as stated in the food strategy report, that the food we eat and how we produce it can damage both the planet and our health. Globally, 37% of greenhouse gas emissions come from the food system. Here in the UK, the sector engages 70% of our land, contributes 45% of the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution in our rivers and creates 2.2 million tonnes of plastic packaging every year, less than half of which is recycled. Turning to our own bodies, 80% of processed food sold in the UK is unhealthy and we get 57% of our calories from processed foods rich in fat, salt and sugar, with 35% of the population overweight, 27% obese and nearly 5 million people suffering with diabetes due to the over-consumption of processed foods.

Market factors end up turning this into a vicious circle—the junk food cycle. The market for processed foods makes them cheaper and more accessible, which makes them more desirable. All the while, we get unhealthier and unhealthier, and the planet suffers. I am a sinner in this regard, so I do not cast the first stone on policing my constituents’ diets—I do not feel that that is my role, and I am not sure that I would have complete credibility—but it is hard not to see that we live in an obesogenic environment.

We owe our constituents leadership that tackles the situation and gives them true, informed choice and a range of options. We see elements of that in the Government’s obesity strategy. I was keen to support that strategy as shadow Public Health Minister, but it remains quite modest and what I am suggesting today could turbocharge that approach. The incredible contribution the sector makes to our economy, as well as some of its challenges, shows both positively and negatively why it is vital that we have an understanding of the best developments in food, so that we can harness them to improve the system. That is why I am enthusiastic about a What Works centre for food.

The network of nine independent What Works centres, three affiliate members and one associate member currently cover policy areas that account for more than £250 billion of public spending, to allow decision making to be supported by an evidence base worthy of the decisions that have to be made in this place and will be made, going forward, across the country. As gov.uk puts it:

“What Works is based on the principle that good decision-making should be informed by the best available evidence. If evidence is not available, decision-makers should use high quality methods to find out what works.”

That is a very noble principle that commands cross-party support.

Examples of such centres include the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth and the What Works Centre for Wellbeing. The current network of What Works centres has transformed the use of evidence in public services across medicine, policing, schools, hospitals, GP practices and care homes. The Government have been wise in listening to them in the way that they have.

I feel that I am in good company, because the Early Intervention Foundation is also part of the network, and my predecessor, Graham Allen, was instrumental in its development, so we are perhaps re-establishing a tradition for Nottingham North MPs today.

The networks follow the six impact principles: they are independent, methodologically rigorous, practical, accessible, capacity-building and transparent. Those are noble pursuits that would enhance our food policy.

As with most ideas, I have stolen this one from someone else: the Government’s own food strategy report recommended that the Government establish two What Works centres, modelled on the Education Endowment Foundation, to collect and analyse evidence on the effectiveness of food-related policies and business practices. One would focus on diet, and the other on farming methods. Although my instinct and preference would be to have a single centre, I am concerned not with minutiae today but with the wider importance of the principle of establishing such a centre.

People far more qualified than me are already working on the details. Academics from the University of Nottingham, the University of Leeds and the University of Newcastle, led by Professor David Salt of the University of Nottingham’s School of Biosciences, have recently proposed a project to blueprint such a centre, in line with the recommendation. There is significant interest in this space. The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board is also working on some of these ideas in a farming context. The Food Standards Agency is thinking about a What Works centre in the diet space. That shows the traction that the idea is getting, and that there is great interest in it across academia, business and industry. My view is that it should be under one roof.

[Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and thank him for giving way. He mentioned the University of Nottingham, which is doing fantastic research into food sustainability, and its Sutton Bonington campus, where lots of that work takes place, is in my constituency. He makes a compelling argument for evidence-based policy that gives us healthier food and is better for our planet. I am sure he will extend an invitation to the Minister to visit, and I will take this opportunity to second that invitation and to invite her to see the fantastic research and work being done at Sutton Bonington.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I absolutely endorse such a visit. I went on a half-day visit to the Sutton Bonington campus to meet David Salt and colleagues and to hear about all sorts—it was a kind of speed dating with different academics to hear about their research. It was absolutely fascinating. I extend such an invitation to the Minister and I hope she will feel able to accept it. I know that the hon. Lady wants to be there, and I am more than happy to be there myself. My first visit to Sutton Bonington was 19 years ago, when I went to play football. It is an agricultural mechanical school so they were bigger than those of us from the school of history and politics, funnily enough. I nearly had my head taken off by a centre back who was about 10 feet taller than me, but I can promise the Minister that that will not happen to her.

This is probably a good moment to reference the work of the University of Nottingham’s Future Food beacon, which is led by Professor Salt. It is a cross-discipline programme to bring together the highest-quality academics from across the world, working with industry, to resolve the thorniest problems in our food systems. The research themes include future-proofing agricultural systems, which is so important in the context of climate change; food for sustainable livelihoods, which I think we in this place are all concerned about, at home and abroad; food for health, which as I have mentioned is a major area of public policy interest; and smart manufacturing for food. That is not the sort of stuff that gets the newspaper headlines, but it is really fascinating. As I said, I spent half a day there and it was great, so I really hope the Minister will do the same—she would really enjoy it. I will not go off on a tangent about my love of Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, but that beacon project is an example of where we want Nottingham and Nottinghamshire to be: at the forefront of crucial development to change our world. Our two universities do a great job in that, and I am proud to have the chance to showcase that.

I am conscious of time, so I will use the remaining time to align what I have said with what I think the Government also want in the broader context of the national food strategy. The report was a massive wake-up call to fix our food system. The Government’s reaction to it should be to make sure that every family can afford a healthy hot meal for their children every day, protect our high food and farming standards in law, make our food system environmentally friendly, deliver a radical obesity strategy that ensures that families can access healthy food, support access to local leisure facilities and tackle rising child poverty. What we are talking about today is a really good part of being able to do that. This is an area of significant change, so staying ahead of some of the trends is really valuable.

The Government commissioned the national food strategy, which provided key recommendations to fix the food system, reduce food inequality, make the best use of land and improve health. I have no doubt that in those endeavours the Government will have Opposition support. I hope that the Minister will clarify that ideas on the recommendations in the food strategy report, and perhaps a White Paper in that area, will be brought forward soon.

The report’s 16 recommendations broadly fit into four areas: escaping the junk food cycle, reducing diet-related inequality, making the best use of land and creating a long-term shift in our food culture. I have picked up on one recommendation, recommendation 11, which is a lynchpin for fulfilling all those strategic objectives, increasing the pace of change towards fixing our food system and going a long way towards protecting our health and our planet.

We know that consumers are the key to driving change, and a shift in consumer behaviour to more plant-based foods and fewer foods from animals will be beneficial for both our health and our environment. I am on my own journey on that, as I know other people are. We have shown in the past that, when we lean into public policy changes that we know will have a positive impact on health—such as the sugar tax or changes to smoking laws—they can have great success. Consumer behaviour will perhaps not be an area for significant legislation; rather, saying that the policies need to follow the evidence will have the greatest impact. We know that consumer behaviour does not exist in a silo. There are three factors to be considered: dietary change, sustainability, and social and economic priorities. All of those have to work together for people to be able to sustain the changes that they wish to see.

In changing consumer behaviour, there is a really big place for food and agriculture. The centre or two centres—whatever the preferred model—would provide precisely the scope needed for food, as well as the ability to gather, assess and synthesise the evidence needed to develop the right policies, practices and standards, which would pull all that together and subsequently drive the required food system change towards more healthy and sustainable diets.

I mentioned the work of Professor Salt and his colleagues earlier. At the moment, they have a project proposal awaiting review from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council. The proposal provides a blueprint for how a centre will work, and I hope it will be successful. Obviously, I am not asking the Minister to intervene on that individual project, but I hope to hear that there is support and a keenness to bring in experts and academics on a What Works model. They are doing great work and can make a really significant difference.

I end with a really important point. A What Works centre for food is something that academics want. It is something for which there is growing political support. It is something that business and industry are really into—they want to be part of this partnership too. There is a really exciting partnership growing behind the concept, and as such we can make a big difference. I look forward to welcoming the Minister, if she is minded to visit, and I hope to hear a little more about her views on a What Works centre.

11:13

[The Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food (Victoria Prentis)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) on securing the debate. I very much hope that it will be part of a wide series of debates about quite specific but important issues around the publication of the Government’s White Paper in response to Henry Dimbleby’s food strategy. The good work that the Government will do in response to his work will be in the details. Yes, there will be headlines, but I suspect that most of the nudge behaviours that change the way in which we as a nation eat, and that help us to eat more healthy and sustainable diets, will come in the kind of work that we are discussing this morning and in careful, thoughtful policy making of the sort that the hon. Gentleman has set out.

It is a great delight to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Ruth Edwards), whose constituency I had the great pleasure of visiting recently, when we were able to taste some delicious cheese. I would be delighted to come again, as long as the quality of the lunch is as good as it was last time.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North is clearly passionate about the need for a What Works centre for food. I am convinced that What Works centres can add real value in increasing the supply and demand for evidence, tailoring outputs to the needs of the respective decision makers and helping Departments and stakeholders access and interpret evidence to inform policy questions, as well as longer-term strategic priorities. Really good examples, as the hon. Member said, include NICE and the Education Endowment Foundation. I share the hon. Member’s passion for making good policy and working out how things work best. I am sure that What Works centres have a place in that, and I too am pleased that the Government are willing to use them. However, I cannot promise that they are the answer to every question.

Let me set out the current Government thinking on this issue. For the past 18 months, we have been working across Government to develop the food strategy White Paper. We have been considering the recommendations of Henry Dimbleby’s independent review into food, setting out the Government’s ambition and priorities for the food system and, we hope, taking a truly one-Government approach to the food system. Some 16 Departments have an interest in food—as do we all, frankly. It is important that we consider food strategy in the longer term in a joined-up way. We will be publishing our strategy in the coming weeks after putting the finishing touches to it.

Our strategy will build on existing work across Government and identify new opportunities to make the food system healthier, more sustainable and, given the enormous challenges we have had to cope with over the last couple of years, as resilient as possible. Issues around governance and data in the food system will be a critical, though possibly not the most headline-grabbing, part of the food strategy White Paper. We want to examine how, in this fragmented landscape, we can ensure that evidence is generated and shared and then becomes part of a greater whole. The gap is often not so much in the generation of evidence—particularly in the food space—but in its effective translation into policy.

In his independent review, Henry Dimbleby recommended that two What Works centres be set up—one focusing on agricultural production and one on diet shift. Turning to the What Works centre on diet shift, we are fortunate enough to benefit from the huge wealth of evidence on healthy and sustainable diets that is already available to us, even if we do not all follow it every day. The key challenge is how we translate and make better use of that existing evidence to encourage a healthier and more sustainable diet shift.

The newly established Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will bring together expert evidence and analysis with policy development and implementation to shape and drive health improvement and equalities priorities for Government. Piloting real-world interventions is the way forward in this space. Professor David Salt is already doing valuable work on the ways in which we can all change our behaviour going forward. The hon. Member for Nottingham North was right to reference the great work being done by academics and universities across the nation in this space, but our priority is to make sure that we use this work properly.

Piloting and interventions are the way to go. In these circumstances, we think What Works is not the answer to this particular issue, but we are keeping the matter under review. I am sure we will be discussing it with the Food Standards Agency and others in the coming weeks when we concentrate on the food strategy.

As for the recommendation for a What Works centre on ag production, the AHDB delivered a pilot known as the evidence for farming initiative in 2020-21. The aim of the pilot was to develop a prototype of the What Works centre for ag and horticulture that would demonstrate how evidence could be brought together to inform best practice uptake in farming. The work is now informing AHDB’s new proposal for a What Works centre in this space, and officials in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are in close collaboration on that work and are actively considering it.

On production, of course we recognise the importance of supporting farmers to access and adopt best practice. Farmers often work alone, and innovation sometimes needs encouragement from the Government and experts in academia and elsewhere. Indeed, as in industry, as the hon. Gentleman referenced, we are targeting our new work at encouraging real progress. Much of the data work that I talked about earlier will be done hand in hand with industry. The issues are difficult. We are talking about diet shift and accurate and transparent labelling. The Government cannot do this in a top-down way. It has to be done in lockstep with industry at every stage of the food supply chain. We will spend over £270 million across our farming innovation programme to stimulate research and development in agricultural innovation. We are looking at that programme closely and exploring what the barriers are to innovation and how best to address them.

I look forward to updating the House on our plans as they develop, and we in DEFRA will continue to champion the best farming practices and to promote healthier, more sustainable diets. I thank the hon. Gentleman for this discussion. As we publish our food strategy White Paper in the coming weeks, I encourage Members from across the House to engage with DEFRA to help us identify new opportunities for best practice and joined-up working for our food system going forward.

Question put and agreed to.

11:21

Sitting suspended.

Regional Inequalities: Child Poverty

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

14:30

[Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered regional inequalities and child poverty.

It is a pleasure, Dr Huq, to serve under you as Chair in this debate on regional inequalities and child poverty. Speaking about child poverty gives me no pleasure at all. In 2022, in the world’s fifth-richest country, we should not need to talk about child poverty or regional inequalities at all, yet sadly too many of my constituents and people living across the whole north of England face real inequalities in all aspects of life. That directly affects our children’s life chances, health, wellbeing and, yes, even life expectancy. I acknowledge that there are huge divides between communities in London, too; there is great wealth in some parts and real poverty in others. It is important to recognise that.

Of course, covid-19 has deepened inequalities; the north was affected by longer lockdowns, a higher number of infections and, sadly, a higher number of deaths. Professor Sir Michael Marmot’s report, “Build Back Fairer: The COVID-19 Marmot Review”, and before that, “Health Equity in England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On”, published in 2020, clearly set out the situation. Covid-19 does discriminate, hitting hardest those people in our communities who are already affected by inequality. It has exacerbated inequalities, hitting hardest those groups and people who were already disadvantaged.

Earlier this year, the Northern Health Science Alliance, or NHSA—a group of academics and health specialists working in collaboration—published a major report, “The Child of the North: Building A Fairer Future After Covid-19”. Sadly, I do not have time to take hon. Members through all its detail, but the findings were that inequality and low living standards are a huge problem across the north, and that this problem is only getting worse.

The NHSA’s report found that today, nearly a third of children in the north live in poverty, and 60% of northern local authorities have above-average numbers of children living in low-income homes. The report found that children across the north spent more time in lockdown than their peers in the rest of England. They are also more likely to grow up in care. Young children in the north are less prepared when they start school than children in the rest of England.

The report clearly shows the many ways that regional inequality blights the lives of children and adults, including through higher levels of poverty, poorer educational attainment, higher levels of infant mortality, lower life expectancy and worse mental health outcomes, both for children and adults.

Finally, the report concludes that

“Poverty is the lead driver of inequalities between children in the North and their counterparts in the rest of the country, leading to worse physical and mental health outcomes, educational attainment, and lower lifelong economic productivity.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made this situation worse. Although the full impact is not yet known, modelling suggests that, without intervention, the outlook is bleak.”

I am pleased that, one week today at 10 o’clock, I will host the report’s authors as they present their findings. I hope that the Minister can call in and speak to some of those involved in putting the report together, as well as to some of the children with whom they worked, to hear at first hand how we can reduce regional inequalities and improve the life chances of our children and young people right across the north.

One of the best parts of our job as MPs is the great opportunities that we get to go into local schools. When I visit schools—primary and secondary—I see children and young people who are full of enthusiasm, and keen to tell me about what they are learning and the things that really interest them. The classrooms are full of their artwork, and they ask loads of questions—very often the questions that adults would be far too polite to ask—and of course there are teachers and other school staff doing their very best to level up the chances of those children, so that they are the best they can be.

There are great things happening in the north, but we owe it to those young people to really address the disadvantages that they face, and to reduce the poverty that holds them back. There are people and organisations on the ground across Blaydon constituency taking positive steps to make things better and ease things for those who are really struggling, such as the Gateshead food bank depots at Blaydon and Birtley, the Blaydon Community Larder, the Gateshead West pre-loved school uniform scheme, the Winlaton Centre, The Bank in Chopwell, the Birtley Hub and so many others right across my constituency. However, it should not have to be like this in this day and age.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She mentions food banks. We have seen a huge increase in food bank usage in Newcastle Central, and had the third highest increase in child poverty in the country between 2015 and 2019; it was almost 13%. Some 100,000 of the children living in poverty across the north-east live in families where one parent is working, and we see that reflected in food bank usage. Does she agree that we have to ensure that parents have enough to feed themselves and their children without going to food banks, and that the Government have been failing on that?

[Liz Twist]

I most certainly agree. That picture is reflected in my constituency, too. We must make sure that families have enough to live a good and decent life, and to support their children.

On the north-east more specifically, the North East Child Poverty Commission, hosted by Newcastle University, produces valuable research on the prevalence and effects of child poverty across the region. On the latest available data, from 2019-20, the north-east has the UK’s second highest rate of child poverty. An average of 37% of all babies, children and young people in our region grow up poor, whereas the UK average is 31%. Most concerningly for our region, the north-east also experienced the steepest growth in child poverty from 2014-15 to 2019-20—the six years leading into the pandemic; it rose by 11 percentage points from 26% to 37%. By comparison, there was a UK-wide rise of 2 percentage points over the same period.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree on the importance of the relationship between our social security system and the adequacy of working-age support on the one hand, given that £34 billion a year has been taken out of support for working-age people, and the impact on child poverty on the other? Would she like to comment on the fact that for every 1% increase in child poverty, an additional five babies a year out of 100,000 live births will not see their first birthday?

[Liz Twist]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will come to the economic aspects of this issue later. We do not yet have child poverty figures for the period during the covid-19 pandemic; I understand that we will not have them until the end of March 2022. However, from some of the available real-time information, it is clear that there has been a significant financial impact on thousands of families in our region. The north-east has experienced the joint steepest increase in the proportion of pupils eligible for free school meals during the pandemic of anywhere in England, having already had the highest proportion pre-covid.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful and timely speech. She mentions free school meals; another support that many families in the north-east rely on is Healthy Start vouchers. A report by Northumbria University and Feeding Britain recently highlighted that there are incredible struggles with the move from a paper-based system to a prepaid card system. Families are being rejected at the tills in their hour of greatest need, and cannot get any help through the helpline. Does she agree that the Minister should commit today to urgently resolving the matter, so that families, and particularly children, get the support they need?

[Liz Twist]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valid and pertinent point. That is one detail that must be looked at—it is so important for those families. Turning to in-work poverty, the TUC found that 108,775 children living in poverty in the north-east come from homes with at least one parent or carer in work. That is an increase of 52% since 2010. Children growing up in poverty is not about parents who refuse to work, but rather a lack of good, secure and well-paid jobs in the north-east and across the north.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is being generous with her time and making an excellent speech; I am impressed that it is so wide-ranging. She will be aware that 4.3 million children are living in poverty in the UK. According to research by the End Child Poverty coalition in May last year, 20% of children in my constituency of Wirral West were living in poverty in 2019-20. That has increased since 2015. Does she agree that Government policy is having a direct impact in stimulating child poverty? She is talking about parents being in work, but policies such as the cut to universal credit are only making the matter worse.

[Liz Twist]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall come on to that later. The regional inequalities go beyond childhood and affect people in the north-east throughout their life. According to “Health Equity In England: The Marmot Review 10 Years On”, living in a deprived area of the north-east is worse for health than living in a similarly deprived area in London, to the extent that life expectancy for those living in deprived areas of the north-east is nearly five years lower. Life expectancy in the north-east is lower than in any other part of England, and region matters more for people in the most deprived areas. For both men and women, the largest decreases in life expectancy were seen in the most deprived 10% of neighbourhoods in the north-east. That is clearly unacceptable. I thank Jane Streather, chair of the North East Child Poverty Commission, for her work over the last 10 years; she steps down as chair later this year.

Of course, we cannot have this debate without speaking about what the Prime Minister calls levelling up. That phrase seems to mean so many things to so many people, but I would argue that a crucial part of levelling up, reducing inequalities or whatever else we call it is reducing child poverty—giving our children and families the economic means to get out of the poverty trap. It was disappointing to see that the levelling-up White Paper did nothing to address that fundamental issue for families, many of whom are working households. The “Child of the North” report clearly points out the link between tackling poverty and increasing productivity, so it makes sense to take steps to remove those children from poverty. What we have seen with the removal of the £20 per week universal credit uplift is the exact opposite.

Another thing we cannot and must not ignore is the impact of the substantial increase in the cost of living. The families and children we are talking about are hit every bit as much as others, and in many cases more, by increasing inflation, the massively increasing energy costs and other increases. Those effects do not show yet in the figures I have quoted. What can we do? We must urgently work towards a comprehensive, cross-departmental child strategy that includes increasing Government investment in the welfare, health and social care systems that support children’s health, particularly in deprived areas and areas most affected by the covid-19 pandemic. That means raising child benefit by at least £10 per child per week, lifting the two-child limit and the benefit cap and, crucially, reversing the £20 cut to universal credit. We need a welfare system that both prevents and tackles poverty.

We need long-term transformative investment in the services that children, young people and families use, particularly those services that are targeted but universal, such as family and community hubs, in order to build social solidarity and reduce the risk of stigmatisation.

We need to develop area-level measures of children’s physical and mental health in order to better understand place-based inequalities. I ask him to look at those issues and respond to those points. I would be pleased to meet him to discuss these issues further. Can he answer each of those points?

I can do no better than finish with the words of Lemn Sissay OBE in the foreword to the “Child of the North” report, which I hope he does not mind me quoting. He says:

“Childhood is life defining and shaped by factors from before birth through to adulthood. A child’s mother’s health, the care they get, through family or the care system, what house they live in, what food they eat, how often they get to run around, their education, their opportunities. All of these things have a big impact and, as this report shows, the average Child of the North is disadvantaged from the start across all of these measures.”

The children of the north deserve the very best chance to develop, grow and prosper. I hope that the Minister will take action on these issues.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

We have done the maths, and we think we can do this. If everyone sticks to three and a half minutes or less, then everyone will get in. I start with Peter Gibson.

14:46

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing today’s important debate.

As a fellow north-eastern MP, I know only too well that the north-east has been left behind by Governments of all colours. In 2019, the people of Darlington and other constituencies across the north-east elected Conservative MPs on the promise of levelling up and realising the full potential of the north-east. Since the election, the Government have faced incredible challenges that no other Government have. They have pressed ahead with their ambitious agenda and have committed to unprecedented investment up and down the country.

The annual “Households below average income” publication, about the number and percentage of children in low-income households, remains the most accurate published measurement of low income. Those statistics show that in the past decade 100,000 children have been lifted out of absolute poverty, and levels of combined material deprivation and low income for children are at their joint lowest level.

We know that the best way for people to find a route out of poverty is through work. That is why I welcome the Government’s lifetime skills programme, which enables people to get the skills they need in order to get the jobs that will help them to provide for their family.

[Liz Twist]

The hon. Member has quoted some measures. As he will be aware, there are different definitions of child poverty; the standard definition refers to 60% of median income. He needs to recognise that there is a difference.

[Peter Gibson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. The issues around accurate definitions pose part of the problem. I hope the Minister will address that point, as Members on all sides of the House need to agree on an accurate definition of the issue that we are discussing.

The chances of a child growing up in poverty are significantly reduced when both parents are working and when both parents are present. I am proud that this Government are taking an approach to tackling poverty that has employment at its centre. The Government’s plan for jobs has already supported millions of people, and will continue to support people into work, in developing their skills, in making the most of their talents and in achieving their potential.

I recently met the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and it impressed on me that it is in single-parent families or those with absent parents that a child is most at risk of growing up in poverty. We must remember that the state has limited levers for dealing with poverty unilaterally. A responsibility rests on both parents, and I would like to see greater efforts by the Child Maintenance Service to ensure that absent parents pay and meet their responsibilities.

While we know that employment is hugely important, I am glad that we have a robust welfare safety net in place to support people on low incomes; £111 billion has been invested in welfare support for people of working age. I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to extend the work allowance for those on universal credit, and the reduction in the taper rate, ensuring that work really does pay. Moreover, I welcome the Government’s £421 million household support fund to help vulnerable people in England with essential household costs over the winter, as our economy recovers.

Improving educational outcomes for children is also key to tackling long-term poverty, and the Government are determined to help people receive the best possible start in life, creating a level playing field for transforming the education system, to ensure that people gain the skills they need to unleash their potential. The Government recognise the current regional differences in schools, meaning that some children do not have access to the same level of education.

I also take the opportunity to praise the Government’s fantastic holiday food and activities programme. Darlington Borough Council received £460,000 to deliver food and activities over Easter and summer, and has already reached more than 2,000 local children. Councillor Jonathan Dulston, the deputy leader of Darlington Borough Council, said:

“This fund came at a crucial time, and this Government support gave local authorities like Darlington the tools to step up and bring communities back together by creating educational, physical and fun opportunities to help our children thrive.”

14:51

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for securing today’s important debate. There are 4.3 million children living in poverty in the UK, with more than half a million in the north-west alone. In my constituency of Bolton South East, two of the postcodes have 50% child poverty, and one in three children in our country are raised in poverty; yet we are the fifth-richest country in the world.

The previous Labour Government took 1.1 million children out of poverty. We now have a situation where a generation of children have had their life chances damaged by poverty. With the rise in the cost of living, including energy costs, the situation is only going to get worse and bleaker for them. There are a number of things that the Government can do, even now, that could make life easier for those children and their families, to take them out of poverty. I received an email from a constituent who said that children do not have to go hungry when they go to school or wear the same uniform for three years in a row.

First, the Government could return universal credit to the level it was under covid. That change has impacted 14,000 of my constituents. They could reintroduce the education maintenance allowance, which the Labour Government introduced for 16 to 18-year-olds. That allowed them to continue in education because that money paid towards bus fares, food and books. We also need more proper social housing. Children and families in poverty often live in squalid and overcrowded accommodation with no heating, where children have to share a room with three or four people.

Instead, the Government have come up with a crazy plan to give households a £200 rebate that has to be returned, to help with energy prices. The scheme will probably cost more than the money given out, which is plain ridiculous. There is a very good option available: tax the energy companies on their unexpected windfall profits, which would raise about £32 billion to help people in real ways. Yet the Government refuse to do that.

I was dismayed to read last week of the Government plan not to give loans to people who do not have GCSEs in maths and English. How does having a maths GCSE help in a degree such as sociology, history, social sciences or management? The vice-chancellor of the University of Bolton told me last week that that will stop children getting into universities. It will also reduce the numbers in universities such as Bolton, which serve particularly vulnerable and marginalised communities.

When the Government talk about levelling up, I am not sure what levelling up they are doing. I am hoping that the Minister has listened to me and colleagues about the actions that could be taken immediately to assist those families.

14:54

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate.

Child poverty has been rising in the UK, with a quarter of all children now living in poverty—more than 3.4 million children. Of those children, 75% are from working families. When children in our society face poverty as they are growing up, society as a whole suffers as a result. Yet, since 2010 there has been little, if any, intervention to stem the insecurities facing many families on the poverty line. As we begin the road to recovery after the pandemic, there is the opportunity for real change, but the perfect storm is coming for families across the UK as we approach the new tax year, with skyrocketing energy bills, an increasingly expensive weekly shop, a hike in national insurance and a cut to universal credit. This complex situation will mean that many more families will face strains on their household budgets and risk falling into food insecurity.

Not every child living in poverty facing food insecurity is eligible for free school meals. In the north-east, one quarter of children in poverty are not eligible for a free school meal according to the narrow £7,400 household income threshold. Meanwhile, 150,000 children across the country with no recourse to public funds live below the poverty line but remain ineligible for free school meals because of their immigration status. There was a temporary reprieve for those children during the pandemic; I plead with the Government to make it permanent.

We will all know that hungry children cannot learn, but this simple phrase is becoming a complex reality for far too many children and young people across the country. The burden of the gaps in the provision of free school meals often rests on schools that are having to subsidise parents who cannot pay—something that is not sustainable. Urgent attention must be paid to addressing the shortcomings in school food provision, to ensure that all children experiencing poverty have access to a hot, healthy and balanced meal each school day.

The recent levelling-up White Paper gave warm words to the importance of school food in combating health inequalities such as malnourishment and obesity. The prevalence of obesity has risen markedly since the start of the pandemic, no more so than for children from deprived and left-behind areas. It is a stark reality that the cheapest food is often the most calorific. It is far more expensive to fill up hungry children with healthy food. To give a quick example, four chocolate muffins are £1 in supermarket; six apples are usually £2.

The warm words of the levelling-up White Paper are not matched by reality. Over 1,300 Sure Starts have closed since the Conservatives got into government. At their peak, Sure Starts prevented more than 16,000 hospitalisations of children every year. We need more than warm words form the Government. Children and families experiencing poverty must be at the heart of levelling up. They need security and real policy changes, so that every child has the opportunity to do well in life. They need a Government who truly believe that poverty is not inevitable and act with passion every day to make it history.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Let me remind Members that the clock is ticking and all speakers have got very near the limit.

14:58

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate.

It is truly shameful that in the 21st century, poverty has become part of everyday life for many in our country. Families are choosing between heating and eating, and food bank usage continues to rise. Where a child is born dictates their future opportunities—a postcode lottery.

While we have heard pertinent points about regional disparities, particularly from northern MPs, we must also consider that there is poverty across the UK and in regions that, overall, would not necessarily be considered deprived. My constituency is in the east, which is a net contributor to the economy. However, according to estimates from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions, in Luton South, a shocking 8,130 children live in poverty, which is 10% above the national average. Free school meal eligibility has risen by 44% since 2015-16. There are constituencies in the eastern region with a child poverty rate below 10%.

With Luton being a super-diverse town, it is important to note the research by the Child Poverty Action Group that found that children from black and minority ethnic groups, as well as those form lone-parent families, are more likely to be in poverty. Let me take this opportunity to say to all children, whatever their circumstances or background, that they are valued and deserve the best opportunities. That is why I am here today, and that is why we are here today.

The Tory Government’s mismanagement of the economy means that work no longer provides a guaranteed way out of poverty. Some 70% of children growing up in poverty live in households where at least one person works, according to Department for Work and Pensions figures. The Tories are culpable for rising child poverty. The Tory austerity programme, which slashed 60p in every pound of local authority funding between 2010 and 2020, led to the cutting of services that are crucial to supporting residents and tackling child poverty in our communities. Tory cuts to Luton Borough Council’s funding over 10 years resulted in key services, such as our children’s centres, being cut. We have heard from hon. Friends about the impact of that on our children’s health.

Child poverty is set to be exacerbated by the Tory Government’s failure to tackle the cost of living crisis. Energy bills, petrol prices, rail fares and national insurance are increasing but wages are stagnant, and in some sectors people are suffering real-terms pay cuts. Responding to a YouGov poll last October, 50% of respondents said that they could not afford an additional £50 a month increase to their cost of living—an additional £600 a year.

This Tory Government had a chance specifically to include tackling child poverty in their levelling-up White Paper. The 12 key missions do not include tackling child poverty or investing in early years, nor does the White Paper focus on wellbeing and health inequalities. As the joint statement from Save the Children, The Children’s Society, Barnardo’s, Action for Children and the National Children’s Bureau said, levelling up is not just about spreading opportunities but about tackling

“the underlying issues that persistently deny children fair access to these opportunities.”

Can the Minister explain what contribution he and his Department made to the levelling-up White Paper and the agenda to tackle child poverty?

15:02

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq; thank you very much for calling me early in the debate. I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this important debate. I also thank the North East Child Poverty Commission, which does really vital work and is committed to ending child poverty in the north-east, for providing me with a briefing ahead of the debate.

On the latest data, from 2019 to 2020, the north-east had the UK’s second-highest rate of child poverty, with an average of 37% of all babies, children and young people in our region growing up in poverty, compared with a UK average of 31%. However, I take issue with a point raised by the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who said that there are limited levers and avenues for Government to address these issues. There is a dramatic example today, in relation to social security. There is a statutory instrument on a deferred Division, and the Government have decided that, even though the forecast suggests that inflation will be 7%, they will limit the increase in social security benefits to 3.1%. Clearly, that will have a negative impact on some of the poorest people in our society; it will increase levels of child poverty.

There are also huge regional disparities and variations, but even within our own region there are huge disparities and variations. In my constituency, in the east of County Durham—the same county represented by the hon. Member for Darlington—the average figure for child poverty is in excess of 40%. Nine of the 11 electoral wards in my constituency have child poverty levels above 40%, and 10 of the 11 wards are above the County Durham average. The level in the Blackhall Rocks ward is 48.2%, and in Blackhall Colliery it is 44.2%. The county average is 25.8%. There are 33 electoral wards, out of 63 in the whole county, with a higher proportion of children living in relative poverty than the county’s average. In those circumstances one might expect that Government policy would be to direct resources, following the rhetoric of the levelling-up agenda, to the areas in greatest need, identified as having the highest levels of child poverty, in terms of children in receipt of free school meals and other established measures, but sadly that is not the case. Resources seem to be distributed on the basis of competitions. On the established consensus of using scarce resources to meet the greatest need, I am afraid the Government have broken with that long-standing tradition.

15:05

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for securing this important debate and for her articulate and passionate speech.

As we have already heard, recent End Child Poverty coalition research indicated that there were 4.3 million children living in poverty in the UK between 2019 and 2020, and now it is set to be much worse. The Government might wax lyrical about the route out of poverty being work, but staggeringly, 75% of children growing up in poverty live in a household where at least one person works—work that is often insecure and simply does not pay enough to sustain a decent standard of living.

In my constituency of Salford and Eccles, 23% of children lived in relative poverty, whereas the national average was 19%; 19% lived in absolute poverty, and the national average was 16%. Poverty, whatever we call it, relative or absolute, is still poverty, and 42% of children in Salford and Eccles live in poverty. In one of the richest economies in the world, those statistics are a disgrace.

Amid this scandal, the Government are quietly passing their benefits uplift legislation today. Even with inflation expected to hit 7.25% in April, the Government are uprating benefits by just 3.1%. Let us be clear: that is a real-terms benefit cut. With rising living costs, it will push families already stretched past breaking point.

More than 30 charities and organisations have called on the Government to increase benefits in line with rising inflation, so I hope the Minister will heed those calls today. I hope he will also recognise that the two-child limit and benefit cap should be abolished. Although most households will see their benefits increased by a paltry 3.1% in April, capped households will see no increase, just as inflation is set to peak and energy bills soar. That will be catastrophic for those families.

Further energy prices are expected to rise by a whopping 50%, which will cripple many families. In response to the calls to increase benefits, the Government have offered paltry support in the form of a £200 discount that consumers must pay back over the next five years, essentially loading even more debt on to the backs of cash-strapped families. At the very least, the rate of VAT for household energy bills must be cut by the Government as soon as possible, and they must levy a windfall tax on oil and gas companies. They must also expand and increase the warm home discount, not load the cost of supplier failure on to household bills, and must increase universal credit to match inflation, as well as increasing public sector pay to a real living wage.

I say to the Minister: let us not wring our hands today about how much we empathise with those who are struggling. As Franklin D. Roosevelt once said:

“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

We have the means and the policy ideas to tackle this national scandal, so let us act on that today.

15:08

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for setting the scene so well and for securing this debate, giving us all an opportunity to participate in it.

There is little as heartbreaking as seeing a child in need. As a father and grandfather, it is my purpose in life to see that my family have enough—not that they have everything they want, just that they have enough. I cannot imagine seeing my child go hungry or wearing ill-fitting shoes, and I cannot imagine that there should ever be an excuse that any child in any corner of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should live that way.

Ask any teacher and they will say that children are coming to school who are not well nourished, and that their free school meal does not do enough for them. There are also children who are spotlessly clean, yet their shoes have holes. The number of families who use food banks has risen hugely. More than 31,000 food parcels were provided to children in Northern Ireland between April 2020 and March 2021. The Trussell Trust provided some 79,000 parcels in total to children and adults last year, which was a 75% increase on the 2019-20 figure. In all, 2.5 million food parcels were given out across this great United Kingdom, which was up from 1.9 million in 2019-20.

Just last week in my constituency of Strangford, we had the launch of a Christians Against Poverty group. Christians Against Poverty helps people with their finances. I will just say this: the uptake for that group in my constituency has been enormous. We are very grateful that the churches and other bodies have come together to make that group happen, but it tells me where society is going and that worries me.

It cannot be refuted that people are struggling more than ever, and when a family struggles, the children pay a high price. To be fair, many parents make sure that their children eat before they do, but is that the way it should be? It should not be that way. Although we must be thankful for our charities, churches and other groups in the voluntary sector, the fact is that we in this place are missing a trick when children are in such need.

There are 1.8 million people in Northern Ireland, including 440,000 children, with almost 25% of those living in child poverty. Yet the majority of households in Northern Ireland—61%—have at least one working parent. One in four children in Northern Ireland are living in a family that struggles to provide for their basic needs—a warm and adequate home, nutritious food and appropriate clothing—as well as to pay for childcare costs. Children in poverty are twice as likely to leave school without GCSEs, and they are also more likely to suffer poor mental health and have fewer years of good physical health than other children.

We are not talking about children whose parents cannot afford to take them to Disneyland; we are talking about parents who cannot buy shoes, or parents who cannot afford the internet access their children need to do their homework, or parents who need their 14-year-old boy to dry dishes in the local chippy just to help feed the family. These are the issues and this is the society we live in; others have said that already and others will say it after me.

Consequently, the pressure on young people is incredible, which has seen a rise in mental health concerns as well. Our children are in physical and emotional need. Minister, we have to meet that need. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) referred to removing the two-child limit on benefits and I would put that case forward, too. Take someone on a wage of £1,200 per month. Last year, their fuel cost £100 a month but it is now double that; similarly, their groceries were £100 a month, but now they are £125 a month. That shows that the wages of 2020 cannot match what the situation is now in 2022.

Children are our greatest resource; I believe that with all my heart. Money spent on giving them the best start is a long-term investment in ourselves and, Minister, it must start right now.

15:12

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

My being here might seem a bit strange, given I am a London MP, but I must set out the problems that we experience in London.

I cannot even fall back on the suggestion that I am from north London. My borough is an outer south London borough, which is home to some of the richest places in the entire country, such as the All England Lawn Tennis Club. However, there is a difference of nine years in life expectancy between people living near the All England Club and people living in the heart of my constituency—places only a 15-minute bus ride apart.

In Mitcham and Morden, 46% of children are regarded as living in poverty. However, there is an issue that is uppermost in my mind—indeed, I may even be relying on this speech to be a bit of therapy for me. In May, I will have been an MP for 25 years. I have worked in housing all my life, and the things that I see happening to children in my constituency today keep me awake at night. I am sure that similar issues in her constituency keep my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), the shadow Minister, awake at night, too.

I will just share two stories. First, Mr and Mrs B have three children. Their eldest son has muscular dystrophy. He cannot walk or use a bathroom; he needs physical help to do those things. He lives in an unadaptable house. His tiny mum picks him up, throws him over her shoulder and walks up the steep steps to get him upstairs to his bedroom. When he needs to use the bathroom, she throws him back over her shoulder and carries him back down the stairs. The space in the bathroom where she has to lay him out, in order to help him to use the toilet, is probably 18 inches by 18 inches. She is in band A on the housing register. I visited her home last week, and took the head of housing with me. I can offer her no help or support. She is at the top of the list, but she will probably not get a house that is adapted or adaptable in her son’s lifetime.

Let me tell hon. Members about Miss T, who lives with her three children in a combined living room and kitchen, while her former partner, who is the tenant of the flat and has multiple sclerosis, is in the bedroom. Of those three children, one is severely autistic. Miss T has a neurological brain disorder. She is in band A on the housing register; there are 32 families ahead of her. Last year, Merton had 32 three-bedroom properties to give to all the bands. Even though Miss T is top of the list, it would be extraordinary if she were to get somewhere else to live within the next five years. By then, all three children, with whom she sleeps on the floor, will be teenagers. In how many cities and how many parts of this country is that acceptable?

15:16

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for her thoughtful introduction to the debate.

Far too often, when regional inequity is discussed, the framing is entirely wrong and misses out the real impacts that that inequality has on people’s lives. Although I accept that child poverty is a disgrace wherever it happens, it is deeply endemic in the north, and I say that as the representative of the wealthiest part of Sheffield. Along the 83 bus route, from my constituency to the other side of the city, there is a 10-year difference in life expectancy for women.

I recently met people from the Trussell Trust food bank network across Sheffield. We discussed the use of the word “poverty”, and they said that we should actually use the word “destitution” when talking about food banks, because that is their client base: people in destitution. Theirs are not the only food banks in our city, but they provided more than 12,000 emergency food parcels between April and September 2021—their highest number on record so far. Of those parcels, more than a third went to families with children.

It should not have to be said in the 21st century, and in one of the richest countries in the world, that there should be no such thing as child poverty, but here we are. It is hard to take the Government seriously on their commitment to levelling up when Conservative peer Daniel Moylan tweeted in response to a Yorkshire Post headline that he sees Yorkshire as

“a county of leftist whingers begging for handouts.”

If he were to visit Sheffield, he would actually find a city where people have waited time and again for the Government to deliver on their promises. The Government are failing to level up our transport—there has been no electrification and no High Speed 2; failing to level up the north’s economy, holding our producers back; and failing to tackle and combat inequality.

According to research by the University of Sheffield, the UK has a higher level of regional inequality than any other large wealthy country. To me, that is not inevitable, but a result of Government policy. It is a political choice to drive people into destitution and to deny them sufficient social security and the services that would prevent that destitution. It is a deeply political choice to invest heavily in some parts of the UK but not in others, and to champion some parts of the economy but leave others to fend for themselves. It is a despicable political decision to then accuse people who are forced into poverty —let alone children—of begging for handouts, when our entire economy is geared towards exploitation, dwindling opportunities and the proliferation of dehumanising zero-hour contract work under a Government who seem simply not to care.

We all know that regional inequalities run deep, but they are reinforced year on year by how much or how little is invested in key public services. According to the Centre for Cities think-tank, national local authority spending fell by half between 2010 and 2019. We all know that major cities in the north were hit hardest. On average, areas such as Liverpool, Blackburn and Barnsley faced twice the cuts of their counterparts in the more affluent south. More recently, analysis of the £4.7 billion allocated for the Government’s levelling-up agenda has shown that the wealthiest areas have been allocated 10 times more money per capita than the poorest. That is astonishing, and the Government must act urgently to ensure that they get those things done better.

15:19

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for securing this debate. Sadly, during the last 12 years of Tory Governments, the squeeze on wages has meant that in-work poverty has hit new highs, with one in six working households below the poverty line. That has meant that, in my hometown and constituency of Middlesbrough, over the past five years alone, relative child poverty levels have almost doubled, and two out of five children now live in households with an income below the poverty line.

Those in need are now set to be hit by the Tories’ cruel and callous slashing of universal credit, along with their plans to raise national insurance contributions. All the while, the cost of living crisis is shooting up, thanks, in part, to the Government’s catastrophic mishandling of the fuel crisis.

We know that we are one of the most unequal countries in Europe. We have pockets of incredible wealth and of shameful poverty and marginalisation. That is undoubtedly a regional issue, but inequalities also exist within our regions, with obscene levels of wealth alongside destitution. That inequality has widened under this Tory Government. They have frozen pay and benefits while billionaires—Russians included—have flourished.

Shared prosperity funds, towns funds and future high street funds will not do what is fundamentally necessary to close the gap of regional inequality, which is to return power and resources to the communities where they rightly belong. The Tory trick of creating competitions for communities, pitting them against each other for central Government funding, must be exposed as the divisive pork-barrel politics that it really is.

The hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) talked about making work pay. Okay, let’s do that. If we are really serious about giving workers the security, prosperity and respect that they rightly deserve, then we must have a plan to make it happen. We in the Opposition do. To begin with, we would not increase taxes for working people or cut universal credit. Instead, we would bring in a windfall tax on the oil and gas giants to help with the rising bills. We would give Britain a pay rise and deliver a new contract for the British people.

[Peter Gibson]

The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. As for giving things back to communities, he knows, as I do, that our region, Tees Valley, has had devolution, and our Tory Mayor is delivering jobs and opportunities for our region. The hon. Gentleman talks about the opportunity to serve a windfall tax on energy companies; that windfall tax would prevent those oil and gas companies from investing in and transitioning to the renewables that we so desperately need.

[Andy McDonald]

Well, if that was actually going to happen, the Tory Tees Valley Mayor would have no hesitation in bringing the trade unions into the conversation to ensure that they had good, secure, unionised, well-paid jobs. However, he refuses to do so.

As I was saying, that is why I was so honoured to work with our trade unions chairing our power in the workplace taskforce and produce our party’s Green Paper, “a new deal for working people”. I am delighted that that has been adopted as party policy, because that would mean that we would be raising pay for all, ending the scourge of in-work poverty, and delivering a social security system that provides a safety net for all with decent sick pay.

We would use public procurement for supporting good work, as our wonderful Welsh Labour Government are doing in Cardiff. We would empower workers to act as a collective to secure better terms and conditions. We would establish fair pay agreements, recognised in law, providing a floor across industries and sectors—think about the care workers. We would create a single status of workers and put an end to all the variations thereon, including bogus self-employment, and give all workers day-one rights on the job. We would strengthen the rights of the employed and self-employed, letting working people have a secure, stable income on which to build a good life. We would ban zero-hours contracts and outlaw the tactics of fire and rehire, and so much more. Lastly, we would repeal the trade union legislation, to enable our trade unions to bargain for their members.

We are at a crossroads; we can either return to the status quo of outsourcing, privatisation, exploitation, and extraction of value, which will only extend regional inequality and child poverty, or we can take a different path: one that will deliver for our people, truly bringing an end to the scourge of child poverty and regional inequalities. Poverty is a political choice; let us choose to eradicate it.

15:24

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for having secured this debate. Sometimes we can become numb to poverty and inequality, and we can allow the symptoms of poverty that should appal us to become fixtures in society. Food banks, anti-poverty charities and now clothing banks, although they are great sources of good and bring out the best in us, should not be necessary in 2022, yet in County Durham—as in too many places—the evidence that our communities are becoming ever more reliant on them is all around us. I also read the briefing from the North East Child Poverty Commission, and the figures for poverty in our region are indeed scandalous: the UK’s second highest. That means that in our region, in an average classroom of 30 children, 11 are living in poverty.

Growing up in poverty can have a corrosive effect on a child’s life chances. Their social, educational and health development is likely to be reduced compared with that of their richer peers. Growing up in a poor household can reduce a child’s expectations, and an absence of clear opportunity can reduce aspiration for what can be achieved in life, creating a cycle in which poverty is repeated from generation to generation. Many of us will have witnessed those tragic problems in our own communities. In the village of Witton Gilbert in my constituency, I recently met with volunteers from Children’s Hopes and Dreams, a community group whose food bank and other support activities for children have become a vital community safety network. With the cost of living crisis that is hitting many families at the minute, the work of that charity is needed more and more each day.

However, charity alone cannot eradicate poverty or regional inequality. The Government cannot stand idle and ignore poverty as a natural tragedy; they are not powerless to counter it. The daily decisions of Government can reduce or increase children’s life chances, and as we have heard, poverty is a political choice. We have witnessed this at first hand in the north-east—the region that saw the largest drop in child poverty during the last Labour Government, yet the largest rise since the Conservatives took power over 12 years ago. Consistent policy choices and spending priorities at every level of Government are needed to tackle a decade of worsening regional inequality, which has been exacerbated. We should not forget the view of Philip Alston, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on extreme poverty, who said that the Government’s approach to poverty is

“not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster, all rolled into one”.

The levelling-up White Paper should have been the moment at which every lever of Government was seized to counter that tragedy. However, we have been left without a proper industrial strategy for reversing economic decline and, in the opinion of Michael Marmot, we do not have the funding to meet the Government’s goal of reducing health inequalities by 2035. If the Government had committed as much money as they have rhetoric to levelling up areas such as Durham, that goal would be in reach, but sadly, it is increasingly clear that the opposite is true.

15:28

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

I am delighted to participate in this debate on regional inequalities and child poverty on behalf of the Scottish National party. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who has brought this issue to the Floor of Westminster Hall, although I echo her sentiments that for us to be debating this in the UK in 2022 is an absolute disgrace.

When it comes to child poverty, of course, from Scotland’s perspective it is a tale of two Governments. In Scotland under the SNP, we see a progressive Government on a mission to tackle child poverty, even though 85% of welfare is reserved to the UK Government. Tackling child poverty is at the heart of the new Scottish budget—a budget that, it has to be said, must be balanced every year by law, yet the Scottish child payment has been doubled. Just as the UK Government scrapped targets to reduce child poverty, the Scottish Government set out ambitious targets for eradicating it with the limited powers they have. Just as the Scottish Government doubled the child payment to £20, so the UK Government cruelly cut £20 per week from those same families when they cut universal credit, knowing that when they made that cut they were pushing thousands of families into poverty. The contrast between the Tory UK Government and the SNP Scottish Government could not be clearer. There can be no doubt that the Scottish child payment, delivered by the Scottish Government, is the most ambitious child poverty reduction measure in the whole of the UK.

In contrast, the UK Government delivered overnight the biggest cut to welfare support in over 70 years. It is deeply disappointing that the UK Government have ignored the Work and Pensions Committee report that outlined numerous proposals that the UK Government should implement to tackle the growing scandal of child poverty. There is no strategy from this Government or any measurable objectives against which they can be held to account on this issue. If I am wrong about that, the Minister will be able to tell us, either when he gets to his feet or in an intervention, what the plan is to tackle this and what measurable objectives are in place, against which we can hold this Government to account and measure the progress they are making in tackling this scourge. Perhaps the Government simply hope that child poverty will go away and that we will shut up and stop talking about it, or perhaps it is simply not a priority. It would be good to have clarity on that.

If this Government are genuinely serious about tackling child poverty, then they should reintroduce targets. They should have UK-wide statutory child poverty targets that will allow us to measure the progress that has or has not been made in tackling this problem. In Scotland, plans to tackle child poverty were backed by real action, including a £50 million tackling child poverty action fund. The UK Government could replicate that work, in the absence of any of their own ideas, to confront this scandal.

The Scottish Budget for 2022-23 tackles child poverty and inequality by targeting over £4 billion in social security and welfare payments, including £197 million committed to the game-changing Scottish child payment from next month, which will be extended to all under-16s. It is expected that around 430,000 children living in low income households could be eligible from that point. In line with the Scottish Fiscal Commission forecasts, the Scottish Government are committed to over £3.9 billion for benefit expenditure in 2022-23, to provide support to over 1 million people. The extent of the Scottish Government’s commitment to tackling child poverty is illustrated by the fact that this is £361 million above the level of funding to be received from the UK Government through the block grant adjustment, showing that the investment the Scottish Government are making in the people of Scotland is key to the national mission of tackling child poverty.

The latest report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, “UK Poverty 2022,” reveals that

“Child poverty continues to rise.”

It reports that almost one in three children across the UK live in poverty. Nearly half of children in single-parent households live in poverty. Larger families and single-parent families have particularly high levels of poverty rates. Across the whole of Ayrshire and in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran around one in four children live in poverty, but the numbers are rising as many families find they are overwhelmed with the cost of living crisis, as essential household costs soar.

While welfare support is to increase by 3.1% in April, inflation, as we have heard today, is expected to reach around 7%. That figure shows that there will be a real-terms cut in welfare support. With the best will in the world, parents and families are doing their very best, but for far too many poverty has them in its grip. Poverty in working households is at its highest, and those in work now face not just a cost of living crisis but from next month national insurance hikes, as we already face unsustainable financial pressure. So much for making work pay.

It is shocking that the Government’s response to child poverty simply is not evolving to meet the growing challenges of inequality. That is why we have among the highest levels of inequality in Europe, which is all too evident in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran. As support is being eroded by inflation, families are increasingly borrowing to pay essential household bills, leaving them dangerously exposed to unsustainable debt. That has the potential to destroy families.

John Dickie, the director of the Child Poverty Action Group in Scotland, agrees that the Scottish Government are doing all they can to tackle child poverty, but we all know that the full range of powers to make proper inroads into this are reserved to Westminster. Like many people in this room, I have participated in a number of debates on child poverty, and I hope the Minister will not do the same thing as always—get to his feet and simply lay out what he believes his Government are already doing. Clearly, as he has heard from every speech today, what has already been done is simply not enough. The numbers are rising. The facts speak for themselves—more needs to be done. What we need to hear from the Minister is what this Government’s plan is. Where are their targets to deal with this social blight?

Until, and unless, the Government seek to seriously grapple with the shame and scandal of child poverty, they can forget about making meaningful inroads into the poverty-related attainment gap. It simply cannot be done. Poverty is a scourge, and hungry children cannot reach their potential. The effect of poverty on those whose lives it has touched is corrosive. I agree with the points made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) that for children, poverty colours their world view. It impacts on their self-esteem, it limits their ambitions and it imposes limitations on their success in school as well as their social relationships. Poverty’s shadow is a strong determiner of health outcomes well into adulthood. It shortens too many lives, far before their time. Ultimately, poverty kills.

However well a child might do in life against all the odds, having grown up in deep poverty, the shadow of that experience never goes away even as an adult. I know this because I grew up in poverty. That is why I believe that as a society we need to do all we can to protect children from that damaging and corrosive experience, so that they can grow into healthy adults and fully rounded citizens. I am very keen to hear what the Minister has to say in response to this debate. We do not need to hear measures that he thinks have already been put in place. We need to hear what the plan for the future is. What more will be done? We need targets which this Government will work towards to tackle this serious social issue, and against which we can hold them to account. I hope that is what we will hear in the response.

I doubt that the Minister will say anything that will dissuade me from the steadfast view that we in Scotland, who wish to build a fairer, more equal and more just society, can only do so with the full range of powers at the disposal of a Scottish Parliament in an independent Scotland. Then we can build the kind of society that we want to see for our children.

15:38

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for introducing the debate, and also for an excellent speech that set out very clearly a framework for tackling poverty in her constituency and region—a framework against which we should judge other actions in tackling poverty across the country. We have heard a number of excellent speeches in a well-attended debate—on the Opposition’s side— including contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). All of those speeches drew very powerfully from my hon. Friends’ constituency experiences.

Poverty, wherever we experience it, is a grinding, soul-destroying experience. It is a limiter of opportunities and it erodes physical and mental health. That is true in the north-east, the north-west, London, the midlands and Cornwall; it is true wherever people are growing up in poverty. It is true if you own a home that you cannot afford to maintain. It is true if you are a council tenant or if you pay your rent to a private landlord. It is true if you are a parent or if you are collecting your pension, and it is true if you are a carer. It is true if you are unable to work because of a severe illness or disability, and it is true if you are in insecure or poorly paid work. One of the very strong themes that has come through from many contributors this afternoon is the growth of in-work poverty, which is now at a record level. It is true whether we call poverty “food poverty,” “bedding poverty,” or “energy poverty,” whether we talk about it in terms of the inability of parents to send their children to school in a school uniform, or whether we talk about it in terms of their children going to school hungry. Whatever the nature of that poverty, it is all under that same umbrella.

Poverty isolates people. It excludes people. It makes people feel somehow that it is their fault. One of the experiences of people living in poverty that we all hear time and again is this wrong sense—such an incredibly wrong sense—of shame. Poverty drives people into debt. It drives people into insecurity. It also damages communities, which have less spending power and greater need. Larger numbers of people on the lowest incomes make for poorer neighbourhoods, and a levelling-up agenda that fails to take that into account is definitely on the way to failure.

Although, as everybody has said this afternoon, income is absolutely central to the issue of poverty, it also exists in a wider context, particularly of services. We have heard about the experience of the fall in local authority spending power, which has been critical and was so important to us during the years of the Labour Government. One of the particular achievements to which I strongly pay tribute is Sure Start and the work of early intervention. I was most proud of Sure Start, and saw my constituency experience it. Because of the erosion of local authority spending, we saw that early intervention shrivel.

In the 21st century, in what is one of the world’s richer countries, we should now be on our way to eradicating poverty, but we are not. Before the pandemic, in 2019-20, child poverty after housing costs had reached 31% nationally, over 4 million children—a rise of 700,000 since 2010-11. There was no region in England where child poverty was not a major problem. The lowest regional child poverty rate was 24%, in the south-east. In other words, in what is generally regarded as the richest region of the country, nearly one in four children were in poverty.

It is likely that the next set of statistics on households below average income, which we will see very shortly, will show a reduction in the number in poverty, and the Government will point to that as an achievement. It will, of course, reflect the £20 uplift to universal credit and the uplift to the local housing allowance, which were introduced as a response to the pandemic and in recognition of the fact that new claimants would be shocked by the low level of social security. However, by this time next year, we will see the impact of the unwinding of the uplift, which was so unwisely removed in the autumn. During the course of this year, we will see the impact, too, of rising inflation and an energy price shock that will erode the living standards of millions of people already on the margins. That is before the further shock that we are likely to see as a result of the conflict in Ukraine, which is likely to feed through, tragically, into even more expensive energy costs.

As I have said, there was no region in England where child poverty was not a major problem, but there were enormous variations between regions: from 24% in the south-east to 36% in Yorkshire and the Humber, 37% in the north-east and 38% in London. As has been said, there are severe variations within regions, too—even within constituencies. It is good that the Government are finally turning their attention to regional inequalities—assuming that that is what the levelling-up agenda actually means; many interpretations are available. However, levelling up does not include child poverty as an indicator, and that is a very serious weakness in that agenda.

Any attention to regional inequalities would certainly be better than what we have seen over the last decade, when the Government quite cynically exploited regional inequalities for divisive purposes. Given, for example, the extreme inequity in housing costs and thus in benefit payments, it was not difficult to generate headlines about claimants in London receiving what seemed like huge payments. The average weekly private sector rent in the north-east is £117 a week; in London it is £340 a week. It is no wonder that voters in other regions found some of those payments in London incomprehensible, despite the need for support, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, who spoke about the impact of housing need in London. That has to be addressed in any sensible approach to regional inequalities in child poverty.

The Government’s approach of arbitrary cuts—including the bedroom tax, the two-child limit and the overall benefit cap—has not only led to rises in child poverty in every region in England, Scotland and Wales, but left us with an anarchic benefits system where claimants are hit by an unpredictable barrage of caps, deductions and benefit freezes. That, too, exacerbates regional inequalities.

The Government approach is to cut at national level and then pretend they can make it up through local discretionary pots. We have seen that approach in respect of housing costs; we are seeing it again as households face the energy costs crisis. Labour proposes assisting everyone with rising costs, with most going to those on lower incomes. Instead, £150 is being made available on the basis of 30-year-old property valuations topped up with a discretionary fund that local councils have to administer. Even there, it is rapidly becoming obvious that half of those eligible do not pay by direct debit, so councils do not have a means to pay them; there needs to be a process by which they can be contacted and their bank details obtained. As with all discretionary pots, the likelihood is that large numbers of people in the most acute need will not be able to get the assistance they require.

Before I conclude, I will quote from a letter that I received this morning, coincidentally. We have heard powerful testimonies from Members quoting their constituents about their experience of poverty.

“As a claimant in Westminster North, I am writing to you about my struggle to keep up with the rising costs of living. I have a severely disabled daughter. She has scars all over her face; she lost her eye in a car accident when she was 11 years old. The NHS couldn’t help her so I’ve taken out loans to pay for aspects of her care. Even before the surge in energy prices many people like me have been struggling to afford the essentials. I cannot afford my bills or my food shopping. We cannot actually live. I am a widow with loans to pay since I lost my husband. We limit the heating and we limit the lighting too. It is all too expensive.”

When the Chancellor announced the household support fund in September, he said that,

“Everyone should be able to afford the essentials, and we are committed to ensuring that is the case.”

It is not the case that my constituent can afford the essentials; it is not the case that the constituents my hon. Friends have spoken about can afford the essentials, and that is now. In a few weeks’ time, their ability to afford food, to heat and light their homes and to send their children to school clothed and shod will diminish still further. We have heard about the regional drivers of poverty, the experiences that vary between areas and the different factors helping determine how many fall into poverty, how deeply and for how long. The fact is that we have a deepening crisis of poverty in this country and, in spring 2022, the Government have to wake up and act.

15:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate. I know that she feels passionate about this subject; it is clear from the contributions made today that other Members across the House do as well. I recognise that Opposition parties are particularly well represented in this debate.

No one wants to see children living in poverty in their constituency, and I understand the passions that drive all the contributions I have heard today. Some of the central missions of this Government are to reduce regional inequality, spread opportunity and increase prosperity right across the United Kingdom. Where someone is born in this country should not be a barrier to what they can achieve. That is why this Government are committed to levelling up, and we at the Department for Work and Pensions are clearly playing our part.

The Government are committed to levelling up across the country. We are creating exciting opportunities, including via the UK’s first freeport in Teesside, which is estimated to create more than 18,000 highly skilled jobs. Our provision of £5 million to create a five-acre business park in Burnley Vision Park will create high-quality manufacturing and engineering jobs in the area. The move of the Treasury’s regional centre to Darlington shows the ambition there, while the DWP has an office in Leeds, which I visit on a regular basis along with other Ministers.

Through the integrated rail plan, we are setting out a £96 billion strategy of rail construction and upgrades for the midlands and the north to be delivered over the next 30 years. That will be the biggest ever single Government investment in Britain’s rail network.

[Peter Gibson]

I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for mentioning my constituency and the Treasury jobs coming to Darlington, but multiple other Government Departments, with 1,700 new jobs, are coming to my constituency, ensuring that people can go far but stay local. That is the real way to tackle long-term poverty.

[David Rutley]

I understand the point my hon. Friend makes.

I want to talk about jobs, because job creation is key to helping more people stand on their own two feet. Our approach to levelling up centres on removing barriers to work, wherever people live in the UK, and on supporting people to find the job that is right for them. That is based on clear evidence that having parents in work, particularly full time, is the most effective way to lift children out of poverty. Children living in households where all adults work were six times less likely to be in absolute poverty before housing costs in 2019-20 than those in workless households. We have been making a difference: there are 100,000 fewer children in absolute poverty before housing costs, and nearly 580,000 fewer children are living in workless households than in 2010.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

There is a fight there, but I will go with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald)—[Interruption.] He is deferring to the Member for south of the river, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh).

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Will the Minister clarify the point about 100,000 children brought out of poverty before housing costs? What is the number after taking account of housing costs?

[David Rutley]

I do not have those figures in front of me. There has been some debate about the appropriate measure. Some hon. Members are keen to have a relative measure as opposed to an absolute measure, but there are challenges with that, with some counterintuitive results. For example, relative poverty is likely to fall during recessions, due to falling median incomes. That measure of poverty can decrease, even if people are getting poorer. We need to look at different measures. The measure we think is most accurate is absolute poverty before housing costs. We have, of course, set other key statutory indicators in place as well, around parental worklessness and children’s educational attainment.

[Liz Twist]

I want to touch on the definition of poverty because it is clearly important. I should point out that the people I referred to, who are producing the reports around the north-east and the north, are well-respected academics who look into these issues. I should also point out that the House of Commons Library produces figures on both these measures. It is clearly a difficult area.

[David Rutley]

I know that the hon. Member is very thoughtful about these matters; we have worked together in different capacities over the past few years. Of course, there are different measures. Today I am highlighting that it is difficult to decide which is most appropriate. The Government and t Department believe that absolute poverty before housing costs is the best measure. I have highlighted one of the problems with relative poverty targets at certain times in the economic cycle, and we need to be cognisant of that.

With our economic recovery continuing, it is right now to focus on helping people, wherever they live in the UK, to move into and to progress in work. There are more than 1.29 million—nearly 1.3 million—vacancies across the UK. Payroll employment is at a record high of almost 29.5 million; it is higher now than it was in February 2020 across all regions. Last quarter, there were 14,000 more jobs in the north-east in payroll employment, and 38,000 in the north-west.

Last month, published estimates showed that the number of online job adverts—another indicator of opportunities —across the UK was over 38% higher than the pre-pandemic level. For the north-east, the figure was a staggering 68.9% increase, so there are real vacancies out there.

Hon. Members, particularly Opposition Members, have highlighted challenges for individual families, which I understand, but I am trying to highlight that there are opportunities out there. Hon. Members know from speaking to their businesses that there are shortages of labour. One thing we need to do is ensure that we can match those people who need work with the opportunities available.

[Rachel Hopkins]

The Minister was talking about job opportunities and people being able to access them. When he makes statements such as that, does he take into account the significant cuts to bus services and the fact that many of my constituents are not able to travel far as they do not have a car?

[David Rutley]

There are barriers to work, and that is why we are focusing on issues such as childcare. We have the flexible support fund. I urge constituents of the hon. Member who have challenges such as that to go to their jobcentre, particularly as they start to find new work. The flexible support fund is genuinely flexible. It breaks down all those barriers. It can help with childcare and travel costs as well. I thoroughly recommend that individuals have those meetings, and I can help make introductions if required.

The plan for jobs is a multibillion-pound initiative that will bring targeted tailored support to jobseekers of all ages in all these regions. One of the key initiatives is the job entry targeted support scheme, which helps get people back into work as soon as possible. Over 94,000 people, including 26,600 in the north-east, have started the programme since April last year.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who regularly holds me to account—in a forthright manner, I hasten to add, but I love her none the less—wants to know what is new, and I will reveal to hon. Members some new and important stuff we will be doing to help people into work—indeed, we do not just want to help people into work; we want to help them progress in work as well. We will be going further over the next month. We will be extending the support we provide in jobcentres to a national model of support to help approximately 1.7 million working universal credit claimants in Great Britain to overcome barriers that hold them back from progressing, increasing their earnings and moving into better paid jobs. Across every jobcentre, claimants will be able to access work coach support to address any skills gaps or wider barriers to progression, and we will be appointing specialist progression champions, who will make connections between employers, local authorities and skills providers.

Despite our political differences, I encourage all hon. Members present to engage with their local jobcentres—I know that my shadow, the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), regularly does so—particularly on the issue of in-work progression, because that will be a way to help tackle regional inequality and the challenge of child poverty, which are priorities for all present.

At this point, I have said the things I needed to say in response to much of the debate. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Blaydon wants to come back in as she has a couple of minutes to wind up.

15:57

[Liz Twist]

I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in what has been a stimulating and thoughtful debate. I did ask some specific things, and I clearly did not expect the Minister to roll over and agree with some of them, although I wish that he would—particularly whether he might be able to check his diary to see if he can attend the “Child of the North” meeting next week, because it would be worth while to talk to the academics there. I would also welcome the opportunity to speak to him about some of these things in more detail.

There are too many points to respond to, not least the bits about employment and unemployment. Unemployment in the north-east was actually higher; it bucked the trend in some other parts of the country. That is a significant point.

The Minister referred to the integrated rail plan and the expenditure on rail. He will know that across the north, most of us feel that we have lost out. There may be investment, but we have lost out on the opportunities provided by strengthening the east and west coast connection and the High Speed 2 proposal.

What we need in the north is not just jobs; we need good, high-quality jobs that represent real opportunity for people to develop and make the progress he talks about, and we need to do much more to make that happen. Finally, the north is great. The north-east is great.

[David Rutley]

The north-west is great too.

[Liz Twist]

Well, I will speak for the north-east and the rest of the north—they are great. The debate is not about whingeing and saying, “It’s not fair.” It is about saying that the north-east is a fantastic place and our children need the best opportunities to make the best of their lives.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Prison-based Addiction Treatment Pathways

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call Dan Carden to move the motion. The Minister will respond, but there is no right for the mover to respond at the end, as is the norm in 30-minute debates.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered prison-based addiction treatment pathways.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Too many people with drug dependency

“are cycling in and out of prison. Rarely are prison sentences a restorative experience. Our prisons are overcrowded, with limited meaningful activity, drugs easily available, and insufficient treatment. Discharge brings little hope of an alternative…life. Diversions from prison, and meaningful aftercare, have both been severely diminished and this trend must be reversed to break the costly cycle of addiction and offending.”

Those are the words of Dame Carol Black in her groundbreaking independent review of drugs—a damning observation.

The treatment system and effective recovery pathways from addiction in prisons are in desperate need of repair, yet the effectiveness of evidence-based, well-delivered treatment for drug and alcohol dependence is well established. When it is properly funded, it works: it cuts the level of drug use, reoffending, overdose risk and the spread of blood-borne viruses.

Analysis of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons data from 2019 reveals that 48% of men surveyed by the inspectorate who reported having a drug problem said that it was easy to get drugs. The proportion of prisoners who said that they developed a drug problem while in custody more than doubled between 2015 and 2020.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. This is not the responsibility of the Minister, but in the papers last week it was reported that the drug uptake in prisons in Northern Ireland has risen to an astronomical height. It is therefore clear that what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the UK mainland also applies to us back home. Does he agree that the premise of prison is to rehabilitate and that addiction pathways are the absolute foundation for the rehabilitation that he and I want to see and that, to be fair, I think the Minister wants to see too? That can work only if funding is sourced and allocated UK-wide to make sure that it happens.

[Dan Carden]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on. I will come on to the function of prisons. Modern, progressive society should aspire to something more than having prisons there for punishment. The function of prison should be to rehabilitate, reduce reoffending and help those in prison to build productive and meaningful lives. I think the Minister will agree that without tackling drug dependence, that function cannot be fulfilled.

Part 2 of Dame Carol’s review calls for improved

“transparency and accountability of the commissioning and delivery of substance misuse services in prisons, including through publishing how much money is spent each year on these services”,

and ensuring that

“everyone leaving prison has identification and a bank account and that those who cannot claim benefits online get the opportunity, from the day of release, to access DWP’s telephony service.”

It calls for ending Friday release dates and for making sure that

“prisoners with drug dependence can access and receive drug treatment in the community as soon as possible after release.”

It also calls for additional prison staff to ensure that prisoners’ experience is improved, and for

“earlier interventions for offenders to divert them away from the criminal justice system, particularly prison.”

I am pleased that the majority of Dame Carol’s observations and recommendations have been embraced by the Government in the form of the 10-year drug strategy, “From harm to hope”, and the prisons strategy White Paper. Diversionary schemes are rightly encouraged by Dame Carol and endorsed by the drug strategy and the White Paper, despite the Government’s heavy “tough on drugs” messaging, because we cannot simply arrest our way out of the country’s addiction crisis, we cannot punish the already marginalised into recovery and we cannot end the pointless cycle of harm without evidence-based policy.

One in four people are placed in prison for committing an offence relating to their drug use. They are often given short custodial sentences of up to six months, most commonly serving as little as six weeks behind bars. Those on short-term sentences are the least likely to have access to drug and alcohol treatment, and prisoners serving seven-day sentences almost always pass through the system without support.

There are many innovative diversionary schemes and community sentences in use in different parts of the country. They reduce prison numbers, focus on treatment, recovery and rehabilitation, and stop small-time offenders losing access to housing, employment and family ties, which too often push them only further down the path of addiction, reoffending and homelessness, and exacerbate that vicious cycle of harm. I hope the Minister will touch on that in her reply.

For those who do reach the threshold of a custodial sentence and enter prison, the only answer to deliver change and break the cycle is to ensure there is access to treatment services within prison and on release. Sadly, the sharp decline in recovery services, particularly in prisons, mirrors the sharp decline in recovery services in the community. That has been further exacerbated by the pandemic, where prison regimes have entered strict lockdowns.

One practical challenge is that efforts to tackle drug use in prison are often undermined by the widespread availability of drugs across prison estates. Time, energy and resources end up being consumed by cracking down on the illicit supply. How can policy deal with that challenge, while also dealing with the demand for these substances and the root cause of that? Security can do only so much without a parallel commitment to reducing demand. The Government should ensure that they are committed to acting on both.

I am yet to meet anyone in addiction and recovery who has not experienced trauma. For those fortunate enough to have no personal experience of addiction, it is difficult to comprehend that the drug of choice is, at first, a solution, before it becomes a problem. Prisoners with drug and alcohol problems tend to have high rates of trauma, and trauma begets trauma.

Trauma has been shown to impact on cognitive functioning and on an individual’s ability to build and maintain social relationships. To be drug or alcohol dependent is a harrowing and hopeless ordeal; it is not a choice. To quote Dame Carol, a

“widespread sense of boredom, hopelessness and lack of purposeful activity in custody”,

coupled with little access to meaningful support in prison, is perhaps the worst possible environment the state could create to deal with this growing problem.

We know that, with access to properly resourced, person-centred, trauma-informed care, people can and do make positive changes to their lives. For prisoners, that care cannot stop when they walk from the prison gates. Many prisoners with drug problems are still being released on Friday afternoons, with nowhere to stay, no access to appointments at probation or drug services, no Naloxone and nothing but £46 in their pocket, with predictable results.

Transition between prison and the community must be prioritised to ensure a significant increase in engagement and community treatment on release. Every person in recovery is proof of the transformational change that is possible. For those who doubt whether someone in prison can address their addiction and make positive changes, I recommend taking the time to look at the fantastic “More Than My Past” campaign by the Forward Trust.

The sad reality is that the UK was once a leader in offering accredited addiction and recovery programmes in prisons. At the beginning of the last decade, there were over 100 programmes in England and Wales in prison settings, with over 10,000 prisoners participating. Today, access to accredited addiction and recovery programmes is a prison postcode lottery. There is no national standard, and the latest figures suggest that the number of people participating in accredited services in prisons is below 200 per year.

In 2012, the Rehabilitation for Addicted Prisoners Trust—now the Forward Trust—managed 14 intensive accredited addiction and recovery programmes in prisons across England, serving around 1,200 people per year. Independent evaluations showed that those programmes helped thousands of people into recovery from addiction, and that prisoners who completed those programmes were 49% less likely to be reconvicted compared with those who completed other programmes. By 2020, most of those programmes had closed due to lack of funding, and only around 300 people were able to access them. As it stands today, after two years of covid restrictions, only four programmes of this kind are still running, with only one currently operational. Despite the evidence, access is sparse, and prisoners have to transfer in order to access such services.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 transferred responsibility for commissioning health services in custody from Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to NHS England. Funding for prison healthcare and substance misuse services fared well compared with the local authority funded services in the community, but there have been other consequences. Physical healthcare services in prisons have improved, but as Dame Carol pointed out, the arm’s length approach to commissioning substance misuse services in prisons has been widely criticised. Contracts are often placed with general healthcare providers, then further subcontracted out, and the system becomes fragmented and unaccountable.

Since that transfer, there has been an alarming reduction in the range of provision in prisons, particularly in recovery-oriented services. Fewer than 200 prisoners are accessing accredited, structured addiction and recovery programmes, and in its “Alcohol and drug treatment in secure settings” report, the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities showed that there were 43,255 adults in alcohol and drug treatment in prisons and secure settings between April 2020 and March 2021—a drop of around 3,000 from the previous year. However, that figure of 43,255 prisoners accessing the treatment system does not tell us anything about how many were accessing recovery-oriented services. Can the Minister tell me what that treatment consists of, considering that accredited addiction and recovery course attendance has plummeted so drastically? With this new strategy, will the Minister also commit to restoring accredited addiction and recovery programmes to former levels and making them available in every prison?

When discussing addiction treatment pathways in community and secure settings, there is an unproductive and recurring debate: harm reduction versus abstinence. Each has its own set of benefits, yet they represent completely different approaches to recovery. Both approaches to treatment have their perceived pros and cons, but there is no right choice or correct pathway; after all, addiction has many causes, and recovery can be supported in a number of ways. Opiate substitute treatment, needle exchange, and the life-saving naloxone are important interventions—harm reduction saves lives, but so does recovery. It is time to take seriously the challenge of turning people away from drugs and crime.

I understand that the Secretary of State for Justice’s promotion of abstinence-based programmes in the prisons White Paper has caused confusion and some upset. Some believe that his approach goes against evidence-based research and the Government’s own 2017 “Drug misuse and dependence: UK guidelines on clinical management” document. The guidance is clear:

“any plan for reduction and cessation of OST should be based on the clinical judgement of the prescriber in collaboration with the prisoner and the wider team. Reduction and cessation should not be on an arbitrary or mandatory basis but rather requires careful clinical assessment and review…There should not normally be mandatory opioid reduction regimes for dependence…The purpose of healthcare in prison, including care for drug and alcohol problems, is to provide an excellent, safe and effective service to all prisoners, equivalent to that of the community.”

This should not be an either/or. When we think about recovery from any other health condition, that way of thinking would not be accepted. Clinicians would be focused on combinations that give people the best possible chance to make a full recovery. The Government say in their drugs strategy:

“We will treat addiction as a chronic health condition”.

I welcome that. As with many other health conditions, there needs to be a wide range of interventions and services that provide those in need with real choice.

For many people, harm reduction is the start of the recovery journey, but recovery is much more than, “Are you clean or not?” Recovery is not binary, recovery is not linear, but recovery is possible. To support it, there needs to be greater allocation of physical space on the prison estate to carry out therapeutic interventions that all people can access. That must include space for psychosocial, not just clinical, interventions. Well-designed recovery wings create a much less violent and more co-operative population who are focused on rehabilitation. Every prison should have recovery-focused wings. I wonder if the Minister is considering that possibility.

I welcome the commitment from the Ministry of Justice to expanding the use of recovery-focused areas in prison, which pointed to Her Majesty’s Prison Holme House as an example of good practice. The early outcomes from recovery wings have identified a reduction in violence and substance use, and a link to increased employment opportunities on release. Despite the support from addiction treatment charities for recovery wings, and despite their inclusion in the prisons White Paper, I have been made aware of a growing sense of open resistance in the Department of Health and Social Care to the expansion of recovery wings in prisons.

I would be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on those worrying reports. Is that the case, and if so, will she put a stop to it? Will her Department deliver on the reforms set out in the drugs strategy and the prisons White paper to improve addiction treatment in prisons and not stand in their way? Will the Minister tell us how the new spending allocation will reflect the priorities set out in both papers?

To conclude, I will quote Charlie Taylor, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons:

“To lead successful, crime-free lives when leaving custody, prisoners must change the way they feel about themselves and develop a belief that they can take control of their future.”

I hope that officials in the Department of Health and Social Care take heed of the chief inspector’s words as the final decisions are made on what has the potential to be positive progress under this Government’s reforms. Lives depend on it.

16:18

[The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dr Huq, and I look forward to doing so on many more occasions. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for raising this important issue, which I know matters to us both. We come from a similar area and have seen similar challenges, which is probably one of the reasons why we are both here to try to help people live their best lives.

Addiction is a chronic condition with damaging and far-reaching consequences for individuals, their loved ones and wider society. A high proportion of the individuals who go into prison already have a substance misuse problem, but some may develop an addiction while in prison, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined. This Government are committed to ensuring that we take the opportunity while people are in prison to get them the treatment they need and to get them out of crime. However, tackling addictions in prison requires a collective effort at both national and local level. The Department of Health and Social Care is committed to working with partners across health and justice to ensure safe, timely and effective care that improves health outcomes and reduces health inequalities for prisoners, as well as reducing reoffending.

In prisons and in the community, the NHS is focusing on integrating substance misuse and mental health services, to ensure that we provide joined-up, trauma-informed care that addresses an individual’s complex and interrelated problems, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, pointed out so eloquently. This is an important blend—to ensure that the mental health services and support are there, as well as substance misuse support. Investment in those services in prisons has increased from £184 million in 2016-17 to £203 million in 2020-21, with NHS England and Improvement committing a further £21 million over the next three years.

The NHS has also just commenced the roll-out of something fundamental—the GP2GP functionality. This will ensure that 100% of GPs working in the adult prison estate will be able to transfer clinical records to and from GPs in the community, allowing greater continuity of care for people entering and leaving the prison estate, and safeguarding health gains made when people go to and from prison. Ensuring continuity of care is vital, but it does not happen well in all cases today. The roll-out is being made in six tranches, with all of the male prison estate to be completed by June 2022.

Providing appropriate intervention and treatment at the right time and in the right place is vital to improving outcomes for people with substance misuse and mental health problems. NHS liaison and diversion services work at police stations and criminal courts to identify and assess people with substance misuse issues so that they can be referred to appropriate services and, where appropriate, out of the justice system all together. We are working with health and justice partners to increase the use of community sentence treatment requirements, which can help to reduce reoffending and custodial sentences by offering drug or alcohol treatment as part of a sentence.

In February 2019, the Government commissioned Professor Dame Carol Black to conduct an independent review of the issues and challenges relating to drug misuse, which exposed the stark scale of the national challenge. The hon. Gentleman referred to that vital piece of work a lot. I thank Dame Carol for her thorough review and for championing this important agenda. The Government accepted all of her key recommendations and are committed to supporting individuals suffering from addictions in prison.

To that end, we recently announced a number of initiatives that focus on recovery and rehabilitation, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The new drugs strategy, “From harm to hope”, was published on 6 December 2021. It sets out how we will significantly increase the number of drug and alcohol treatment places, and therefore increase the number of people in long-term recovery from substance addiction. The strategy aims to reverse the upward trend in drug-related deaths and to bolster the crime prevention effort by reducing levels of offending associated with drug dependency. It is important work. The hon. Gentleman questioned whether the DHSC is in any way reluctant to carry out that work. Not at all; I am very committed to that outcome and, as far as I am aware, we are working well with partners across and in the community.

To deliver the strategy, we have made available an additional £780 million, which represents the largest ever single increase in treatment and recovery investment. Of the £780 million, £530 million will be spent on enhancing drug treatment services, while £120 million will be used to support offenders and ex-offenders to engage with the treatment that they need to turn their lives around. There is specific funding for that purpose.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about abstinence-based treatment versus methadone prescribing or other treatments. Both have their place. Not everyone’s addiction is the same and nor is their pathway to recovery. The clinical evidence guidelines—including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance—and clinical consensus will support a balanced and integrated approach. Those bodies will be the ones deciding what is best for the individual concerned.

The prisons White Paper, which was published on 7 December 2021, has a specific focus on tackling barriers to rehabilitation and reform by deploying the full range of treatment options to support recovery from drug dependency. For example, we are exploring the benefits of making long-acting buprenorphine available to prisoners by assessing the impact on engagement with treatment, protection from overdose, and relapse after release. We are also supplying life-saving naloxone medication to staff in prisons and approved premises to prevent unnecessary deaths from opiate overdoses.

Crucially, we want continuity of treatment once an offender is released back into the community, so that they do not slip back into using drugs and into the life of crime that they have often followed. The NHS long-term plan introduced the NHS Reconnect service to work with individuals who would otherwise struggle to engage with community-based healthcare services. The service works with such individuals pre-release to ensure that there is no disruption to their care. Reconnect is the largest health and justice investment to be delivered by the NHS long-term plan, with an annual spend of £13.8 million in 2022-23, rising to £20 million in 2023-24.

As well providing health and care support, we need to tackle the wider issues that can hinder a person’s ability to recover and turn back the clock on their crime. Prison programmes for drug rehabilitation, skills and work will be more closely linked to the support services available in the community when offenders are released. We are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Justice on that. Through those initiatives, we are ensuring that every day that an offender spends behind bars involves purposeful reform and rehabilitation to help them to recover and turn their life around, and to ensure that they have the building blocks in place to maintain that recovery and make a positive contribution to society after they leave prison.

Our focus on recovery is unprecedented in its ambition and in the level of funding backing that ambition, and it forms a key part of the Government’s plans to cut crime and make our communities safer as we build back better, stronger and fairer after the pandemic.

Question put and agreed to.

Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Funding

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the funding of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. 

This debate gives us all a remarkable opportunity to focus on a small and sometimes underknown organisation, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which for 30 years has played a distinguished role in standing up for and representing our values on a global stage.

I must declare an interest as the current Chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Today I will discuss with colleagues here in Westminster Hall, some of whom are governors of the organisation, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which I will call the WFD for short, including why we were created, what our aims are, whether we are succeeding, and what we can contribute that matters to the taxpayers who fund us, to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, to whom we answer, to other organisations that fund us and, perhaps above all, to the nations and peoples of the world, who we exist to serve.

I believe this is a good moment to ask these exam-type questions of ourselves in public, not just because this year is our 30th anniversary and no organisation has a right to exist forever; not just because the delay in confirmation of our funding this year has caused us to question every activity, programme, office and pound of expenditure; and not even because of the events in Ukraine, where I am delighted to say that our two staff members, Halyna and Marina, are now safe, far from the Ukrainian Parliament, where they had been working to bolster and sustain Ukrainian democracy, in a project with partners that is financed by the United States Agency for International Development—USAID.

It is even more fundamental to examine the UK commitment to open societies and the WFD’s contribution because, I suggest, democracy is in recession. That is the issue of our time, the challenge for our Government for a generation and perhaps longer to come, and the cause on which our children and grandchildren may later judge us. Moreover, it is not simply about one side winning and the other side losing, or even about a rise or fall in the various democracy indices, although the latest reading, from The Economist index, is dire; it is certainly the worst for 15 years and arguably for even longer. I believe that it is about something more invidious and longer-term—a view among the young in particular that democracy is no longer assumed to be the best solution and the best form of governance, and that other, more efficient, models might exist.

If Churchill’s maxim that “Democracy is a terrible thing, but I cannot think of a better way of governing” is still true—it is a maxim that the WFD holds close to its heart—then we, like every generation, must remake the case for democracy and against the authoritarian range of alternatives. Right now, we may be tempted to remember that time and time again, authoritarian regimes have few easy ways of replacing leaders who pass their sell-by dates, stop listening to their people or surrender to imperialist fantasies. However, we also need to keep asking this question: how do we keep our systems, processes and use of technology up to date, relevant and effective?

That is where the work that the UK does to help open societies abroad matters hugely. There is, of course, Margaret Thatcher’s great observation that

“democracies do not go to war with each other,”

which is never more valid than today in Ukraine. There is also the hard truth that democracies are fragile plants that need much tending and, untended, decline—first gradually and then, like all gardens, suddenly very rapidly.

[Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)]

I note my hon. Friend’s concerns about delays in funding from the Foreign Office. I have to say that I saw first-hand the excellent work done by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy when I attended its training workshop in Ghana for female politicians across Africa. So, does he agree that the Foreign Office must continue to fund that vital work, to help strengthen open societies and democracies around the world?

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She makes a very good point and her own work in Africa, which she continues today in her guise as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy in Kenya, absolutely confirms the point that she makes: in every continent in the world, there are countries in which sustaining this fragile plant is incredibly important. We should not be complacent about that in our own country, or across the pond in North America, either.

In this gardening analogy, the WFD is the constant gardener. We are there for the long term, and our projects need time to succeed. Let me give one example. I have seen our programmes in action in four of the countries in which our western Balkans project operates. I have no doubt that in all of them the project has been a success and great value for money. Were we to abandon the project in less than a month’s time when its funding expires, it would be another setback for open societies in the western Balkans. Yet that is precisely the risk, because the funding for the project, which comes from the conflict, stability and security fund—that is, the Cabinet Office—has not yet been decided. The work that the WFD has been able to do there, improving Parliament structures and scrutiny, helping more women into political leadership positions and so—this is the crucial aspect—reducing corruption, which is the scourge of faith in Government, is really important work, done indirectly by Her Majesty’s Government to help nations across the oceans.

Today, every organisation—barring a civil war or invasion—needs certainty in which to operate. During the pandemic, the Government provided that certainty for both businesses and the self-employed. It is therefore extraordinary that, having declared an end to the pandemic, and with departmental budgets agreed with the Treasury some time ago, until 6 o’clock yesterday evening I could not have told this debate what the WFD budget would be in less than a month’s time. Our outstanding chief executive Anthony Smith is here today, and we have roughly 100 staff in many countries around the world, and there are the rest of the governors, both political and non-political. For us to have to say in a board meeting last week that we could not sign off on a budget—only an indicative operational plan—is not an acceptable way for a non-departmental Government body to operate. It was with great relief, therefore, that I took the call last night from the office of the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), for the verbal confirmation of our core funding for 2022-23. I look forward to the written confirmation as soon as possible.

However, I stress that that does not resolve everything, for many of our projects are funded through official development assistance by individual missions. The western Balkans project, pooled by five embassies, is a good example of that. They still do not know what their allocations are. The good news on core funding enables us to complete a budget and a restructure with much greater certainty, and enables us to decide the party political programmes that are arguably the unique feature of the WFD, but it does not mean that all our programmes, or the jobs of the staff delivering them, are secured. I am sure that the Minister will recognise that I speak for many heads of mission and diplomats when I say that, for an organisation well-versed in understatement, the words “frustrating” and “disappointing” are polite ways of describing widespread feelings. I hope that we never have to slog through such agonising budget treacle for so long ever again.

Let me come back to the core purposes of the WFD and our constant reinvention. Our work cannot prevent rogue states from invading others, whether in Myanmar or Ukraine, but we do have the relationships, mentoring and knowledge such that, when freedom returns, we can help those societies to work better. For example, we have an understanding of what is not working in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and beyond. Western democracies want to know why the youth is voting with its feet to leave across the west Balkans, and were they to show the resolve in helping unblock these impediments to more open societies, it would reduce the tensions in that region that exist now and could yet lead to a new round of violence.

All Governments need the tools to help deliver what they believe in. This great country of ours believes powerfully in open societies and democracy—the values on which all of us were elected. Even after temporarily reducing our development spending to 0.5% of gross national income, we still spend over £10 billion a year, the vast majority of which goes on large, multilateral organisations, delivering important work through Save the Children, Oxfam and so on. In that enormous pond of development expenditure, the WFD is but a tiny drop—£6.5 million of core funding this year. However, we do answer to those values and the choice to stand up for them, as outlined in the Queen’s Speech and the integrated review paper that the Government wrote last year, which I still believe to be a very good definition of strategic choices that defend our interests.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for the WFD and the work that it does, and through him I want to appeal to the Minister. It is only natural that any large bureaucracy protects itself first and the outsiders last. When there is a cut, it tends to cut off the tentacles, however valuable they are. I hope we will hear from the Minister a personal commitment to ensure that WFD and its work are not allowed to languish, and that they have her full personal support. I know that the Department and the wider civil service will hear that message if it is given clearly by the Minister today.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who was earlier discussing with me the importance of environmental democracy. I hope he will participate in the event that the WFD has organised, which I think is on the last day of March. It will gather colleagues from across the world to discuss the importance of environmental democracy. It is exactly the sort of long-term work he believes in, and that we are trying to deliver. I sense a future role for him in the WFD.

[Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con)]

My apologies for arriving after the commencement of the debate; I was still in a Select Committee. I put on record my appreciation for my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for the work that he does in chairing the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. It is not always the most glamorous task, but having been a director myself some 10 years or so ago, I know what incredibly important work it does. It helps to project on a cross-party basis from both Houses of Parliament the importance and the strength of encouraging democracy in some of the emerging democracies—particularly from former Soviet states.

I was in Kyiv with the WFD on my only visit to that, at present, benighted country. I tried to encourage the parties to recognise the importance of democracy and the role they can play in standing up to aggression. It is vital that WFD continues to do that work, not least during these dark days.

[Richard Graham]

I am very grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said. His own experience, both in Ukraine and more widely on the board of WFD, is extremely relevant. I pay warm tribute to Members of Parliament, the Government themselves and our non-political governors for their commitment and voluntary work over the few years that I have been chairing this organisation. It is to them that we owe what I hope is generally seen as a successful organisation, punching, as Douglas Hurd used to say, above our weight.

This is a good moment to come back to when we started, which was in 1992, after the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was a time when optimism was strong about the future of democracy. There was the election of Nelson Mandela in South Africa and the fall of dictators across eastern Europe. There was the exit of Suharto in Indonesia and Pinochet in Chile. These were heady times for those who believed in the values of democracy. The WFD was created to build those bridges between British political parties and our counterparts overseas, with other Parliaments and civil society, which is not to be underestimated in any of the countries where we run programmes—the role of civil society to help build more open societies and more prosperous countries.

In many ways, when the Foreign Secretary talks about a network of liberty, we can help deliver that, but we can do that only if we get the resources to enable us to deliver. Let me give one very tangible example, which I saw in action last week, in the Bangsamoro region of the southern Philippines, on the island of Mindanao, which I last spent a considerable amount of time in in 1986, when there was a rampant civil war between various Islamic groups, which we would now call fundamentalists or jihadists, as well as communists and the Philippines army. It was a region where everything was decided by the gun.

Today, in the Bangsamoro Parliament, which was set up over the last couple of years, and in the Bangsamoro Transition Authority, which is run by a former freedom fighter, I saw at first hand how the project that we are delivering—sponsored by the British embassy in Manila—can contribute to a series of programmes there, run by those who most strongly believe in democracy, to help deliver real peace and prosperity to that part of the Philippines. It is fragile, but I believe that an extension of it, which I hope will be formally announced fairly shortly, will continue to make a real difference. It is far away from the headlines of the media back here, but it is delivering very valuable progress.

To bring this speech to a conclusion, I hope that today’s debate leads not only to a reconsideration of our budget and a reaffirmation of support from the FCDO and from colleagues, but to a reimagination of what this country can do to support democracy across the world, at a time when democracy itself is under threat. That great challenge of our generation is up for grabs.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

This is quite a popular debate. I will go to the three Front Benchers from 5.8 pm, so I think that equates to around four minutes each for the Back Benchers.

16:47

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Dr Huq. I start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this debate, and thanking him for all the work that he has done for the wonderful Westminster Foundation for Democracy as chair.

If there was ever a time when an organisation was needed that crosses Parliaments, parties, electoral bodies and civil societies around the world—a non-departmental body working and empowering everyone—it is now. This debate is crucial because it reaffirms our commitment to democracy around the world. We have heard that every major index of democracy has pointed to a reversal in the spread of democracy—that is worrying—although there is an increase in political participation, which may be something to do with the work of WFD, hopefully, for more accountability.

It was a privilege to see the soft power of the FCDO when I visited Burma Myanmar in 2013, just before the elections. The soft power and the diplomats do not tell people how to vote or who to vote for; they just empower people. I saw the work that Parliament does to support the MPs in Myanmar—building a library and supporting the new MPs. What about the work that is being done now in Ukraine? WFD supported Ukraine’s independent budget committee, and they must be devastated for the people that they worked with to see them under siege at the moment.

Dr Huq, you will know what Gandhi said about democracy. When he was asked about western democracy, he said he thought it was a good idea. It is not about us exporting our version around the world; it is about empowering people.

Gandhi also said that when we educate women, we educate society, so I was pleased to see that the annual report of the Labour party WFD programme had focused on working women and young people. What a success! In Montenegro, 10 of the 24 participants in an academy were selected as candidates. Despite the pandemic, they delivered training sessions with more than 90 representatives from women and youth forums. People in the WFD are committed to the work, and it cannot take place without funding.

In this 30th year, I pay tribute to everyone who has worked for the WFD—including my colleagues who have done so, across parties—for making a difference to democracy. Its funding is uncertain. The organisation cannot plan and redundancies are already being made—a 29% cut, and with no plan or certainty of a budget for 2021-22. I was pleased to hear about the phone call but, as the hon. Member for Gloucester said, we hope to see that in writing soon. I urge the Minister to commit to funding immediately, because this is about the future, which we are seeing every day now on our screens.

The Government’s own integrated review stressed “robust democratic institutions”. I hope that the Minister will meet the chief executive of the WFD to settle on an appropriate level of funding to enable it to promote democracy and therefore peace. Minister, we only had to look at the face of the Ukrainian ambassador today in Parliament to see how important that work is. I note the Minister is dressed in the colours of the Ukrainian flag.

We are arming people with the arguments for democracy, for the rule of law and for the accountability and transparency of decisions made in the people’s name, so that they are not subjugated by authoritarian regimes. Surely that is the most compelling reason to make sure that the WFD can function, whether through widening participation of women and young people, election monitoring or—our most pressing issue—the future of the world on environmental democracy. The WFD is a sign to every autocratic Government that we will not be intimidated, but uphold the principles of freedom and justice, democracy and peace—and spread that message across the world.

16:52

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Dr Huq.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing the debate and on his incredible work as the chair of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I, too, am a governor of the WFD. There can be few dates when it would be more appropriate to discuss the importance of supporting democracy around the world, following the incredibly moving standing ovation for the Ukrainian ambassador at Prime Minister’s questions today.

My hon. Friend set out why we should never be complacent about the role of democracy in our world and about the importance of continually making the case for it. He is absolutely right about the fragility that we should be concerned about at all times. I suggest to him that this is an appropriate time to remind ourselves that no man is an island. Geographically, that is always a difficult concept for people from the United Kingdom, but we are not an island: in a world of globalised interests, everybody is our neighbour, and we should never forget that. The more that we can invest in ensuring that those neighbours are stable and have the values that we have, the safer we all are.

My hon. Friend pointed out that the WFD was established directly after the fall of the Berlin wall to strengthen democracies and, by doing so, to strengthen Parliaments and countries as well. WFD funding is from many different sources. I am a relatively new governor and am still trying to get my mind around all these things, but the core funding, rightly, is from the UK Government. To be diplomatic, planning for the next financial year has been challenging because of the lack of a clear indication of the likely level of the grant for the spending review period.

Having myself been a Minister through a spending review, I can only stare in admiration at this Minister, given the amount of work that she must be doing or have done on this. I do not underestimate the complexities. It is absolutely right that Ministers consider carefully how overseas development assistance is allocated—we would expect nothing less—but this debate is to draw attention to the fact that delay, of necessity, causes uncertainty. That uncertainty and the impact it can have on organisations such as the WFD is what we want to remind the Minister about today, particularly given the WFD’s pivotal role in helping deliver the strategic priority for the Government of strengthening democracies around the world.

Financial uncertainty is affecting our ability to operate at a level that we would expect, given the real and transparent need to strengthen democracies at this time. I hope the Minister can provide clarity today. She knows the WFD through her own work and through my noble Friend Lord Ahmad’s visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where he learned about the WFD’s western-Balkans programme. Indeed, the Prime Minister, in his former role as Foreign Secretary, announced the Commonwealth Partnership for Democracy programme and launched the WFD Kosovo programme in Pristina.

The Minister for Europe and North America, my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), also learned a great deal about the work of the WFD in supporting women’s political participation and representation, in preparation for his recent visit to Kuwait. It is so often women who are disproportionately affected when democracies are threatened. I could give many other examples, but time is short. Suffice it to say that we need to see that the UK Government are doing all they can to ensure that, through the WFD and organisations like it, Government strategy for a global Britain and the ambition to strengthen democracy around the world can be brought into reality. I pay tribute to the staff of the WFD who, despite all the uncertainty, have continued their extraordinary work in an unstinting way.

16:56

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Dr Huq. Many believe that Putin felt emboldened to act in Ukraine after the Taliban took over Afghanistan last August. That is why now is not the time to cut the support that we give to developing democracies. When one collapses, it emboldens those who have no interest in democracy, and there is a domino effect. We need to double down and reinforce the incredible work that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy has done in the last 30 years, not turn our backs on it, making the last three decades meaningless.

As a WFD consultant when I was not an MP, I spent some time in the Gambia, working to strengthen accountability and democracy, and to increase the number of women, young people and people with disabilities in elected office. Ten of the 11 political parties had come together behind one presidential candidate to oust the human rights-abusing dictator of 22 years. That, in itself, was incredible, as was the fact that they were successful. Unfortunately, the new President got a taste for the lifestyle and decided to renege on the agreement to stand aside after three years. The Opposition parties and numerous human rights organisations are clear that they are not accepting that; they will fight the upcoming elections in the Gambia on that basis. The work that the Westminster Foundation for Democracy did with all those parties has contributed to their determination to ensure a fully-fledged democracy in the Gambia.

The WFD’s in-country rep, Madi Jobarteh, is a shining light in the Gambia, as are so many others who I have met in countries across the globe, including Dinesh Wagle, who is the in-country rep in Nepal. I did a piece of work in Nepal, and the thing about the WFD is that we continue those relationships. Dinesh has brought parliamentarians over here and he is bringing them again in two weeks’ time, not just to Westminster but to my constituency office in Glasgow. The WFD deserves our continuing support. As was said by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who I congratulate on securing this debate, they must be allowed to keep tending those gardens.

I pay tribute to Emma Armshaw, who is the SNP WFD’s head of office—she is with us today. She has certainly kept me busy over the years, but I am exhausted just watching her energy and commitment to the distinct programmes that the SNP office runs. I have been fortunate enough to work with Emma and Ra’edat—the Arab Women Parliamentarians Network for Equality. I was very privileged to engage with some formidable women as they came together in Beirut to talk about violence against women in politics. I wish I had time to say more, but for now I will express my continuing solidarity with them, and with the Women’s Parliamentary Caucus of Malawi, who I also spent some time with through the SNP WFD office.

Those are but two of our projects, and they both demonstrate the SNP’s manifesto commitment to pursuing a feminist foreign policy. The WFD has supported around 600 women parliamentarians across the world; I think I have met most of them. I am very proud of Emma, Madi and Dinesh. I am proud of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—and, actually, of the UK Foreign Office for setting the foundation up and funding the work done. However, the SNP office alone has had cuts of nearly £100,000 in recent years and the WFD is now looking at further cuts of £1.4 million.

Regardless of the governing party, the WFD’s grants have always been a fraction of those provided to counterparts in other countries, representing perhaps 1% of US funding and 5% of Germany’s funding over the last 20 years. This £1.4 million represents 21% of core funding, so it is massive to the WFD but miniscule to the Government. If the Government had not written off £4.3 billion in fraudulent covid payments, they could have afforded to maintain this budget 3,071 times over.

There is no excuse. I implore the Government to think again. They cannot just keep talking about Britain being the bastion of democracy; they have to walk the walk—that does not mean finding the money, because it is already there, but parting with it. I implore the Minister not to let this wonderful organisation slip through our fingers. It is something we can all be proud of and unite behind.

17:01

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Dr Huq.

I declare that I am also a governor of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. I first became involved with the WFD on one of the programmes I visited in Kenya, which was encouraging, supporting and advising women to get involved in the political process there. I was taken aback by the similarity between the issues they faced and those we face here, and by how useful what we experienced was to them. Today, in common with so many other people, I am taken by the timing of this move, which simply reinforces the need to rethink the cuts to the budget.

We have all mentioned that this is the 30th anniversary of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. It was set up, almost to the day, in 1992, to support and encourage the nascent democracies of eastern Europe—those peoples who had just thrown off the yoke of the Soviet empire and were experiencing for the first time the freedoms that we took for granted. Now, 30 years later, those very democracies, which have flourished, are under threat once more from a Russian autocrat. Those very freedoms, which they cherish, are under threat.

I am from the generation that remembers the cold war. I remember feeling fear as a teenager at every faux pas by an American President and every rumbling of discontent from Moscow. I felt the sheer elation and celebration that went with the crumbling of the Berlin wall and the awakening of democracy in Europe: the end of the cold war and of the Soviet empire.

I am now standing here, 30 years later, considering the future of the organisation set up to protect those democracies, which has gone on to do so much—not just in eastern Europe, but throughout the world, including in Africa and in Myanmar. It has been protecting those democracies. The foundation was working in Kyiv this week until the invasion. If ever there were a moment for the Foreign Office to stop and rethink its funding of this wonderful organisation, it is surely today, when the very thing it was set up to defend is yet again under threat.

17:04

[Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this important and timely debate.

This should have been an opportunity to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Since 1992, after offering support for projects across the world, this Foundation has promoted its belief

“that we need strong democracies to prosper and to protect our rights and freedoms.”

And yet—and yet—it is clear that democracy is under threat globally. Over the past week we have seen just how precious but fragile democracy is. It is a simple and unequivocal fact that the spread of democracy that followed the cold war has been reversed. Every major democracy index, such as Freedom House’s “Freedom in the World”, has shown a slide downwards over the past 15 years.

Only 20% of the world’s population live in free countries: 38% live under authoritarian rule, and the rest have restricted freedom. Some say that we are living through a democratic recession—who knows? It may become a depression. Given that the WFD was founded after the fall of the Berlin wall and tasked with supporting pro-democracy political parties and developing democratic processes as countries from eastern Europe emerged from the cold war, it is a particular tragedy that Ukraine—one of the nations that has embraced democracy—should now be the victim of a bloody, brutal and barbaric invasion by Russia under Vladimir Putin’s autocratic and authoritarian regime. Sadly, the Russian regime is not the only one working to diminish freedom of expression and democratic participation. From Belarus to Syria, China to Afghanistan and Myanmar to Eritrea, we have seen that democratic freedoms are by no means guaranteed.

At this time of increased need to be vigilant about these threats and continually defend, promote and improve democracy, the WFD faces cuts that will significantly hamper its ability to operate. That is a consequence of this UK Government’s short-sighted and unimaginable decision to renege on its manifesto commitment and the cross-party consensus to spend 0.7% of GNI on overseas development aid, which is not only morally reprehensible, but penny wise and pound foolish.

The WFD’s core funding was cut by 29% during the pandemic—what a time to choose!—without consultation or consideration of the consequences. The result is that programmes are either curtailed or cancelled; staff, with all the expertise they have, are made redundant; and efforts to promote democracy ultimately suffer. The Government can try to argue that there will be a return to 0.7% when fiscal tests are met, but that will not bring back those programmes or those staff, and the likelihood is that democracy will have been eroded in the meantime.

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy should be rightly proud of the work it undertakes. It focuses on accountability and transparency, elections, environmental democracy, inclusion, participation and openness, and women’s political leadership, with 74 programmes implemented across 43 countries in the years 2020-21. Key to its work—in many ways, its unique selling point—is its collaboration with party political offices, providing them with the resource to develop their own programmes across the world. The SNP established its own WFD office after becoming the third largest party in the UK in 2015, placing a particular focus on gender equality in political representation and participation. Its two key programmes include the Arab Women Parliamentarians Network for Equality, which the SNP was instrumental in helping build. That network has gone on to develop a policy paper on violence against women in politics—the first of its kind in the Arab world, and something we should all be proud of.

The SNP WFD also supports the Malawi Parliamentary Women’s Caucus, pursuing gender-just politics and legislation, and works to promote the effective participation of women in Parliament. Furthermore, it has recently launched a new environmental democracy project in Pakistan, supporting the Climate Change Committee with post-legislative scrutiny. However, all this important work can be supported only if the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is adequately funded—it is as simple as that. The SNP’s WFD funding has dropped from £260,000 in 2016 to around £156,000 in 2020. There are real concerns that if funding drops any further, this work will simply no longer be viable.

The UK Government recognised the importance of the WFD in its integrated review last year, and made commitments to address democratic governance around the world—given how critical this is for UK interests. I agree, and I am sure every Member present does as well. However, that was on the back of cutting funding for international development programmes at the same time, when the UK Government cut aid spending from 0.7% of GNI to 0.5%, and they subsequently announced that funding for the human rights, democracy and rules-based international system would be cut. That makes no sense: it is a completely incoherent and ultimately self-defeating decision, one that has the likes of Putin and other autocrats around the world laughing at us for being such blind fools.

Not only is this spending the morally right thing to do, but it is in our national interest. A fairer, more democratic world is a safer and more stable world, and any savings made now while making cuts will only cost us more in the long term when vast amounts have to be spent on the crises that subsequently emerge across the world. The UK Government must now see the error of their ways, reverse the reduction in WFD grants and reinstate the commitment to spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA if they are to have any credibility in defending democracy at this vital time in the world.

17:10

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Dr Huq. I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) on securing such an important debate. It comes at an extremely important time, as Vladimir Putin’s unprovoked attack on Ukraine’s democracy rages on, becoming more brutal by the day.

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has been conducting vital work in Ukraine as part of its inclusive and accountable politics programme, which aimed to help the Ukrainian Parliament strengthen its important role in scrutinising Government legislation. That improves transparency and accountability, which, as right hon and hon. Members will agree, are the bedrock of any democracy.

The WFD has played a part in helping Ukraine to build its democratic institutions. That is everything that Putin fears: democracies working together to prevent the horrific repression and human rights violations that we see in Putin’s Russia today. That is what he envisages for Ukraine, so it is vital that we do all we can in our Parliament to empower organisations such as the WFD, so that they can help prevent that.

In Belarus in 2020, we saw clear evidence of election rigging by the Lukashenko regime. Now that same regime is playing its part in attempting to destroy Ukraine’s democracy. The Opposition welcome the sanctions against those in the Belarusian and Russian regimes who look to subvert democracies. In particular, we welcome the fact that the UK, EU and US have agreed to disconnect some Russian banks from SWIFT, but there is much more that the UK Government can do to cut Putin’s rogue regime out of our financial system.

The hardest possible sanctions must be taken against all those linked to Putin, and against the Russian Government’s interests. We should work in a co-ordinated and unified way with our allies to ensure that the Putin regime faces the severest possible consequences for its unprovoked violence. That is why we, as parliamentarians in one of the world’s oldest democracies, must throw our support behind the WFD and its international partners in the global democracy coalition.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, eastern Europe was suddenly awash with new political parties legalised after the one-party authoritarian system of governance of the Soviet bloc came to an end. Hope was on the horizon, and I am confident that such hope will soon return to eastern Europe, including Ukraine.

The WFD has historically played a key role in protecting that hope. In the western Balkans, for example, it has worked closely with political parties to ensure that they are more policy focused and orientated towards voters’ needs. It has also helped to develop more effective parliamentary practice and, as a result, better legislation. It worked to enhance the democratic culture of formerly undemocratic states by facilitating greater interaction between state and non-state actors on the challenges affecting the everyday lives of citizens.

Properly funding the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is a significant part of Britain’s influence abroad. That influence does not stop at democracy; with it comes freedom of the press, human rights, the rule of law, the right to peaceful protest, and many other freedoms that we enjoy in this country and that, sadly, many others around the world do not. The WFD shows that we can all play a part in changing that. The rights of democracy campaigners are being violated every single day, and we must do all we can to support courageous activists in countries such as Cuba, where the Government continue to limit access to the internet in a desperate attempt to prevent campaigners for democracy having their voices heard.

Today I have highlighted some of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy’s work. Its work to increase Britain’s democratic influence across the world is needed now more than ever, from Nicaragua to Hungary, from Venezuela to Colombia. We are truly fortunate to live in a democracy, and I urge the Minister to commit today to the future of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, so that we may spread hope to the less fortunate parts of our fragile world.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Just a reminder that we have to allow a couple of minutes for Richard Graham to conclude. I call the Minister.

16:04

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this debate and to the Members who have spoken. I join them in their praise of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. This debate has demonstrated that across the House and the nation we share many fundamental values and beliefs. We believe in democracy, free speech, fair treatment and inclusion, but those values are under attack.

The world is watching in horror as Russian tanks roll into their democratic neighbour. Putin’s illegal and unprovoked invasion of Ukraine is utterly reprehensible. The UK condemns his actions, and we stand with the people of Ukraine. As we have been sitting and speaking here today, at the United Nations we have been joined by more than 140 countries, who have voted for the motion condemning Russian actions. A huge number of countries is united. We are showing the strength of feeling across the globe. We stand with Ukraine, and Russian aggression must stop.

Freedom of expression and an independent media are essential. The fundamental rights to freedom of expression; to read, discuss and debate issues freely; and to challenge news agendas and make informed political decisions are precious, but today’s ordinary Russians do not even have that. This morning, the Russians shut down the Russian TV channel Dozhd, and the radio station Ekho Moskvy. The Putin regime has again suppressed independent media and is censoring Russians’ access to independent reporting. That leaves the Russian state media outlets unchallenged and free to peddle their already discredited state propaganda. The actions by the Russian authorities are a further demonstration of the importance of independent media, and that is why we must stand up for democracy.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. The Clerk is giving me dirty looks; we cannot veer off the topic of the debate for too long.

[Chris Law]

rose—

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Chris Law will intervene, and then we will go back to the suitably attired Minister, who is wearing the correct colours.

[Chris Law]

The Minister is making a very powerful case. I hope she will conclude by saying that there will be full funding and support for WFD. She mentioned state media and the shutting down of media. Last night Google shut down RT. Two days ago, the whole of the EU shut down RT and Sputnik. So far, the UK has not gone anywhere near touching RT in this country. Will the UK Government reconsider their position, because we are isolated in our approach to Russian/Kremlin TV in this country?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. The Clerk has said that it was not a dirty look, but an admonition not to stray from our territory.

[Vicky Ford]

I certainly hear his point, Dr Huq.

Far beyond Russia and Belarus, we are seeing concerted efforts to silence dissent and stifle freedom, and covid has brought that into even sharper focus. Regimes have used the crisis to restrict civil liberties and to entrench repressive measures. The democratic world is facing the starkest of choices. Either we retreat and retrench in the face of assault, or we come together to advance our cause.

The Government believe that now is the time to fight back. That is why we are working with friends and allies to build a network of liberty, to promote democracy and freedom across the globe—an area in which the Westminster Foundation for Democracy will continue to play an important role. That is why the Foreign Secretary agreed to increase the grant in aid by 25%, from £5.1 million this financial year to £6.5 million per annum over the next three years. I know that there are questions about ODA programming in specific areas, and I recognise the urgency of decisions here. The process is ongoing and no specific programme decisions have been made.

Our arm’s length bodies, including the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, are very important to supporting our foreign policy, diplomatic engagements and key priorities. We want to continue to support the WFD, so that with partner countries across the world, it can deliver impactful programmes that support democracy, and can counter the rise of authoritarianism.

The WFD is a unique organisation. Funded by the FCDO to strengthen democracy around the world, it works with Parliaments, political parties and civil society groups to make countries’ political systems fairer and more inclusive, accountable and transparent. Through the WFD, the UK projects its own experience and expertise.

Despite funding challenges, together with partner countries all around the world, the foundation has continued to deliver impactful programmes that support democracy, including programmes that support the representation of women, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) knows intimately, and programmes that support young people, people with disabilities and LGBT+ people in the democratic process in more than 20 countries. Many Members have pointed to the foundation’s successes in many countries, and I have heard their comments; the foundation’s work spans the globe.

[Richard Graham]

I wonder whether the Minister could confirm two things. First, will the FCDO pay the redundancy costs of any staff who lose their jobs through the restructuring? Secondly, will the additional national insurance costs be paid by the FCDO?

[Vicky Ford]

I have heard my hon. Friend’s questions; I will make sure that he is written to, and that the foundation receives answers to the questions he has raised.

As set out in the integrated review, the UK will support strong, transparent and accountable political processes and institutions overseas, including Parliaments and political parties, through the work of the foundation and other institutions. As part of that work, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy organised a thematic election expert observation mission to the presidential election in the Gambia on 4 December 2021, which was the first independent UK observation.

On behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, the foundation also delivers UK observers to election observation missions organised by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Following an invitation from the Hungarian authorities, the foundation will send election observers to Hungary on 3 April 2022.

The Westminster Foundation for Democracy has a strong record on the issue of women’s political leadership. It recently led an event aimed at elevating women’s role and influence in politics. There were participants from more than 30 countries, including women Ministers from countries as far afield and as different as Finland and South Africa.

The foundation is an important part of our soft power network, alongside the British Council, the Great Britain-China Centre, the BBC, Wilton Park and our universities. As the noble Lord Ahmad pointed out in the other place the other day, these institutions play an important role in our democratic reach, as we build a powerful ideological alternative. They are all vital instruments of our influence overseas. They project our strengths and values, as the Prime Minister has said, and they build trust and opportunities across the globe.

Yes, I am wearing the colours of the flag of Ukraine, because right now in Ukraine, missiles and guns are killing innocent people, women and children, and people who just want to live in peace in their own country. That brings into sharp relief the importance of tackling autocracy, strengthening democracy and standing up for freedom. The work of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is as important as ever, and I thank the foundation from the bottom of my heart for what it does.

17:25

[Richard Graham]

I thank everyone who has spoken today, from all four main parties in Parliament, as well as fellow governors and others. All of them paid tribute to the WFD’s work and all its staff, here and abroad; I know our chief executive Anthony Smith will have welcomed that.

I thank the Minister for what she said about reassurance on our funding. She will have noted the two specific questions I asked, and she will also be aware as Minister for Africa that there are programmes and offices in Africa that are under review. I hope that she will involve herself more in the detail of decisions made on the WFD, because they will affect the continent she covers so ably.

I finish by quoting President Reagan, who launched the US organisations that support democracy around the world in 1982 in Westminster Hall, just outside this Chamber. He said then—and what could be more appropriate now?—that

“the ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets, but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated.”

Today’s debate, which is in stiff competition with the debate on Ukraine in the main Chamber, has highlighted the support from all parties represented in Parliament for the work of the WFD. I hope the Minister and her colleagues will give us the tools to support the beliefs and values that she, her colleagues and all of us share.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the funding of the Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

17:27

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Written Statements

Wednesday 2 March 2022

Bulb Energy Ltd: Letter of Credit

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Written Statements

[The Minister for Energy, Clean Growth and Climate Change (Greg Hands)]

Today I will lay before Parliament a departmental minute describing a contingent liability arising from the issuance of a letter of credit for the energy administrators acting in the special administration regime for Bulb Energy Ltd (Bulb). This letter of credit replaces a previous one provided in December, announced within a written ministerial statement on 6 January, which has now expired.



It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above, for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Department concerned to present Parliament with a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances.



I regret that, due to negotiations with the counterparty only just concluding, I have not been able to follow the usual notification timelines to allow consideration of these issues in advance of issuing the letter of credit.



Bulb entered the energy supply company special administration regime on 24 November 2021. Energy administrators were appointed by court to achieve the statutory objective of continuing energy supplies at the lowest reasonable practicable cost until such time as it becomes unnecessary for the special administration to remain in force for that purpose.



My Department has agreed to provide a facility to the energy administrators, with a letter of credit issued, with my approval, to guarantee such contract, code, licence, or other document obligations of the company consistent with the special administration’s statutory objective. I will update the House if any letters of credit are drawn against.



The legal basis for a letter of credit is section 165 of the Energy Act 2004, as applied and modified by section 96 of the Energy Act 2011.



HM Treasury has approved the arrangements in principle.

[HCWS655]

Level 2 and Below Qualifications Update

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Alex Burghart)]

Consultation on level 2 and below qualifications

I am pleased to announce the next stage of the review of post-16 qualifications in England. It is vital in a fast-moving and high-tech economy that education closes the gap between what people study and the needs of employers. Priorities change rapidly and we need an education system that is dynamic and forward looking. It must deliver the skills we will need in the future to strengthen the economy, not only as we emerge from the coronavirus pandemic but as we move forward in the 21st century.

We set out our plans for the reform of level 3 qualifications in July 2021, and we are now consulting on proposals to reform level 2, level 1 and entry level qualifications. The current landscape at level 2 and below is complex, with over 8,000 qualifications approved for funding for students aged 16 and above. While many of these qualifications are likely to be excellent, it is not a consistent picture. It is hard to tell which ones are high quality and will lead to good outcomes. Improving the quality of qualifications at these levels will contribute to levelling up our country and building back better.

We recognise the diversity of the cohort studying at level 2 and below. Individuals who take these qualifications will have very different backgrounds, achievements, needs, aspirations and motivations. They are also more likely to be taken post-16 by students from disadvantaged backgrounds or with special educational needs or disabilities. These students can have complex needs ranging from emotional, behavioural and mental health issues; physical disabilities; cognitive or developmental conditions; and others including hearing impairments and sensory issues. It is more vital than ever that these students can benefit from high-quality provision that provides the support they need to unlock their potential and benefit from great progression opportunities. Our proposed landscape will serve all students better.

Our proposals aim to streamline and improve the quality of qualifications at level 2 and below for both 16 to 19-year-olds and adults. At the end of 2020, 21% of 16-year-olds were in full-time education studying at level 2 and below¹. These qualifications are also important for adults, who in 2018-19 accounted for around 57% of ESFA-funded enrolments at these levels². We want to ensure that all qualifications that receive public funding in future are high quality, have a clear purpose and will lead to strong progression outcomes, with every student having a range of options leading into either employment or further study—or, for a small minority of students, independent living.

The proposals I am setting out today are open for consultation until 27 April. They have been developed following an extensive call for evidence which ran from November 2020 to February 2021. I am very grateful to those who engaged positively with, and responded to, this exercise.

As previously set out, GCSEs, functional skills qualifications (FSQs) and essential digital skills qualifications (EDSQs) are not in scope for this consultation.

Proposals—Level 2

We propose that qualifications at level 2 should prepare students for further study or training at level 3 where possible, including T-Levels (through the T-Level transition programme), other level 3 technical qualifications and apprenticeships. With employers at the heart of their design and by aligning to employer-led standards, some level 2 qualifications will also provide a great opportunity to move directly into skilled jobs in some sectors.

For 16 to 19-year-olds studying at level 2 who are aiming to get a job at level 2, we propose a two-year study programme to prepare them for the world of work.

Proposals—Level 1 and below

We propose the focus of study for most learners at level 1 and below should be progression to a qualification at level 2 or above that provides entry into a skilled occupation, or progression to a work-based pathway such as supported internships, traineeships and apprenticeships. Basic skills qualifications in English, maths and digital will continue to be vital for many of these students.

Proposals—Personal, social and employability qualifications

We recognise that some students will leave education with their highest achievement being level 1 or entry level, and for a small minority their main aim will be independent living. Personal, social and employability provision is an integral part of study for many of these students, and we propose to set national standards and core content for these qualifications to be designed against. Aligning these qualifications with national standards will ensure greater consistency and confidence in their quality. As part of the consultation, we are specifically seeking views from employers about the value and recognition of these qualifications.

Consultation response on basic digital skills

We consulted in the call for evidence on proposals to remove public funding approval from basic digital skills qualifications at level 2 (ICT user and ICT functional skills qualifications). We are publishing our response alongside the consultation, which confirms and sets out our decision to remove public funding approval from all level 2 ICT user qualifications and all level 2 ICT functional skills qualifications.

I look forward to further engagement with the sector on these reforms. In response to this consultation, I will set out the next steps for implementing reforms at level 2 and below.

Update on level 3 implementation

In July 2021 we set out our plans for the reform of level 3 qualifications. In November, recognising the need to allow sufficient time for awarding organisations and providers to prepare, we announced an extra year for the reforms to be implemented. To support this, we are also moving the pathfinder for approving qualifications in the digital route into the first full cycle of approvals for other technical qualifications. The pathfinder would have seen the introduction of reformed qualifications in the digital route for 2024, ahead of our other reforms. These approvals processes will now be merged and first delivery of reformed qualifications will be from 2025.

¹ https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/permalink/ac2c9345-145c-46d0-aabc-055e9f92936b

² https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/933584/Ad-hoc_3_Level_3_and_below_-_contextual_information.pdf

[HCWS656]

Grand Committee

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

Wednesday 2 March 2022

Building Safety Bill

Committee stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Grand Committee

Committee (4^th Day)

16:16

Relevant document: 20th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

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, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Amendment 111

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath]

111: After Clause 128, insert the following new Clause—
“Sale of goods online for use in buildings
(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, make regulations placing requirements on operators of online marketplaces to take reasonable steps to identify and remove from the online marketplace items which—(a) do not comply with safety legislation, or(b) have been withdrawn or recalled by any person in accordance with safety legislation,and that are of such a kind that are, or may be reasonably assumed to be, for use in buildings.(2) Regulations made pursuant to subsection (1)—(a) must specify what in the opinion of the Secretary of State constitutes “reasonable steps”,(b) may specify which items this section applies to, and(c) may specify penalties for failure to comply with the regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this Clause is to improve the safety of buildings by preventing the sale of faulty electrical goods that can cause fires. This is particularly important in high-rise buildings in which fires can, and in the past have, spread causing fatalities.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, if I purchase, say, an electric fan or a tumble dryer online, it will arrive at my door within a few days and I will plug it in and use it. However, the item could be electrically unsafe or may be one that the manufacturers have withdrawn because they have some concern about it as a potential risk. I have no way of knowing whether the item I have purchased is in that condition for the very simple reason that there are no regulations that require online distributors to take any reasonable steps to ensure that items purchased online are safe. Of course, if the item is unsafe, it could threaten the safety of my home, perhaps causing a fire. If I live in a high-rise block like the ones we are talking about at the moment, that fire could spread and endanger the other flats in the block and the lives of the people who live in them. This is the danger that my amendment seeks to resolve.

16:18

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:20

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

As I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted, Amendment 111 seeks to address the issue of potentially unsafe electrical items purchased online and the impact that could have in high-rise blocks. Some noble Lords may believe that this is not a very serious issue and that perhaps not very many such products are available.

Electrical Safety First has done a detailed analysis of the work of the Office for Product Safety and Standards and, in a test, 63% of electrical products bought in an online marketplace were found to be non- compliant and, of those, 23 were unsafe. The OPSS publishes a weekly product safety report, which details products found to pose a risk to health and safety. Analysis of these reports by Electrical Safety First shows that, during 2021, 31% of all unsafe products identified were electrical, 72 of them having been purchased online. A separate investigation that it carried out found that 93% of a sample of electrical products tested from online marketplaces were unsafe. It has also repeatedly found numerous items that have been recalled by manufacturers—often due to a concern about the risk of overheating and fire—but were still available for purchase online. We are not dealing with a small problem.

We know that there is an increasing number of fires in high-rise buildings: the number has gone up year on year. In fact, there has been a 20% increase in the last two years alone. We know that some 53%—over half of all of the fires—were caused by electricity in one form or another. In many cases, the source of ignition was a faulty electrical product. The fire in Grenfell Tower was caused by an electrical appliance—a fridge freezer—as was the fire at Shepherd’s Court in 2016, which was caused by a recalled tumble dryer, and the fire at Lakanal House in 2009, which was caused by a TV. I do not know whether, in each of those cases, those products were purchased online, but we know from all the research that an increasing number of electrical appliances are purchased online. In February last year, 75% of UK shoppers said that they bought such products online, compared to just 40% the previous year—this was obviously enhanced by lockdown.

This is an accident waiting to happen, and we need to do something about it. That view is supported by many organisations: following the OPSS consultation in 2021, they argued that change was needed to ensure that markets remain fair, and specific powers were requested by them in relation to online marketplaces and platforms. The National Audit Office—the NAO—carried out an investigation and found that there were “gaps in regulators’ powers” to regulate the online marketplace. A Public Accounts Committee report includes findings and states that the OPSS had explained to it that

“under current legislation, online marketplaces are not responsible for the safety of products sold by third parties on their platforms.”

Yet there is of course a requirement for purchases made not online but in normal shops, so it is odd that there is a discrepancy here.

It is particularly odd that the Government have done nothing about it so far, because, in answer to a House of Commons Written Question, the Minister said:

“The Government is committed to ensuring that only safe products can be sold in the UK.”


The purpose of this amendment is to achieve exactly what the Government want—to ensure that only safe electrical products can be purchased, whether they are purchased in normal shops or online. It seems a simple amendment. I have not spent a lot of time going through it, because I am absolutely certain that the Minister is just going to say, “Yes, Don, good idea, we’ll agree to it.” I look forward to hearing her say that in a few minutes.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support all three amendments in this group. Amendment 111, which was laid by my noble friend Lord Foster and to which I have added my name, aims to protect consumers from items purchased online that are non-compliant with rules for purchasing the same products in shops. I thank him for his clear and detailed explanation of why it is needed.

The excellent analysis by Electrical Safety First of the Office for Product Safety and Standards demonstrates that there is a real safety issue. Nearly two-thirds of electrical products bought in an online marketplace are non-compliant and a shocking quarter is actively unsafe. Electrical Contracting News said that in 2020 faulty appliances caused 43 fires per week in England. Everyday household appliances caused 15,000 accidental fires in homes. We know that some serious and fatal fires in high-rise and medium-rise buildings were caused by faulty appliances. Some fires were due to household items being placed too close to the source of heat or to misuse of appliances, but a number were due to appliances that were found to be faulty.

If two-thirds of electrical products bought in online marketplaces are non-compliant and, worse, a quarter is unsafe, that is a recipe for danger. Perhaps it is not surprising that legislation is taking time to catch up with new ways of purchasing goods, yet the focus of this Bill is to ensure that buildings are safe, especially high-rise buildings. This amendment proposes a solution to the problem and I support it.

Briefly, I want also to add my support to Amendment 112 laid by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and Amendment 117 laid by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The amendment of my noble friend Lady Pinnock also responds to evidence given at both the Grenfell inquiry and Dame Judith Hackitt’s review of the appalling habits of too many construction product companies of managing to soften or even blatantly breach the safety regulations. It is evident that the regulations are out of date and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond favourably to this, too.

Finally, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, highlights the importance of the provision of CO detectors and alarms and seeks for the responsible person to ensure that they are provided. Too many times, people end up with unsafe equipment, whether an old gas fire or, worse, a new exterior gas fire being used inside through ignorance, which has resulted in the deaths of far too many people. We are used to having smoke alarms in buildings, especially high-rise ones. We should also have CO detectors and monitors as a matter of absolute routine for safety. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to speak to my Amendment 117 in this group— I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings heath, for supporting this amendment with me. I should declare my interest, as I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Carbon Monoxide Group and I chair the CO Research Trust.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, faulty appliances are often a source of carbon monoxide, but so are wood-burning stoves and oil central heating. Anything that burns a carbon-based fuel can produce carbon monoxide, which is colourless, tasteless and odourless and results from incomplete combustion of the fuel. The problem is that high levels kill you rapidly, within a few minutes, but the symptoms are that you just feel warm and sleepy. You think that you are comfortable and sleepy; the next thing you are dead. However, low levels also produce long-term damage and are thought to damage the developing foetus in pregnant women.

16:30

Rather alarmingly, a recent National Energy Action report showed the dangers of indoor spaces where people live and work. It looked at households in the low-income bracket, with a range of vulnerabilities, and found that 35% of the properties it looked at had prolonged spikes of a carbon monoxide level over the threshold at which it can have possible health effects. Some 22% had spikes that lasted longer than 15 minutes, which could be fatal. Households with the maximum carbon monoxide levels were linked to those reporting stress and anxiety about energy affordability, which reaches statistical significance in correlation. There seems to be a relationship between underheating and poverty, then using appliances, sometimes even a gas oven, as a source of heating. That is linked to elevated levels of carbon monoxide.

Older homes have older and riskier types of boilers. When people face fuel poverty, servicing appliances is one of the first things to go. As we try to decrease energy consumption in new buildings, we make them more airtight. The indoor air quality deteriorates, because it is trapped. This was brought into even sharper focus during Covid, when it was well documented that there was a higher incidence of death from Covid in places with poor ventilation.

It is well established that a higher incidence of exposure to carbon monoxide and other indoor pollutants occurs during the winter, when people spend more time indoors. According to the Office for National Statistics, one in eight households in Britain has no access to a private or shared garden. That rises to one in five households in London. During the winter, these people are indoors with their children, often burning gas or other fuel that risks carbon monoxide production.

A study from Queen Mary University concluded that deaths from Covid were 70% higher in areas of increased air pollution. That has been linked to nitrous oxide and sulphur dioxide. A similar study has not been done sampling the quality of indoor air during Covid, although people have now become aware of raised carbon dioxide levels because, if there is more exhaled air, there is a greater chance of more coronavirus in that air. Hence we have suddenly become aware of the need to open windows and so on.

Much innovation and policy-making in the built environment has focused on new buildings and expensive technologies that have low environmental impact, but there are two problems with this approach. Energy efficiency has grown and buildings have become tighter, but construction techniques designed to seal a house and prevent heat escape also decrease ventilation. That is positive from an environmental perspective, because we use less fuel to heat the home, but the down- side is poor indoor air quality.

A second major issue with the approach is that it does not account for the older buildings in which most people live and work. The UK has the oldest building and housing stock in Europe, which is largely due to the legacy of dwellings and buildings built around the Industrial Revolution, which still form the backbone of our urban areas today.

People need to know that the air where they live, or spend their day working, is safe. The cost of a carbon monoxide alarm ranges upwards from about £14, with a battery life of seven years, so it costs £2 a year for a carbon monoxide alarm to keep people safe. The cost is minimal, or negligible, but the cost associated with a life lost to carbon monoxide poisoning can run into hundreds of thousands of pounds when one looks at the problems for bereaved children in particular, when they have ongoing needs over the years ahead. On the economic argument alone, I suggest to the Government that a simple amendment requiring carbon monoxide alarms to be installed by whoever owns and runs the building would be more than cost effective.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, it was the safety failure of cladding on Grenfell Tower that resulted in 72 people tragically losing their lives. Subsequent investigations showed that construction products that failed flammability tests were used. Obviously, the safety of the construction products used is critical if we are to achieve a much improved building safety standard.

The safety of construction products in the Bill is dealt with only in Schedule 11. Ten pages of detail set out the regulatory regime around product safety. Amendment 112 in my name would add a new clause to the Bill to ensure that product safety is an integral and important part of the legislation.

The purpose of Schedule 11 is to enable the Secretary of State to make relevant regulations to control the safety of construction products. The key word used throughout is that the Government or the Secretary of State “may” by regulations do something. I suggest that the key word should be “must”. For example, Schedule 11 states that products “may” be prohibited if they are not safe. Can the Minister clarify the reasoning for not using prescriptive language?

On standards and technical assessments of products, the wording used is that construction products regulations “may” make provision for standards and technical assessments. Given the learning from the tragedy at Grenfell, I would expect product standards to meet safety standards clearly established by regulation. The schedule establishes the notion of creating a list of “safety-critical products” covered by safety-critical standards which “may”, or presumably may not, be detailed in a timely way. The regulations also make provision for enforcement—or, at least, they “may” make provision—of the safety and standards regime.

The Hackitt report, my favourite document on all this, has a whole chapter on construction product safety and some very clear recommendations, one of which states:

“A clearer, more transparent and more effective specification and testing regime of construction products must”—


I emphasise “must”—

“be developed. This should include products as they are put together as part of a system.”

That is one of the issues that I raised at Second Reading and on other amendments in Committee. It is important that a product is not only proven to be safe but proven to be safe in conjunction with other materials. That was part of the failure exposed by the Grenfell fire.

Dame Judith Hackitt states clearly in her report that that is essential. Her report recommends:

“Manufacturers must retest products that are critical to the safety of”


higher-risk buildings. The report also seeks to ban assessments in lieu of tests—that is, the desktop studies that were part of the failure at Grenfell—and allow them only in

“a very limited number of cases”.

The Government have set out to reflect in the Building Safety Bill all the recommendations in Dame Judith Hackitt’s report. Unfortunately, Schedule 11 does not do that. It certainly does not do it with the clarity of language or insistence on actions contained in that report.

Amendment 112 is an attempt to draw the attention of the Committee to the fundamental importance of ensuring the safety of, and safe use of, construction products. The amendment seeks to address the want of timeliness in the schedule by insisting on the early publication of regulations on testing and certification. Proposed new subsection (2) seeks to provide for all the recommendations in the Hackitt report to be included in the Bill. I hope that, in her response, the Minister will accept the importance of tightening the proposed regulations on construction products and, given that nearly five years have passed since the Grenfell fire, will accept that no further time should be lost in making buildings safe by ensuring that construction products are safe.

I just want to comment on the other amendments in this group. I give my full support to Amendment 111 in the name of my noble friend Lord Foster, who has made the case for the vital importance of the safety of electrical appliances and for continuing to check them. Too many fires—high-risk fires—have occurred because some electrical appliances are not safe or do not continue to be safe.

I also fully support Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I give the example of my own council—Kirklees Council—which provided free carbon monoxide monitors for every household. This followed the tragic death of a young child whose family was living in a terraced house where carbon monoxide leaked through from the adjacent house, which was not being properly maintained, if I may put it like that. Really sadly, the child died. As a consequence, the council—with the full support of everybody—produced free carbon monoxide monitors for every household. They are life-saving, and we will obviously fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness. With those comments, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to all the amendments in this group in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

I turn first to Amendment 112 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. She presented the case very clearly and eloquently; the headline from her contribution was that the amendment seeks to satisfy the Grenfell review and the Hackitt review. Testing and certification are important for product safety. Ultimately, they will save lives and ensure safer homes.

Amendment 117 is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, who made a very clear and economical argument on safety and why this amendment should be welcomed by the Government and all of us—was it £2 for the developers and owners of buildings to ensure the safety of their residents? The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, mentioned the very sad example of the young child in her constituency. We can save people’s lives by welcoming and adopting this amendment.

16:45

I will focus in particular on Amendment 111 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath. He painted the stark reality of the situation we face; in 2021, something like 31% of all fires in unsafe buildings were down to electrical faults. The noble Lord also said there had been a 20% increase in fires in high-rise buildings in the last two years, 50% of them caused by electrical safety problems.

We welcome this amendment. The noble Lord mentioned the charity Electrical Safety First; its chief executive Lesley Rudd said that the absence of vital laws governing online marketplaces posed

“one of the biggest risks to product safety in the UK”.

Since Brexit, the Office for Product Safety and Standards has been set up, but what new responsibilities has it undertaken in relation to faulty electrical goods and building safety?

Can the Minister say what actions have been taken in response to the report from the Public Accounts Committee, which has been mentioned, on the UK’s product safety regime? Does she agree that there is a gap in the law which means that digital giants such as Amazon and eBay are not responsible for the safety of items sold by third parties? If she does, what will the Government do about it?

What does the Minister have to say about these challenges? We have an unregulated marketplace for electrical goods. We have had severe cuts to enforcement bodies. We have also had an increase in online purchases. It is a perfect storm. Ultimately, how will the Minister ensure that dangerous products do not end up in people’s homes?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this important debate on additional building safety measures. As noble Lords know, making sure everyone’s home is a place of safety is at the heart of the Bill. I will address each of the amendments discussed in turn.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for raising the important matter of ensuring that electrical goods sold online are safe. The Government remain committed to ensuring that only safe products can be legally placed on the UK market, both now and in the future. Preventing the sale of unsafe electrical goods is clearly important to achieving this aim, but this extends to ensuring that all consumer products sold in the UK are safe. Existing product safety legislation places obligations on manufacturers, importers and distributors to ensure that consumer products are safe before they can be placed on the UK market. This applies to products sold both online and offline.

In common with the noble Lord, Lord Foster, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Khan, the Government also recognise that the rise of e-commerce presents a particular challenge. However, it is not true that the Government are doing nothing. They are undertaking a thorough review of the UK’s product safety framework, which includes an assessment of the impact of e-commerce.

Following a call for evidence last year, the Government are developing proposals for reform of the product safety framework and intend to consult in due course. This includes options to address the sale of unsafe products online. We are also taking forward a number of immediate actions. This includes implementing a programme of work focusing on the safety and compliance of goods sold by third-party sellers on online marketplaces.

I thank noble Lords for raising this important matter. However, the Government will not be supporting the amendment at this time, given the broader work as part of the product safety review and the existing regulatory controls that I have outlined.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

I am very grateful for what the Minister said the Government are doing, but before she moves on to the next amendment, can she give a clear indication of the timescale? Far too often we hear the phrase “in due course”—the Minister has herself used it. We all know what it means; can she give us something a little more concrete?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am afraid I pushed my officials to give me a specific time. They have agreed that we may write with more details to give the noble Lord an indication of when this might be forthcoming.

On Amendment 112, I thank the noble Baroness for raising the important matter of the testing and certification of construction products. The Government are committed to reforming the regulatory framework for construction products and it is important that our approach to reform considers the system in the round and is based on engagement with stakeholders who make, distribute and use construction products.

We therefore do not believe that it is right to set a deadline of six months to introduce new measures, as this will constrain public debate. We intend to introduce a requirement for products to be corrected, withdrawn or recalled where they are not safe. This will deliver a greater practical benefit than publishing information about known safety concerns.

We recognise the importance of accurate, reliable performance information to support appropriate product choices. However, a product’s testing record is unlikely to provide useful information for this purpose. Instead, we will create a statutory list of “safety critical” products, where their failure would risk causing death or serious injury and require manufacturers to draw up a declaration of performance for these products. Dame Judith Hackitt’s review recommended that industry should develop a consistent labelling and traceability system for construction products. We agree that industry is best placed to develop an approach that will be effective in practice.

I could sense the frustration of the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, with the language used in the Bill, specifically in Schedule 11. I am afraid that the “may versus must” argument recurs in many bits of legislation that I have taken through, and particularly here, when Dame Judith used “must” in her report. However, the whole reason we put “may” rather than “must” in legislation is that this approach is designed to allow the Secretary of State to review existing regulations, consult as needed and bring forward new regulations where needed. We clearly intend to use these powers and published draft regulations in October 2021. I recognise that that probably will not wholly satisfy the noble Baroness but it is as far as I may go.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Did the Minister say October 2021?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Yes. We clearly intend to use these powers and we already published draft regulations in October 2021.

[The Minister of State, Home Office and Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)]

They are draft.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

Are we allowed to see the draft regulations? It would be really useful.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

They are published.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

We will circulate them to the whole Committee.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

That is really helpful. I thank the Minister.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

We will also be introducing requirements for labelling construction products, to support regulatory activity. Once again, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this matter but, based on the explanation I have just provided, the Government will not be supporting the amendment.

Finally, on Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, I thank her for raising the important matter of carbon monoxide and the risk it poses. Carbon monoxide can be released from faulty or leaky boilers and chimneys. As the noble Baroness said, it is colourless, odourless and tasteless and can lead to life-changing injuries or death. It is indeed sometimes called the “silent killer”.

The Government take the risks and consequences of carbon monoxide poisoning very seriously and share a common goal with the noble Baroness of wanting to safeguard people from this deadly gas. She was right to stress the relationship between poverty, particularly fuel poverty, and the high incidence of harmful indoor air quality. However, the new clause is unnecessary. Legislation is already in place, as I will go on to explain, and we will bring forward new legislation and updates to guidance that will safeguard people from the harmful effects of carbon monoxide poisoning. We believe that, together, these measures will achieve the improvement in safety sought by this clause. The gas safety regulations require the safe installation, maintenance and use of gas systems, and they require landlords to carry out annual gas safety checks, which reduce the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning.

While carbon monoxide alarms are not a substitute for the proper installation, use and checks of combustion appliances, they are a useful additional precaution. Currently, our building regulations require appropriate provision for carbon monoxide detection and alarms when solid fuel appliances are installed in homes, irrespective of tenure. The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 require carbon monoxide alarms in privately rented homes where there is a solid fuel appliance.

Recent evidence and analysis show that, although solid fuel appliances, such as wood-burning stoves, continue to be responsible for a disproportionate number of carbon monoxide incidents, the case to require alarms for combustion appliances using other fuels has grown. Therefore in 2020 we consulted on proposals to extend provisions for carbon monoxide alarms to be fitted when oil and gas-heating boilers are installed in all homes, irrespective of tenure, and to require that alarms are installed in any room used for habitation with a fixed combustion appliance, excluding gas cookers, in privately rented homes and social housing. These proposals received broad support and, in 2021, we announced that we will amend the regulations as soon as parliamentary time allows, with the changes coming into effect as soon as practicable. We will also update the statutory guidance on carbon monoxide alarms.

These new measures extend the use of carbon monoxide alarms to the extent that we consider appropriate, based on the current evidence available. The extended alarm measures are not limited to high-rise buildings and will apply to newly installed combustion appliances in homes irrespective of tenure and to all private and social landlords. While I appreciate the intention of the amendment, I hope I have reassured noble Lords that we have committed to extending the requirements and guidance around carbon monoxide alarms where appropriate to do so. I therefore ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment.

Once again, I thank noble Lords for this debate, which has considered wider matters connected to safety, and I hope that, with the reassurances given, noble Lords will be content not to press their amendments.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

May I ask why the Government have not extended the requirement to all new builds and to major refurbishments when they are bought by a company and subsequently sold, and why there is a resistance to insisting that alarms are installed in workplaces? More and more firms are now struggling with the cost of heating. They may be turning it down, and people in the workplace may, in wanting to keep warm, bring in heating devices from outside that should be used for camping and cooking outside, or whatever. With fuel poverty, the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning is going to rise.

Simply to put into regulation that alarms need to be installed seems a move that would not cost anything significant to the building trade, or anyone refurbishing buildings—but to leave it simply restricted to landlords and to rely on annual checks, when we know that they are not always done adequately, seems completely inappropriate and highly risky. The landlord has to check the appliance installed, but when people are in fuel poverty they often cannot afford to run that appliance as it should be used—and, as I said, they will do such things as use an oven with the door open to try to stay warm, and that will pour out carbon monoxide. The other problem with that is that the level of air in the room is exactly at the level of a toddler’s face, so children are more exposed than adults in such a situation. If an alarm was installed, it would go off irrespective of relying on a landlord.

The other problem is that a lot of people now in fuel poverty are not in rented accommodation. They have mortgage commitments which they are struggling to pay. They are suddenly finding that they are in a band of poverty that they never imagined they would be in when they took out a large loan to purchase their property, particularly with interest rates going up as well.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

As I said in my speech, the extended alarm measures will apply to all newly installed combustion appliances in homes, irrespective of tenure, and to all private and social landlords. I should also add that we consulted in November 2020 on proposals to extend the requirements for carbon monoxide alarms to oil and gas heating installations and to social housing. The Government are yet to respond to this consultation, but we will do so in due course.

17:00

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the Minister for her remarks. It is clear that the Government share the concerns we have expressed about construction products, CO₂ monitors and, in relation to my amendment, electrical appliances. However, I have to say that I suspect there is deep concern in this Committee about the language the Minister used in relation to when any action will be taken. We have heard her say “in due course”, “as soon as parliamentary time allows”, “as soon as is practical” and so on. I am grateful that she said she will write to me on Amendment 111 to tell me when some of that action will take place, but I suspect there will be pressure for all these issues to be raised again at a later stage in the Bill’s passage.

In 20 seconds, I will beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but I first want to add a bit of light relief. The Minister’s ministerial colleague, who has told us that he is very tired today, is a great fan of Latin mottos and phrases. On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, got Hebrew mottos in as well. I thought it might be helpful to look up an appropriate motto for an amendment to make electrical goods sold online safer, then realised that “electrical” and “online” were hardly likely to appear in Latin. However, much to my surprise, when I did a Google search, I found that I was able to get a Latin translation, which is most bizarre. I share with the Committee that, if we want to make an electrical good sold online safer, “fac tutius bona electrica online” is the motto we should be using. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 111 withdrawn.

Amendment 112 not moved.

Schedule 11: Construction products regulations

Amendment 113 not moved.

Schedule 11 agreed.

Amendments 114 and 115 not moved.

Clause 129: Amendment of Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005

Amendment 115A

Moved by

[Baroness Fox of Buckley]

115A: Clause 129, page 133, line 23, at end insert—
“(2A) In article 6 (application to premises), in paragraph (1B)(b) after “balconies” insert “, but only insofar as any such balconies pose a material risk of the spread of fire, flame or smoke”.”Member’s explanatory statement
Amends the Fire Safety Order to make clear that only balconies which pose a material risk of the spread of fire are included as part of the external wall. This would avoid balconies being remediated unnecessarily.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was already feeling inadequate enough, but my inability to come up with a Latin phrase or joke on this particularly peculiar amendment of mine is nerve-racking. Clause 129 makes further amendments to the fire safety order and focuses partly on the risk of balconies. My Amendment 115A suggests tightening up the wording so that balconies should be considered a risk only if and where they can be shown to materially contribute to the spread of fire, flame or smoke.

I think this amendment is needed because I am concerned about unnecessary building safety work. I am not sure if this amendment is the right way to resolve the problem, but leaseholders who I have spoken to see emerging a widespread focus on alleged non-cladding defects, such as balconies. This can be a driver to carrying out unnecessary fire safety work, for which leaseholders must pay, with no existing government funding to help. We are all familiar with the “#claddingscandal”, but I want to avoid a scandal, or at least an injustice, emerging that is not to do with cladding. That is what this amendment probes.

Broadly, we now have a situation in which a block of flats can have a fire risk assessment that effectively determines that the building is sound but, because some notionally flammable material has been used, for example in the balconies, there are problems with valuations associated with EWS1 and a pre-emptive, rather than necessary, remediation approach. Leaseholders are then encouraged to think of their blocks with these balconies as unsafe and to believe that remediation work is necessary—and the costs will inevitably be charged to them as a fait accompli. This could be driven quite cynically by freeholders using building safety to do upgrades or carry out what otherwise would or should be regular maintenance, at leaseholders’ expense. To be less cynical and assume far more good faith, or at least to understand the pressures on freeholders and owners, I am worried that one of the unintended consequences of this Bill would be to drive up fears among owners, assessors, accountable persons and so on, under the weight of legal and insurance liability, that they would be blamed for any fires that occur, in any circumstances. As such, blame avoidance could mean stretching assessments of what is considered unsafe beyond credibility or credulity.

This seems to be partly the explanation to the rather panicky response to any building materials that can catch fire. At the moment, this is expressing itself as the almost default assumption that balconies with timber as a component are dangerous and should be replaced. This is in spite it being well documented that timber can outperform steel in a fire, depending on how it chars. An example of where this can lead is a block of flats in Castletown in Dorset. Leaseholders were shocked, at the start of the year, to receive a letter telling them that the timber-decked balconies of the 204 flats in their block had to be replaced by aluminium balconies, as some may be unsafe. Guess what? Leaseholders must meet the cost of this work estimated, on average, at £10,000 a flat.

In addition to that horrifying financial prospect, the Atlantic House Leaseholders Association raised some other issues pertinent to the Committee debates so far. For example, there was no consultation at all with the leaseholders on this decision about the balconies. Leaseholders are a tad suspicious that the contract for the work to replace the balconies was awarded to the block owner’s subsidiary company. The plan that was just announced, but not consulted on, is to carry out the installation inside people’s flats, instead of putting up scaffolding, regardless of the major inconvenience and intrusion this will cause in leaseholders’ homes. The other day I talked about whether you can call it your home if people can just come in, in the name of safety. This is really going to affect people’s home lives.

Also, if there is wear and tear on the timber decking on the balconies in question, it should actually have been the building owner’s responsibility to maintain them and keep them up to standard. Yet, despite them having failed to do so, leaseholders are now being forced to pay for the changes to the balconies, under the auspices of building safety and the threat of fire risk.

I am concerned about a climate in which there is a danger of failing to weigh up risks and assess matters objectively and proportionally. Sometimes, in the name of safety—I think that this was true in that instance in Dorset—leaseholders’ lives are being made a misery, and they are being made to pay a lot of money for remediations that do not necessarily mean that they are safer.

I do not know if noble Lords saw the story in the Manchester Evening News about social housing tenants in Salford suffering freezing conditions for months, since cladding came off their blocks. Having lobbied to get their concerns heard, they were recently sent a letter by Pendleton Together, which manages the nine council blocks, offering

“top tips for keeping warm”.

These included: “dress in layers”, wear “a hat and gloves”, keep “active” and consume “warming food and … drinks” —I thought that these might be handy in this Room, which has been rather chilly. This is another top tip:

“don’t drink alcohol to keep warm as it can give you a false feeling of warmth when you’re actually cold”.

If I were cold, I might still have a drink.

More seriously, I am glad to see that Salford council, which should, in general, be commended for its aspirational housing policies—I am not particularly having a go at it—has apologised for what has happened in its area and for the patronising and condescending message of the letter. But I was using it to illustrate that measures designed to keep people safe from fire can lead to home owners suffering freezing cold, for example, in the middle of an energy price crisis. Unfortunately, fire safety can trump common sense.

I will take noble Lords back to balconies and the Atlantic House block in Dorset that I was talking about. There is a similar perverse outcome in relation to balconies there allegedly being made safer, because, ironically, the decision to replace timber decking with aluminium might make them less safe. Luckily, the chair of the leaseholders’ association is a retired engineer from the construction industry, so he spotted that the use of aluminium might not be a safe option at all. Aluminium can be corroded by salty sea air—the block is near the sea—unless it is anodised. The truth is that those leaseholders might well be safer, and not facing a £10,000 bill each, if the balconies with timber decking remained.

My amendment is narrow and might seem a bit specific or even trivialising, but it is an attempt to probe whether the Government will consider adopting a broader cost-benefit analysis approach specifically to balconies to avoid more EWS1-type problems. It is also an attempt to encourage the Government to be wary of the zero-risk approach of a one-sided and overly precautionary culture of fear, with which the Hackitt review is imbued; there are lots of good things in it, but there are also a lot of things that I do not want to just endorse. Many of the leaseholder campaigners whom I have talked to say exactly the same: they warn that we should talk more to leaseholders, who of course want to be safe but do not want safety to lead to them having to pay for expensive and unnecessary remediation work, on balconies in this instance, when it is just not needed. I beg to move.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has done a considerable service, because she has highlighted quite a number of things. You might say balconies represent important facets in terms of building safety. The question of balconies may have been triggered by a fire—it may have been in Australia—caused by a discarded cigarette end on a timber-deck balcony. The circumstances, of course, of timber in high summer in New South Wales or wherever may be significantly difficult from in a typical English summer. I grant you that—and, of course, timber does not retain significant degrees of combustibility throughout the season, typically, in this country. I can certainly testify to disposable barbeques being a far more potent source of fire in such circumstances.

17:15

This brings proportionality into question. Combustion of timber elements on exteriors or balconies depends on location and vulnerability, and it depends on the actual use. This may not be straightforward to assess, although I think it should be possible to do some sort of coarse sift without getting too involved in the liability of having signed off a building as safe.

I think this also relates back to the earlier Amendment 112 on the suitability of materials. Here, I will share with the Committee a page from the family scrapbook, in the sense that my own daughter used to have a flat in east London that had a steel construction but timber decking. The timber decking needed replacement, as it does after a period of time, and it was recommended that she use a composite, on the grounds of longevity. I looked at this, and it had a much more significant fire risk than the timber would have had, yet this product was being freely marketed and recommended for use in this instance. Of course, I straightaway advised her that she should not use that product. As it happens, she has now sold the flat, so the matter has moved on. But that brings into sharp focus the need to make sure that such products, on refurb, on refit or on repair, are not used in inappropriate circumstances. It may be perfectly appropriate to have a composite decking at garden level or just above garden level in a back garden, but not where it is part of the building, where it can create a real threat to the integrity of the building as a whole.

I am actually familiar with balcony failures, because my employer’s sister firm had to do a lot of remedial work in a block development in a major south coast town where a chunk fell out and narrowly missed a person some floors down. It was about £15,000 to replace the deck of each of those balconies—by the time you had got a hoist up, done all the protective work and got people who were competent and trained to use it, and only then got the guy in with a jimmy bar and a screwdriver to actually fix it. So, I think the noble Baroness has raised a very valuable point.

I go back to the question of proportionality, and asking the straightforward question: “Has it got any timber, or has it not?” I think the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said minimal bits of combustibility may not be significant, and I think we ought to have regard to that and not be overstrict, otherwise we will have far more buildings needing and receiving remediation whose occupants are being prejudiced by an adverse EWS1 or some sort of waking watch or something like that, and it will be totally unnecessary and disproportionate. We have to get a handle on this, and perhaps there is a lack of clarity in guidance while we are all busy trying to sort this thing out. I am sure the Minister understands where I am coming from, and maybe the noble Baroness in responding will comment.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I will add a few extra words to this. I apologise to the Committee; I am struggling, as I think a number of us are, as there are so many Bills going through that we are bobbing in and out of various Bills. It is frustrating for us that we cannot necessarily sit and follow everything through, but I think this probing amendment touches on some really important issues for us.

Not surprisingly, after the absolute horror of Grenfell, we are rightly trying to think about how we offer maximum safety for everybody. But safety comes at a cost, as we are all aware. As we work on a Bill that we hope will do its job for many years, we need to take an objective view on some of these areas, particularly on what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said about proportionality.

If a balcony is made of wood, there is the possibility that it is flammable and there is a level of risk. However, we have to look at whether it is a risk just of the balcony or whether the balcony will spread fire around the entire building. I am not sure that is clear enough in the existing fire safety order. My fear is that we may now be so risk averse that we are not keeping a balanced view on things. Once a balcony which is part of the external wall systems is identified as a fire risk, it will necessarily require remediation, which is not covered by the Government’s generous grant scheme as it is non-cladding related, meaning that it will inevitably fall on to leaseholders.

One issue picked up on by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is that there is a whole range of risks, of which balconies are one. Assessors should be forced to present a clear argument as to why balconies need removing as part of remedial works rather than there being a default approach which says that wooden balconies are an inherent fire risk without having necessarily to make that argument. It is worth our while pausing on this matter. As the Bill progresses, we need to look at proportionality on a number of levels, of which this is one illustration.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has raised an interesting theme which has been expanded on by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, that of proportionality. I want to come at it from a slightly different angle. We have to decide whether something being a fire risk or not is an objective or a subjective decision. If we think it is an objective decision, and that it is possible by some process in a square box to say, “Yes, there is no doubt that this is a fire risk”, the view of a resident that it is not a fire risk is irrelevant, because it is a fire risk. Or we may think that there is scope for human judgment in that, and that the assessment of the resident—or, at least, of residents collectively in a block, if they decide that a particular level of risk is one they are prepared to accept—may have some bearing on the situation. Where does that objective judgment come from? I think that is at the heart of the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, has brought to this discussion.

We know that there is a tremendous absence of qualified fire risk assessors. So my first question would be: was it a qualified fire risk assessor who made that judgment, or was it somebody who thought they were qualified but who actually was not? Therefore, if you are not quite sure—and we have all done it—in the current climate you obviously give a fail. What professional reputation you have depends on it. I put it to the Minister that this connects to the whole skills and training agenda, in that we do not have enough qualified people with the right skills to do the assessments on the basis of which those huge bills are then handed out.

I think that is really important. It is also important to consider what actual training we are talking about for these fire risk assessors. I presume that, apart from the necessary professional qualifications, they will also act to a code or a guidance note, or something that will be issued by the Secretary of State as part of the regulations that are otherwise in the Bill. That comes back to the question of what the basis is of the guidance that will be given to a fire risk assessor about these inevitably marginal and grey areas of what is and is not risky.

The Minister assured us some time ago that the EWS1 was no longer a factor in these things—but we know that not every insurance provider has come to the same decision. Therefore, it may still be the case that some insurance and mortgage providers will say, “I’m not going to provide you with the finance unless we see an EWS1, or something equivalent to it”. We go around in a circle here: the shortage of qualified people with proper guidance to make decisions in difficult and marginal cases means that less qualified people take the safety-first line, which is causing a lot of pain and work to be commissioned unnecessarily. In other words, we could safely afford to cut it finer if we had sufficient trained and qualified risk assessors acting with proper guidance provided by the Government.

I hope that we keep the level of risk as low as it is sensible to do. Secondly, I hope we invest a bit more time in making sure that, among the professionals making these decisions, there is a better common understanding of the phrase “what is sensible and proportionate to do”—of what that line is and where it gets drawn between a balcony that needs to be replaced and one that does not. There are some deep issues here that go far beyond whether leaseholders do not particularly like a decision about a set of balconies in one place or another.

I will just connect this to the situation in Salford, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, also brought to our attention. I believe my noble friend Lord Foster did so as well. A large number of residents of those blocks have had all their cladding—and therefore insulation—stripped off and are waiting for an outcome. There are some unintended outcomes lingering on from decisions taken on fire risk. I referred in our previous session to the fact that buildings have more ways of killing you than simply through fire. We need to make sure that, in eliminating one risk, we do not create others as deadly.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall briefly speak to Amendment 115A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. It is good to see her put it in—I think she is becoming an expert on tabling amendments now. As other noble Lords have said, including the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, this is an issue that needs clarifying in relation to subjectivity, objectivity and proportionality. Just to quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, this amendment, if accepted, would alleviate the marginal and grey areas.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her top tips on keeping warm—I shall print them out tonight and use them in future. I wanted to ask the Minister whether the Government have made an assessment of how many balconies pose a material risk and are in need of any remedial works. Is she aware of any new buildings with balconies that do not comply with fire safety regulations? I look forward to her response.

17:30

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I have tricked the noble Lord, Lord Khan—I am responding to this one. First, we have not gone around counting every balcony in the country. Given that there are 7,500 medium-rise buildings and about 12,500 high-rises, we have other things to do with our time.

I met the devolved Administrations of Wales and Scotland today; we need to know roughly how many buildings require remediation and then do it as quickly and effectively as possible. There is some way of knowing that with high-rises, and through surveys we have a pretty good grip on the number of buildings where remediation may be required—it is actually very few—as well as mitigation. Increasingly, we want to see more innovation so that we can avoid costly remediation wherever possible.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, is very clever. I have been trying to distil amendments in up to three words—I have got it down to two on one occasion—and it would be easy to say that this is the “balcony” amendment, but I do not think it is. It is the “proportionality” amendment. It is fair to say that this was addressed when, on 10 January, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set out some building safety reset principles. He said:

“We … need to ensure that we take a proportionate approach in building assessments overall … too many buildings … are declared unsafe, and … too many … have been seeking to profit from the current crisis.”—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/21; col. 283.]


The noble Baroness was very eloquent in giving examples of precisely that—where, essentially, an industry is fuelled by trying to profit at the expense of leaseholders, very often, who do not have the shoulders to bear the costs being charged to them. That is why we are putting a number of protections for leaseholders in this Bill, for both cladding and non-cladding costs, which we have discussed in other groups, and the very strong principle that the polluter must pay wherever possible, as we discussed in an earlier group today.

The Government have taken three measures with regard to proportionality. It is important to reflect on them, because they are easily forgotten as we debate things. None is in this Bill; I will turn later to some things that are. First, we withdrew the consolidated advice note of January 2020; that was seen as a driver of decisions to remediate without thought on too many occasions, when it was not necessarily the right way to go. Secondly, after withdrawing the advice note, the publicly available specification was introduced, produced by the British Standards Institution; it will enable fire engineers and other experts to have a consistent and auditable assessment of risk—basically, grading whether something is high, medium or low—of the external wall systems, which sometimes include balconies and sometimes do not. That is an important tool to have to be able to start having sensible risk-based assessment of external wall systems.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I have one query on that. I thank the noble Lord for his response, but on the recommendation of high, medium and low risk, everything I have read on this suggests that with high or low risk we know where we are, but medium risk says, “There is some risk, but don’t worry, you don’t need remediation”. The point made in everything I have read is: who will go along with that? If you say that there is medium risk—this is where risk aversion comes in—there is concern that the assessors do not have the expertise, as has been referred to, and may say, “There is medium risk, but can I go home and sleep at night, because I am not quite sure what that means? There might be a risk.” That is where blame avoidance comes in. This comes back to the assessors; I do not think that will solve it.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I did not say that it would. The noble Baroness intervened too early; that is the problem with interventions. No one was saying that any single thing—

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I was just trying to clarify something—that is good.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

The noble Baroness raises the issue of balconies. I am talking about a system that looks at the external wall system. We then have the Fire Safety Act, which we took through this House. I have all the scars to prove that it was not an easy matter to get that three-clause Bill past a number of the people here today. We got it on the statute book, however, and it will commence shortly with a building prioritisation tool.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, spoke very eloquently on fire risk assessments. They will look at the risk in the round, going beyond external wall systems and including balconies, the external walls, the flat entrance doors and whether they are fire doors, et cetera. Fire risk assessors will have to look in the round, consider whether there are enough ways to exit the building and come up with a series of action steps, which will often be very small, that can make a building safer. It is right that we make sure that those risk assessments are done by competent professionals. They need to be kept up to date. They will come up with a series of actions that can be taken. Not all of those will require huge expense, but they will make the building that little bit safer.

I think noble Lords need to see this as a package. In answer to questions raised, the proportionality agenda does not have a silver bullet as an answer, but there are a number of things that the Government are encouraging that will lead to a more proportionate approach. PAS 9980 refers to materials on a balcony that may be combustible, such as timber decking, which may be relevant even if the construction of the balcony itself includes materials that present minimal or no risk. The current position, with the inclusion of balconies in the fire safety order and the professional guidance in PAS 9980, is all about encouraging that proportionate approach.

The competence of fire risk professionals is a relevant factor and ensuring that is a major objective of the Bill. We are bringing about greater professionalism in the sector through Clause 129, with a requirement that anyone appointed to undertake a fire risk assessment must be competent. That stipulation is in the Bill, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell. A lot of this is not happening in the Bill, but there are clauses which aim to drive competence, which directly answers questions raised in this debate. That is what we have to look to, rather than necessarily seeing this specific Bill as the answer in isolation. We must look at the measures the Government are taking in the round.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. My heart was in my mouth when the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, spoke, because I thought, “He knows what he’s talking about and I’m not sure I do”, so I was glad that he recognised something in what I said on the professional point about materials and so on. I am not an expert but I know lots of people who work in this area.

My concern is that there are blocks of flats all around London whose residents are being told that the balconies have to be remediated, but they have passed their fire risk assessments. This is basically coming from freeholders acting in a precautionary fashion, as in the Dorset example I used. They have said, “We think some of these balconies are unsafe. We’re going to take them down and you have to pay.” They are using safety as the basis but they should have maintained the balconies. There is great concern about the balcony question but I have been caught out by the Minister, because this was really an attempt to talk about proportionality. That is what I really wanted to do. Although I keep hearing about balcony scandals, that was my main focus.

We want to keep people safe all the time, but the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans made the important point that safety has a cost. Carrying on from our Committee meeting the other day, I was talking about a cost-benefit analysis and always thinking about balancing. If you want 100% safety, you would never leave the house. We also need a sense of proportionality towards fire, which is still very rare. People are not dying of fires in their thousands, in this country. I want to get the right balance.

The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a very important point, on which I have been trying to get balance. As a leaseholder, I have tried to speak on behalf of leaseholders a little, because I thought I could make a valid contribution. I am not suggesting that every time a leaseholder says something, we all have to believe it. Leaseholders are not experts, and their fears and concerns should not make the decision, but sometimes it is worth asking them what they know or think and part of the Bill suggests that. The objective point about competence is key. I am suggesting that, because of blame avoidance, fear of litigation and measures being brought in by the Bill, people will always take the most risk-averse decision. That could be at the expense of leaseholders and will not necessarily improve safety.

I shall withdraw my amendment, but I hope it has contributed to a broad discussion to which we can return on Report to make sure that the Bill does not create more problems than intended.

Amendment 115A withdrawn.

Clause 129 agreed.

Amendments 116 to 119A not moved.

Clauses 130 to 133 agreed.

Amendment 120

Moved by

[Baroness Jolly]

120: After Clause 133, insert the following new Clause—
“Consultation on staircase regulations
The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, consult on regulations requiring staircases in all new build properties to comply with British Standard 5395-1.”

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I shall try to be brief.

The Bill was introduced to avoid life-changing horrors, such as we witnessed with the Grenfell fire. “Safety first” has now become our general watchword. Falls on stairs are hidden killers, every year affecting the lives of over 700 families in England. A further 43,000 people are admitted to hospital, often with life-changing injuries. Anyone who has cared for someone who is perhaps advancing in age, with poor balance, eyesight or both, knows just how much of a worry a trip down the stairs can be. Many older people acknowledge the problem and choose to make their retirement home a bungalow—boring maybe, but safe.

I tabled my Amendment 120, with cross-party support, to ensure that staircases in our homes are built to the correct industry standard. It calls for the Secretary of State to consult on regulations requiring all new-build properties with staircases to comply with British Standard 5395-1 within six months of the Bill becoming an Act. However, when it was introduced, it was never enshrined in law; it exists only as a standard and, as such, only a recommendation. This amendment has the backing of the housing industry, because building firms recognise that the existing BS 5395-1 would make stairs safer at little excess cost. The fact that such an industry standard exists but is not universally used is really quite beyond belief. Countless lives will be saved if we simply enshrine this standard in law. Very few amendments to Bills are as uncomplicated, straightforward and beneficial as this.

17:45

Stair accidents are a silent killer because, by their very nature, they do not make headlines: they happen one at a time, usually to older people, and they are so commonplace that we take them for granted. By outlawing the use of unsafe stairs in new builds, this problem will be steadily weaned out, and a fresh page turned. I recognise that retrofitting every home is not realistic, which is why I am focusing on new builds. This is straightforward; it will cost very little more, but will save countless lives.

There is no doubt that this amendment would save lives, and I hope that the Minister will support it. If he feels unable to, I hope he will share with the Committee a compelling reason why he will not give the amendment his blessing. I would then be very grateful if he would meet with me and others to explore his alternatives. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Harris of Richmond and Lady Brinton, are taking part remotely. I invite the noble Baroness to speak.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 120 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jolly and other noble Lords and would just like to make a few comments.

At Second Reading, we heard how important it was to ensure that BS 5395-1 was accepted. I am disappointed that the Government have not yet made a concession on this. In fact, there is no mention at all of stair safety in the Bill. In the 2010 legislation, the standard was put in place only as a recommendation, as we have heard. It is now time to put it in this Bill as a requirement and ensure that all new buildings comply from 2024, as my noble friend Lady Jolly has indicated. We know that hundreds of lives may be saved every year—estimated at about 700 in England alone. If this standard were adopted for all buildings, we could prevent the hospitalisation of around 43,000 more people. Think what amount of money that would save in costs just to the NHS, never mind the trauma suffered by the families of those injured.

I ought to declare a small interest here, as I have increasing difficulty using the stairs in my own home, as they are both steep and deep. In fact, I am having to have another handrail put in so that I can use them safely.

It is vitally important that stairs in high-rise buildings, indeed any communal building, are of sufficient depth and width to allow numbers of people to use them simultaneously in an emergency. We know that the horrors of the Grenfell Tower disaster were exacerbated by totally impractical stairs in the building. I cannot believe that any building company or architect designing a new high-rise building would rely on just one staircase for multiple flats. That would be a complete dereliction of duty, in my opinion. In the event of an outbreak of fire in a high-rise building, there will inevitably be a rush to get out down the stairs, as lifts will be out of use. It is therefore inevitable that people will fall. BS 5395-1 should be put into law during the passage of this Bill and I urge the Minister to accept this immediately.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have signed Amendments 122, 123 and 124 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, and will come to them in a minute, but I wanted to start by supporting Amendment 120, laid by my noble friend Lady Jolly.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, has said, BS 5395-1 ensures that staircases in new-build homes have the best possible ratios between treads and risers. This is especially important as many new-build homes are built to fewer square metres than recommended, resulting in staircases being squeezed into narrower spaces. There is only one consequence of that: stairs become steeper, and too often even fail to have a handrail all the way up because of the narrowness of the stairs. That is a recipe for falls, whether for children, the elderly, or the disabled.

Let me tell noble Lords, it is extremely scary to have to come slowly and painfully down steep emergency exit stairs, holding a handrail, with a stick in your other hand, while others race past you. On one occasion, someone tripped on my stick as they tried to race past me, resulting in both of us falling—luckily, only a couple of steps. Had it been at the top of a run of 10 steps, not only would we both have hurt ourselves badly but others following would probably have fallen over us too. Building standards are there for a reason and should be a minimum for new builds. Building in safety is part of Hackitt’s golden thread.

Elderly and disabled people using a stick, or sticks, on a narrow and steep staircase, possibly with no handrail, will be at serious risk of falls. Special fracture clinics report that falls in the vulnerable often lead to life-changing injuries, serious muscle loss while they are in hospital, loss of confidence and, sadly, earlier deaths. So it does not just cost lives; it costs quality of life, and it also costs the NHS and social care millions every year in extra treatment and care support.

I now turn to the other three amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster, to which I have added my name. One of the worrying aspects of fires in high and medium-rise residential blocks is the number caused by faulty or defective installation. Home Office data shows that this number is growing, whether from the cables themselves or from the shoddy work on party walls that breaches compartmentation, both of which are completely unacceptable. These amendments address that.

Amendment 122 requires leaseholders to ensure the safety of electrical installations in high-rise buildings. Amendment 123 specifies that leaseholders in mixed tenure high rises have to ensure the safety of their electrical installations. Amendment 124 places a specific responsibility on social landlords to do the same. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, spoke eloquently in the first group this afternoon about the problems of breached compartmentation and quoted from Dame Judith Hackitt’s report. The same applies here, but currently the same responsibility does not apply to different types of landlords and leaseholders, and this is an unacceptable loophole. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, remedy that.

The requirements in these amendments make it clear that leaseholders and landlords have a duty to ensure that installation works must be safe. Surely, that is not too much to ask. Surely, all these various types of flat should have a current electrical installation condition report, which not only demonstrates that they, the landlords and leaseholders, have taken care to ensure the safety of residents and the buildings they live in but gives them the same protection as those of flats with private tenants. Dame Judith Hackitt’s golden thread does not just apply to the construction industry; it also applies to those with responsibilities for the buildings once they are lived in. Most tenants are not aware of the distinction between different types of landlord and leaseholder in building safety law. Surely, our law should be consistent.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I was delighted to see this amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. As she pointed out, more than 700 people die each year from falls on the stairs. But in addition to this, 43,000 people are admitted to hospital. Falls are tragic and common, but they do not often make the news. Someone is estimated to fall on stairs every 90 seconds, and falls on stairs account for a quarter of all falls in the home. Obviously, when stairs have an inadequate guardrail, the trauma sustained is even worse, as it is when they are a long flight of stairs.

The most common injury is a fractured hip, but the most costly to the country is a spinal cord injury, which is absolutely devastating. The lifetime average cost of a spinal cord injury is £1.12 million, which works out at a total of £1.43 billion for all the accumulated spinal cord injuries. These are staggering figures, yet the British Standard, which has been referred to, is associated with a 60% reduction in falls. It has existed since 2010 and has been thoroughly tested, evidenced and assessed by industry and government. If we are to have homes that are built as homes for life, we need stairs in them that are safe. If workplaces are to be safe, they must have safe evacuation stairs as well.

As they grow older, many people need to install a stairlift in their home to enable them to go up and down stairs safely, particularly when they have items to carry. Many homes are still being built with stairs too narrow to safely install a stairlift on. In the long term, the British Standard is a very good investment for the nation.

I know that the Minister is aware of all of this and has been working with RoSPA to come to a solution. I look forward to hearing an update from him on this matter, because RoSPA and those of us who signed this amendment honestly believe that this one action could save more lives than anything else in the Bill.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, before I remark on Amendments 122, 123 and 124, I express my surprise that we still have arrangements in our House whereby those who wish to contribute virtually do not appear to have the same flexibility as the rest of us to choose when they speak. I feel very sad for my noble friend Lady Brinton, whose support for these amendments I am enormously grateful for. She has to speak before those amendments have even been moved. I hope that the authorities will have a look at this.

I will make two apologies to the Committee. First, I have no Latin motto to offer the Minister on this occasion, unlike the previous one. Secondly, I fear that I cannot be quite as brief in speaking to these three amendments as I was when I spoke to the earlier one. As I said on the amendments that I previously raised, however, the number of fires in high-rise blocks with 10 or more flats has risen considerably year on year—this has been repeated subsequently by a number of noble Lords—with a rise of nearly 20% in the last two years. We also heard that, as I said, 53% of those fires are related to electrical faults.

In the debate on the previous amendment, I referred to electrical faults caused by faulty electrical appliances purchased online. These three amendments in my name raise the issue of faulty electrical installations. We can find ways of dealing with electrical appliances—I suggested a way of doing this in the previous amendment —but in building new blocks, electrical installations are installed and checks carried out on them, quite properly, to ensure that they meet all the necessary safety requirements.

I was pleased that, when I had the opportunity as a Minister for a brief period in the department, I was able to introduce some changes to those regulations to improve still further the safety of installations in new buildings. As we all know, however, over time those installations can be degraded; indeed, some can be damaged by work carried out by overenthusiastic DIYers and for a whole series of other purposes. It makes a great deal of sense to ensure that, from time to time, there are periodic checks of the electrical installations in flats in high-rise blocks—indeed, I would argue, in all properties.

18:00

I am very lucky that, when I am in London, I live in a flat that I rent from a private owner, who is required under the Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020 to have the electrical installations in my flat checked every five years by a qualified person. That landlord is also required to provide me, the occupant, with a copy of that report. It means I am fortunate: I am a private tenant and my landlord has to undertake these periodic safety checks, so my neighbours and I can have confidence that the electrical installations in my home are safe and will continue to be so over time.

However, a fire in a tower block does not check on the ownership or residency status of those it threatens, so it would be reasonable to assume that similar requirements through regulations apply to all flats, regardless of the basis of occupation. Some blocks may be entirely occupied by private tenants, some by leaseholders and some by social housing tenants. Quite often, blocks have mixed tenure. To ensure the safety of all from faulty electrical installations, all properties in such blocks, regardless of the status of the occupants, should obviously have periodic checks of the installations by an appropriately qualified person, leading to an electrical condition report and, if need be, a requirement for action to resolve any issues identified. However obvious that may seem, many noble Lords will, I suspect, be surprised to learn that, except for private tenants such as me, there is no regulatory requirement for this to happen. Some freeholders may require leaseholders to have such checks and report the results as part of the lease; some do but, sadly, many do not. There is certainly no legal requirement that it happens.

Perhaps more surprisingly, while tenants in privately rented property get this protection, tenants in socially rented properties do not. Of course, some social land- lords —Southern Housing is a good example—carry out periodic checks of electrical installations in their properties, but it is a small minority, as the evidence shows. Only 10% of social housing providers have in-date electrical installation condition reports for all properties; 90% do not.

Of course, social landlords have some obligations in this area and, no doubt, the Minister will refer to them. There is a requirement under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep electrical installations in repair and, under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, they have to keep them free of electrical hazard. Neither, however, requires social landlords to hold a valid, in-date electrical installation condition report. As I have just said, the vast majority do not do so voluntarily. Therefore, the requirement—and the safety provided by it—which applies to the privately rented sector, does not apply to social housing properties.

At the same time, in the Government’s own social housing charter, they have said unequivocally:

“Safety measures in the social sector should be in line with the legal protections afforded to private sector tenants. Responses to the social housing Green Paper showed overwhelming support for consistency in safety measures across social and private rented housing.”

Indeed, the Minister said at Second Reading:

“The Bill is unapologetically ambitious, creating a world-class building safety regulatory regime that holds all”—

I emphasise “all”—

“to the same high standard.”—[Official Report, 2/2/22; col. 916.]

Yet existing legislation is, as I described, deficient in this respect, and it does not achieve the Minister’s stated aim. My amendments rectify this: all three require that leasehold properties and social housing properties in HRRBs should have valid electrical installation condition reports providing those residents with the same protection as those required for privately rented tenants.

It is very simple. Privately rented sector tenants get protection; all the rest currently do not. The Minister says that everybody should have the same level of protection; these amendments seek to achieve that, and I look forward to hearing the Minister accept them.

18:06

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

18:13

[Lord Jordan (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, declare an interest as vice-president of RoSPA. I shall not take too long, however, because those who have already spoken have made a watertight case for Amendment 120 to be included in the Bill.

The truth is we do not have to convince the Minister, certainly not of the value of this amendment. He said enough at Second Reading for us to know that he would like the life-saving potential of this amendment to be built into every new house. But we have to convince him that its capabilities to prevent injury and death should be in the Bill now. He must know that every alternative to these words going into the Bill now means delaying the introduction of measures that would help prevent injury and death. It would be a fatal delay because, when we are certain that today, tomorrow and the day after, people will fall downstairs and be seriously injured or killed, we see the tragic implications of delaying this measure.

18:15

This amendment is a sure and safe step forward in the fight against preventable falls. The housebuilding industry itself acknowledges it has seen a 60% reduction in falls where this particular standard, BS 5395-1, has been applied. I do not need to remind the Minister that the Government are engaged in one of their biggest housebuilding programmes ever. Let us make sure that this vital safety measure is an essential mandate for anyone who is taken on to help fulfil the Government’s targets. Let us ensure that those developers that have built things they should be ashamed of will not be allowed to build unsafe stairs again.

We are all aware and appreciate that the Minister is overseeing the enormous job of putting together measures that will prevent the reoccurrence of another Grenfell. Although he has to deal with an extraordinary tragedy, I ask him not to walk past commonplace tragedies. They, too, cause people injuries and death and, on the issue of this amendment, 10 times more. Minister, we know you believe in this amendment. Accept it in the Bill now and advance the life-saving legacy that the Building Safety Bill can be for generations of house occupiers to come.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of Amendment 120— I will call it the safer-stairs amendment, as I know the Minister likes short names for amendments—to which I have added my name. I will not repeat the excellent evidence and support that has been given by several speakers already.

It is simply to say that this will potentially become more of a problem, because we are all getting older—and we in this House should know that more than anybody else. Also, because of the wonderful feeding and other benefits we have given our children, their feet are bigger. With bigger feet and advanced old age, they will become a complete and utter liability, if we continue to build the poxy little stairs, with inadequate surfaces and terrible handrails, that we see all too often in both public and private buildings. This is something that not only would the Minister welcome, but housebuilders are saying they are keen to get ahead with, but they are not willing to do it unilaterally. Housing providers, both public and social, are keen on it, as are fire chiefs and local authorities. It would not cost any more, is absolutely needed and will be needed even more.

One of the endearing things about Governments—although as a staunch Labour supporter, I find it difficult to think of a Conservative Government as endearing—is when they say, “Yes, that is a very good idea. Let’s just do it”. This is an opportunity for the Government to say that of this Bill now, to avoid deaths, injuries and life-changing circumstances, particularly for older people, which are happening as we speak. There is probably somebody falling down stairs in the House of Lords right now. Minister, if you want us to be fulsome in our praise, put this in the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, safety has a cost, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us. We have to decide where we should require money to be spent. I will talk a bit about the electrical safety and standards provisions and then come back to staircases.

I know there is a shortage of electrical experts able to carry out these assessments. Our own electrician, who is very expert, cannot do the assessments we are being asked to provide for social housing and other blocks of flats—for example, my son has a let flat, because he is an academic. The electrician says that he needs to go on a week’s course and, as a busy self-employed person, he does not have time. The lobbying organisation Electrical Safety First, which tried to get me to support Amendments 122 to 124, because I am keen on safety and looking after the consumer, seemed relatively unconcerned about this. Moreover, the amendments are wide-ranging and uncosted. As noble Lords will know, I worry a lot about the shortage of skills in the industry.

These amendments would further jeopardise housing supply, this time including social housing, and leave flats empty. Social housing landlords will be doing this sort of thing anyway post Grenfell, I think. For similar reasons, I am against the wide-ranging Amendment 121.

I am much more relaxed about Amendment 120, especially as it includes a consultation provision. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and I did the Consumer Rights Act together; she is right to think forward to the needs of an increasingly ageing population, which is exactly what this amendment does. We also heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jordan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The huge potential cost to the NHS of accidents in an ageing population is also a very strong argument for action, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff.

This is Committee, so I am sure the Minister will reflect further, but if one can find a way—without imposing significant costs—of making staircases safer, that could be extremely useful.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, which the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has just disagreed with. Those three amendments seem to me an essential guarantee of safety for the tenants, leaseholders and others who occupy buildings that are owned by what are broadly social landlords.

The noble Baroness is correct that the normal training of electricians does not include an ability to do this, but that needs to be addressed. I contrast it with the gas situation. Social landlords are obliged to have a gas inspection regularly and, by and large, they do it. Gas suppliers both train their people in that respect—it is an essential element of a gas fitter’s training—and, certainly in my experience of London boroughs, they carry it out pretty regularly and effectively. I do not see why electrical suppliers should not be in the same situation.

As has been said, over half of fires are ultimately caused by electrical faults; most of those are in appliances, but if those appliances are fitted to an installation and a system whereby the defusing mechanism does not work and the fire goes back into the wall and beyond, you have a terrible and inaccessible situation. That is exactly what the more serious fires caused by electrical faults are. There is clearly a responsibility on the manufacturers and retailers in terms of the quality of the appliances, but there is also a responsibility on those responsible for the buildings to ensure that there is a proper inspection of the whole electrical system. That needs to be addressed; it is an anomaly that gas is different from electric. There was a time when the biggest accidents were gas—now they are predominantly electrical. I hope that these three amendments are carried.

On staircases, I agree with the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jordan. I would also say—somebody referred to it earlier—that there are new high-rise and medium-rise buildings that have received planning permission with one staircase and one means of escape only. That is perfectly legal at the moment. It should not be, but I know of at least three examples in London boroughs which have been passed because they say that there are alternative means of escape—in other words, a lift. Most of us are advised not to use a lift in a fire, and it is pretty much built into our psyche, so that is not a sufficient reason. If we are addressing the staircase regulations, for medium-rise and high-rise buildings, two means of escape without involving an electrical lift need to be written in. I support all the amendments in this group.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting debate about two very different but important aspects of safety. I want first to talk about the Safer Stairs campaign introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. She and others made it clear that falls on stairs are a huge issue, but unfortunately it seems continually to go under the radar when it comes to what to do to stop so many people suffering often catastrophic falls.

As we have heard, the British Standard has existed since 2010. It has been rigorously tested by industry but has never been made a legal requirement. That is strange: we have a standard, but we do not have to bother with it—that seems a very odd way to go about things. There does not seem to be anything to stop the Government putting this standard into primary legislation. There is a precedent for doing so: the ban on combustible materials went into the Building Regulations 2010. My noble friend Lord Jordan put it in a nutshell when he said that, if the Minister were to accept the amendment, we would have the opportunity to end day-to-day tragedies—the smaller stuff. Kicking the can down the road will cost lives. If we do not address it now, it could be many years before any new ombudsman tackles the problem. If it is 10 years before we get a grip on this, that is 7,000 more unnecessary deaths.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the other signatories to the amendment therefore have our strong support—as well, it seems, as that of many noble Lords, not just in Committee today but at Second Reading. This is the Minister’s opportunity to do something that would genuinely make a huge difference. He should accept the amendment and, as my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said, just do it.

We also fully support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, which aim to improve the safety of electrical installations. We have heard that the number of fires in high-rise residential blocks has risen consistently year on year, which indicates that we need to do something practical to try to stop that number continuing to increase. Safety parity for all renters was mentioned. As we have heard, it cannot be right that in a mixed-tenure block a private renter will have electrical checks carried out by law while the social tenant living next door will not. As the noble Lord said, a fire in a tower block does not check the tenancy status of those that it threatens.

I will briefly reference my noble friend Lord Whitty’s point about how wrong it is that there is only one escape staircase in blocks now. A planning application was recently overturned because it was challenged on that. As part of the response to Grenfell, the Government really need to get to get to grips with this. I know that this is a planning issue, but I hope that the Minister will take this away.

18:30

In the social housing charter, the Government said:

“Safety measures in the social sector should be in line with the legal protections afforded to private sector tenants. Responses to the social housing Green Paper showed overwhelming support for consistency”.

We have heard that social landlords are required to keep electrical installations, but this is general and they do not have to hold a valid electrical safety certificate, as private landlords do. I find that disparity quite extraordinary. I appreciate what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said about training and numbers of people, but, if you can do it for the private sector, why can you not do it for the social sector? It really needs to come together.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

We had the tragedy of Grenfell, and I am worried that we are doing a lot of different things in the Bill—some of them are very major—and are now adding on extra things. Individually, things such as the proposals on staircases and electrical safety might have helped to prevent that tragic fire, but each of them has a cost. So it is obviously up to the Minister to look at them in the round and work out what is needed to try to ensure that we have a safe environment. I now support what was said on staircases, because a very good case was made and I am always open-minded, but I am a bit worried about these all piling up and separately chasing the same thing. I have found that, whenever there is a disaster, people come up with several things, and if we had only done some of them 10 years ago we would not have had Grenfell at all.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I appreciate where the noble Baroness is coming from, but I still think there should be parity across the board going forward. Thinking about the Government’s levelling-up White Paper, if we are going to level up, surely parity should be part of that, so that all renters have the same protections.

I will sum up because we still have a lot to get through today. Given the nature of the discussion and the concerns that social housing landlords rarely carry out the certification—the problem is it is not mandatory, so it does not happen very often—I hope the Minister has listened to all of this debate. There is a lot for him to take back to his department.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an absolutely fascinating debate. This is very much the additional safety measures group—that is three words; you cannot do better than that. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, in particular for raising this important issue, as well as noble Lords who have spoken about the Safer Stairs campaign. I am sorry that I did not hear from my noble friend Lady Eaton, but she could easily have joined forces with everyone here.

I have been invited to say, “Just go for it” or “Just do it”—it is almost like a Nike ad in this House—but I think that it is a question of how you go for it. I met with the chief executive of RoSPA, Errol Taylor, in this House, and we have a plan that is important to share with noble Lords. As my officials have said, it would be highly unusual, even though people are grappling for precedents, to include in an Act of Parliament something that is as detailed as this, referring to a specific technical standard.

We are not graced by the presence of my noble friend Lord Young, who was Minister when the building regulations were passed. It is possible that this existing standard, BS 5395-1, could be included in an approved document. Indeed, it is in Approved Document K. I have received a letter from RoSPA making that proposal, which we will take to the next meeting of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee—BRAC—which advises on these things. We have effectively brought forward the next meeting, which was scheduled for September, as I know that noble Lords are very impatient.

We brought forward that meeting, which essentially is an emergency BRAC, to 16 March. That is how fast we move in my department. You meet someone on 23 February, you set up an emergency meeting on 16 March and you get an answer. Let us see whether the route of updating the approved document is an elegant way of fulfilling the desires that have been laid out by so many noble Lords. We all have elderly parents, or some of your Lordships may well; I do not. No, I take that back—perhaps we do not all have elderly parents. I suddenly realised that that was probably not the thing to say. [Laughter.]

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Shall I take over?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

No.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Has the noble Lord been drinking?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

I have not been drinking. I have had some Polos. In fact, I am not drinking anything at all.

I move on to the next campaign, which is electrical safety first. In fact, I am being bombarded with emails and letters. I promise noble Lords that I have had the briefing document from NAPIT—it followed up even today to check that I had it. That is also an incredible campaign.

I have to say that I particularly enjoyed the way the noble Lord, Lord Foster, introduced these amendments. His Amendments 122 and 123 have both been brought forward to ensure electrical safety in homes. I thank the noble Lord for raising this important matter and for his comments on the matter at Second Reading, but I am afraid that the Government cannot support these amendments.

We recognise the intention of these amendments, but we believe that they place a disproportionate burden on leaseholders in high-rise buildings. Under Amendment 122, high-rise leaseholders would be required to obtain and keep up to date an electrical installation condition report—an obligation we place on no other homeowner. Under Amendment 123, that obligation would also be placed on leaseholders who live in mixed-tenure high-rise buildings. “Mixed tenure” is defined as buildings where in addition to leaseholders there are also social housing or private rented tenancies. We believe that leaseholders living in their homes have a fundamental motivation to ensure that their home is safe and will take steps to ensure the safety of electrical installations. Therefore, we do not currently believe there is sufficient evidence to place further burdens on leaseholders in high-rise buildings.

I also assure the noble Lord that the intention of ensuring that residents take an active role in ensuring the safety of their building has already been met in the Bill. The Bill imposes a new active duty on residents not to create a significant risk of spread of fire or structural failure and empowers the accountable person to enforce these duties through the courts. These are systemic changes that are broader in scope than specific requirements for an electrical installation condition report; they will promote genuine collaboration between all parties in keeping their building safe.

The Government thank the noble Lord for raising this important point and will highlight in our guidance to accountable persons and residents the importance of considering electrical installations as part of their building safety decisions. With that assurance, I must ask him not to move his amendment.

On Amendment 124, I thank noble Lords for raising this important matter, but I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept this amendment. However, I can assure them that their intention is being met by the Government. In the Social Housing White Paper we committed to consult on electrical safety requirements in the social sector, and expert stakeholders participated in a Government-led working group last year to inform the content of that consultation. The working group considered the mandating of electrical safety inspections in all 4 million social homes, not just those in high-rise residential buildings, as moved by this amendment. The group also considered how to keep social housing residents safe from harm caused by faulty appliances. We will consider whether the best way forward to protect social residents from harm is to mandate checks and bring parity with standards in the private rented sector, and it is important that we work through all the issues to reach the right decision. The consultation will be published shortly.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Oh!

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

“Shortly” is better than “in due course”.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

Absolutely.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Social homes are already safer than homes of other tenures in respect of electrical safety. In 2019, 71% of social homes had all five electrical safety features compared to 60% of owner occupied and 65% of private rented homes. Under obligations in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, social landlords are required to keep electrical installations in repair, and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires social landlords to keep homes free of electrical hazards.

With that explanation, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Perhaps I am the only person in the room who does not know what updating the approved document actually delivers, so perhaps the Minister could give us some information.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Effectively, the Building Act 1984 has various approved documents, and Approved Document K would be the relevant document to update, which would then set that standard in building regulations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has pointed out, when you build new-build homes, you have to build to those regulations. Does that help the noble Baroness understand what I said? I am sorry I am so unclear; I will do better next time.

[Baroness Jolly (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a really fascinating debate. We have a listening Minister, and it looks as if we have a good outcome. I am sure he will carry on listening and, if he does not listen, I am sure we will carry on trying to talk to him to make sure we get what we would like. He said he has met the RoSPA CEO, and he is very insistent and will not take no for an answer. I look forward to pressing this further with the Minister in due course.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

Dates?

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I live in Cornwall, and we do things dreckly. For the moment, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 120 withdrawn.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Before we move on, could I just say we have quite a lot more to get through this evening, and we have a hard stop at 9.15 pm? I do not want to stifle debate, but perhaps we could avoid repeating arguments made by previous speakers in the same group.

Amendment 121

Moved by

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

121: After Clause 133, insert the following new Clause—
“Existing homes: standards
(1) This section applies to domestic properties that have been used as such since before this Act is passed.(2) The Secretary of State must ensure that—(a) all domestic properties achieve a minimum standard by 2035, and(b) those domestic premises that, because of their standard, present a serious risk to the health, wellbeing or safety of people living in them, that the occupant is unable to rectify for financial or other reasons, achieve a minimum standard by 2030,where practical, cost-effective and affordable.(3) In this section a “minimum standard” is the achievement by the property of—(a) Level C on an Energy Performance Certificate issued under section 43 of the Energy Act 2011 (domestic energy efficiency regulations) or any amendment to that section made by the Secretary of State by regulations; or(b) an equivalent level on any new method of measuring the energy efficiency of properties that may be adopted by the Secretary of State by regulations.(4) The duty in subsection (2) does not apply to a domestic property where the following exemptions apply—(a) an occupant or anyone else whose permission is needed for works to be carried out has explicitly refused such permission; or(b) it is not technically feasible to fulfil the duty; or(c) the cost of carrying out works to fulfil the duty would exceed £20,000. (5) The Secretary of State may by regulations add to or change the exemptions referred to in subsection (4).(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations define the terms “practical”, “cost-effective” and “affordable”.(7) In this section “wellbeing” includes the ability of an occupant to keep warm at reasonable cost.”Member’s explanatory statement
This Clause requires that existing homes achieve a minimum standard in order to protect the safety, health and wellbeing of occupants.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, I will try my very best to be as quick as I can, as I have tried to in all my contributions. I began my last contribution with concern about the speaking order of Members. Can I just say that it was particularly disappointing to have to start speaking for this amendment knowing that, already, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, had indicated she will not be supporting it? I hope that by the end of my remarks, she might change her mind. I give way.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I owe the noble Lord an apology. It was my fault for getting it in the wrong order. I have been trying to be on the other Bill as well.

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

The noble Baroness is forgiven entirely, and let us hope she will come to support the amendment at the end.

The Bill is clear what it is about. It is to make provision about the safety of people in and around buildings and about the standards of buildings. As I said on Second Reading, it is surely relevant to consider the impact of poor-quality homes on the safety of people who live in them, not least given the claim by the Building Research Establishment that millions of individuals and families are living in unhealthy housing, a reality that is having a huge impact on the NHS. Even more worrying is the number of deaths caused by poor-quality homes. We know from the ONS figures that some 8,500 people died in the winter two years ago because of cold housing. They simply did not have sufficient money to keep their homes warm, and often that was because of poor insulation.

We still have in this country over 13.5 million homes that are deemed below what the Government have set as the acceptable energy performance level, that is band C on the energy performance rating. Of those, over 3 million homes are occupied by families deemed to be fuel poor, that is people who even without the rocketing bills that we are now experiencing simply cannot afford to stay warm. Far too many people in this country are having to choose between heating and eating. On Second Reading, I also pointed out, as others have done subsequently, that the removal of unsafe cladding is making the situation worse.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I was horrified by the remarks of the group that runs the Pendleton tower block in the note that she mentioned, which gave tips about dressing in layers, wearing a hat and gloves, not drinking alcohol and so on. What the noble Baroness did not point out was that that note came to light in a meeting to discuss increasing the rent for residents in that block. It was absolutely condescending. We need to do more to help the fuel poor, as well as those having to deal with the removal of unsafe cladding. That means improving the energy efficiency of existing homes.

18:45

The Government have said that they want to do that. The Heat and Buildings Strategy states:

“To meet Net Zero virtually all heat in buildings will need to be decarbonised. The benefits of more efficient, low-carbon buildings for consumers are clear: smarter, better performing buildings, reduced energy bills and healthier, more comfortable environments.”

In the light of this week’s very sobering Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change report, which drew attention to the worsening impact of climate change, and the letters we are all receiving this week from our energy suppliers about increases in our bills, action is urgently needed.

The great thing is that the Government are committed to taking action. The energy White Paper referred to

“our target of reaching as many existing homes as possible at EPC Band C or above by 2035.”

On 9 February last year, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, assured me in an Answer to a Written Question that the Government were committed to this, describing the

“aim for as many homes as possible to be EPC Band C by 2035, where practical, cost-effective, and affordable.”

In relation to the fuel poor, the Government want to achieve exactly the same: EPC band C for the over 3 million such homes five years earlier, by 2030. Government commitments are really clear on these points. The fuel poverty strategy, published in February last year, spoke of meeting the target and achieving the outcome of all fuel-poor homes achieving EPC band C by 2030. This has been repeated in Answers to Written Questions, when I have been assured that that really is the Government’s aim.

The Government have targets to do exactly what I believe needs doing. To date, however, those targets are not enshrined in legislation, despite the Government increasingly arguing the benefits of putting targets of one sort or another into legislation, just as they have, in a very welcome way, in relation to the Climate Change Act.

Putting the very targets that the Government are committed to in the Bill, as proposed in my amendment, has real benefits. First, it ensures that it will be much harder for a future Government to kick them into the long grass. Secondly, and much more importantly, we have to ensure that we have an industry—this is the point about shortages of people and so on; the noble Baroness is right—that has the skills and equipment and has done the necessary training and preparation to carry this out. When I first proposed this in a Private Member’s Bill some time ago, over 100 businesses, including some of the largest companies, such as Mitsubishi, Vaillant and Worcester Bosch, wrote to the Minister, saying

“we require the certainty of statutory targets to give us the certainty that is needed to trigger the high level of investment necessary to achieve Carbon Budget 5 and net zero.”

Andrew Warren, chair of the British Energy Efficiency Federation, wrote:

“On far too many occasions the energy efficiency industry has been made promises by Governments, only to see them withdrawn. This has resulted in the laying off of staff, the loss of investment and the closure of factories”,

as well as the necessary training not being carried out.

I believe that, to give the industry the confidence it needs to get on with the task and achieve the targets the Government have set it, we should put these targets in legislation and enshrine them in law. That is what this amendment does. There are two ways of going forward: either the Minister can accept this amendment or she can accept the offer I made to the other Minister to accept my Private Member’s Bill, which does exactly that. I would be happy with either way. I hope they will support this amendment and that I have persuaded the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, to accept it as well.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I also have an amendment in this group. In thinking about what the noble Lord, Lord Foster, just said, there has been a running theme through our debates on the Bill in Committee about the importance of housing standards and how good-quality housing standards can have a positive impact on health and well-being, as well as on fire safety.

Amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Foster, have also drawn attention to the importance of energy efficiency, which is the focus of Amendment 128 in my name. Energy efficiency is important, not just for safety but from a climate change perspective and for the cost of living, because we know that energy costs will rise dramatically. Energy efficiency is something to which we need to give more attention, in supporting people on how they also can save energy in their homes. The Government should use every opportunity at their disposal to look at how they can improve energy efficiency to reduce costs for consumers.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, mentioned the Government’s Heat and Buildings Strategy, which says that, to meet net zero, virtually all heat in buildings will need to be decarbonised. This will bring about reduced energy bills and healthier and more comfortable environments. Again, I am sure that is something we all support. We know energy efficiency will bring comprehensive benefits, not just for climate change but in increased property values. These are all positive aspects of what it can do.

The noble Lord, Lord Foster, also referred to the figures for excess winter deaths caused by cold homes. In a modern, 21st-century society, with everything to support warmth and heating at our fingertips, this should not be happening. In the last normal winter, 8,500 lives were lost because of cold homes. In a society such as ours that is disgraceful and should not be allowed.

We know that low incomes, high energy costs, and poor heating and insulation combine to do this. We need to do more to support insulation. I know the Government do a lot, but we need to focus more on this area. We should not have homes that are unfit for people to survive the cold or incomes that are not sufficient for people to put on the heating.

At this point, I hope the Ministers will both indulge me, if I raise a particular concern—the issue of communal and district heating networks. In the UK, 500,000 homes, 120,000 of which are in London, are heated by communal and district heating networks. They are therefore considered commercial customers, even though the people paying the bills are residents—me for one, in the flat I rent while I am here in London. Those households are therefore not protected by the Ofgem energy price cap that will be introduced on 1 April. Estimates of cost increases for those living in buildings served by communal and district heating networks range from 400% all the way up to 700%.

Some 90% of heating networks run on gas. At the start of 2022, the price of gas spiked at around five times its cost at the start of 2021. Prices remain far higher now than this time last year. This means that energy costs for these households are expected to see a large increase. The increase in energy prices will contribute to the cost-of-living crisis, which means that household finances will be under even further pressure.

We know that much social housing is supplied by communal and district heating networks, meaning that price rises are more likely to affect social housing tenants, who also tend to be in the lower-income groups, as we know. That means that some of those least able to pay for their energy are likely to be asked to pay the most. I saw the Minister nodding, so he clearly understands what I am talking about. I ask him and the noble Baroness to take these concerns back to their colleagues in government, because this is a serious issue for many thousands of people.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am delighted to take that point on district heating back to the department. It will become an increasingly interesting area as we move to nuclear power and other ways of producing energy for district heating networks. I know that my noble friend has already made a note of that.

I shall speak first to Amendment 121 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foster. I thank him for raising this important matter, but I am afraid that the Government will not be able to accept the amendment. That is not because we disagree with its aims, but because we are already doing an awful lot of work in this area, and it pre-empts a number of workstreams already under way across government.

On the assistance that we are giving those who face the tragic choice between heating and eating, I remind noble Lords that we have already introduced winter fuel payments and the warm home discount. The Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, introduced a £9.1 billion package of support in the spending review, encompassing a number of initiatives. A £3 billion package of energy efficiency measures will be introduced over this Parliament. All are targeted at low-income households. There is also the ECO scheme, funded from bills, which will rise from £750 million to £1 billion over this Parliament. There are also boiler upgrades. We are doing a huge amount in this space. We are not unsympathetic to the reasons for the noble Lord’s amendment, but I defend our record.

In 2017, the Government committed in the clean growth strategy to upgrade as many homes as possible to EPC band C by 2035 and as many private rental homes as possible to EPC band C by 2030 where practical, affordable and cost effective. The Government have now consulted on raising the energy performance standard in the domestic private rented sector to EPC band C and will publish a response to that consultation in due course.

We further committed in the Energy White Paper to seek primary powers to create a long-term regulatory framework to improve the energy performance of homes, alongside a package of incentives. We have consulted a wide range of stakeholders and will undertake further consultation on specific policy design before making secondary legislation. In the Social Housing White Paper, we committed to reviewing the statutory decent homes standard by 2024 to consider how it can better support decarbonisation and improve the energy efficiency of social homes. In the Net Zero Strategy, we reiterated our commitment to consulting on phasing in higher minimum performance standards to ensure that all homes meet EPC band C by 2035 where practical, cost effective and affordable. In light of these comments, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

I turn to Amendment 128 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Her proposed new clause would set a requirement for the Secretary of State to consider the energy efficiency impact when making changes to the building regulations for the purpose of building safety. It is a fundamental principle of the building regulations that, when building work is carried out, all applicable technical requirements must be met. In many cases, this will include energy efficiency, referred to in the regulations as the

“conservation of fuel and power”.

If a particular technical requirement is not applicable to a specific building project, the building regulations none the less require that the building is not made less compliant with that requirement than it was before the building project. This means, for example, that where work is undertaken to improve a building’s fire safety performance, the building’s energy efficiency must not be worsened as a consequence. The opposite case is also true, in that energy efficiency improvements must not worsen the fire safety performance of a building.

As this principle is laid out in the existing regulations, energy efficiency is already a consideration in carrying out building work. We do not believe that it is necessary to introduce a specific duty for the Secretary of State to consider energy efficiency matters when making building regulations for the purpose of safety. I assure the noble Baroness therefore that her intention to ensure that energy efficiency is considered in relation to building safety has already been met under existing legislation.

I wish to reassure the Committee that the Government take the matter of energy efficiency seriously and are taking action in this space. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

19:00

[Lord Foster of Bath (LD)]

My Lords, in my remarks, I went out of my way to praise the current Government for the promises and commitments they have made in this area. I will go further and say that I will praise the current Government for at least some of the commitments they have made to provide the funding for the work to be carried out. But I just say to the Minister that it is the industry that will actually deliver, not the Government. We therefore need to consider what the industry needs to ensure that it can deliver.

The industry has said that it wants these targets, promises and commitments put into primary legislation to give it the confidence to carry out the investment, buy the equipment and do the training to enable the work to be carried out. It has been let down time and again by Governments of all political persuasions, with a string of projects that sound almost the same—the green deal, the green this, the green whatever—which have always failed and have not been followed through. The industry has had enough; it has made that very clear. It wants the firm commitments put into legislation. The Business Minister, Mr Kwarteng, believes in targets; he has said so on many occasions. I fail to understand why the Government will not put this one specific issue into legislation.

We will have an opportunity to raise these issues again at a later stage. Be assured that I intend to take every opportunity to press this matter but, in the mean- time, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 121 withdrawn.

Amendments 122 to 131 not moved.

Amendment 132

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

132: After Clause 133, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of external wall fire assessments
Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must review the process used by chartered surveyors for assessing external walls of tall buildings for fire risks, in particular the EWS1 form produced by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, and must lay a report before Parliament.”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I move Amendment 132 in my name on the subject of external wall fire assessments. I did not speak on energy efficiency as time is short, although I was Energy Minister five years ago; I look forward to discussing the opportunities and frustrations informally.

Noble Lords will know that external wall assessments have been a serious problem aggravating the difficulties that leaseholders have experienced in the post-Grenfell world.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. The Minister has had to leave to deal with a pressing personal matter. Can I ask for a five-minute adjournment?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

My Lords, the Committee will adjourn for five minutes.

19:04

Sitting suspended.

19:05

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, as I was saying, the Committee will know that there has been a serious problem aggravating the difficulties that leaseholders have experienced in the post-Grenfell world. This is because insurance companies and mortgage lenders have required these external wall assessments to be made and the dreaded EWS1 forms to be filled in before transactions can proceed. However, not only are the assessments expensive—or they were—but the requirement to provide them implies, or implied, a very cautious view of the needs of fire safety in particular. Worst of all, there has been a crippling shortage of RICS professionals to carry them out.

I argued during the passage of the Fire Safety Bill that this process was over the top, as sometimes happens with professional-based regulation, and increased the numbers of unsaleable properties post Grenfell by hundreds of thousands. I was therefore delighted to hear the Valentine’s Day announcement of the Secretary of State, Michael Gove—in addition to the January comments quoted earlier by my noble friend the Minister —stating that:

“The provisions will protect leaseholders and encourage a more proportionate approach to fixing buildings. Currently, building owners can simply pass all costs on to leaseholders, with no incentive to hold back on unnecessary remediation work that has brought misery to leaseholders. Today’s package, alongside the duties in the wider Bill, will create an environment for tough, proportionate action on critical safety issues while preventing cost inflation and excessive work.”


“Today’s package” sounds good to me. However, I remain a little sceptical, knowing just how bad the gold-plating has been. For example, we were right to agree earlier on the need to be proportionate about balconies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, argued.

The purpose of this probing amendment is to invite my noble friend, who is of course the Minister at the Department for Levelling Up, to update us and agree to undertake a review of the situation in 12 months’ time. The review proposed would focus on the tall buildings that are in scope, but the whole sector would benefit from a review that assesses the position of smaller buildings as well as the interests of the consumer rather than just the surveyor—in this case, the leaseholders and property owners affected. I add that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans asked me to say that he supports this amendment but had to be elsewhere. I very much hope that my noble friend will look sympathetically on this request, particularly given the helpful change of approach by the Secretary of State.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I will probably disappoint the noble Baroness a little, but I hope that I can also give a bit of explanation. I say that with particular feeling because she chairs the Built Environment Committee, on which I have the privilege to serve.

I understand the irritation that has been generated in some quarters by the EWS1 scheme. I ask the Committee to bear in mind that this was prepared as something of an emergency measure to deal with the logjam of unmortgageable, and therefore unsellable, properties. It was set up at the instigation of government and occurred following discussion with insurers, lenders and valuation professionals. It is a creature of common creation and not the RICS alone, although the RICS put it out. That is quite important.

The unfortunate thing is that, as it was the only form of certification around, it has been latched on to in certain quarters as providing some reassurance for things that it was never intended to achieve. In other words, it was seen as something with a wider fitness for purpose than was ever intended, and that is part of the problem.

When one produces something of this sort, it is produced in collaboration with others, but there will always be people across the spectrum; the insurance world is such that certain sectors of it will top-slice the risk. There will always be some that—a bit like some of what I might call the more adventurous motor insurers—will insure only certain clearly de-risked parts of the market in risk generally. I do not know whether that is a problem here.

This EWS1 was just reviewed in December. The RICS—again in consultation, and again, I believe, with support and collaboration from government but certainly with all the relevant bodies—decided that even though its application in terms of the problems that it created was reduced to a very small proportion, it should be kept because that was the view of valuers, mortgage lenders and insurers. The RICS as a professional body cannot ignore what these people are saying or the commercial pressures that are set before it in dealing with that. The RICS also published its justification in December, which is available on the web. I am all for de-risking things so that assessments of all sorts do not grow horns and a tail. However, I am not sure that having the Government take control and ownership of this particular matter would necessarily reassure lenders or professionals or, for that matter, benefit the market sentiment.

In its evidence to the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee, the RICS acting chief executive made it clear that there is already a process in hand to train up a cohort of fire risk assessors pursuant to the Bill’s objectives. EWS1 itself is probably destined to wither on the vine in a relatively short period of time. I therefore hope that I have given some sort of helpful explanation of why I am not sure that it is a good thing for the Government to take on this thing, even if they felt that they were willing to get their fingers involved in that particular pie, and why it is probably best that the matter continues on the critical path it is now and we see the outcome of this cohort of newly trained people. I am sure that other professional bodies will need to do training as well; we must try to make sure that it is rolled out as speedily as possible so that, hopefully, the problems will be put behind us.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for raising an important issue. There is confusion and concern around these EWS1 forms and assessments. There is confusion—which I will come on to, following on from what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, just said—and there is certainly concern from leaseholders. Either they wait for ever for these external wall structural assessments, or those who do them err on the side of caution because of the way that they were brought in as an emergency measure following the awful Grenfell fire.

19:15

I looked on the RICS website to find out what it is saying. The Minister has said several times that EWS is gone because PAS 9980 has been introduced. There is a question-and-answer section on the RICS website, and one question is:

“Does the PAS 9980 … replace the need for an EWS1 form?”

The answer is:

“No. The code of practice for external walls is for building surveyors and fire engineers who will need to carry out mandatory EWS fire risk assessments … as part of the Fire Safety Act.”

It goes on to discuss the Fire Safety Act and the need for fire risk assessors, which my noble friend Lord Stunell has raised many times. Qualified fire risk assessors are an absolutely basic requirement for EWS assessments and the Fire Safety Act, and we do not have enough of them. In the discussions on that Act in Committee and on Report, I remember he brought the figures on how long it will take to train them—it was years. That did not fill me with hope that this was going to happen any time soon. So there is a logjam of issues here, which is why this amendment is important.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has said quite a lot about what the RICS folk have said, so I will not repeat that. But the trouble with this is that there is a logjam because of the lack of fire risk assessors and there is confusion about EWS and PAS, and the leaseholders are bearing the cost—I am fed up with them bearing the cost for issues that they have not created.

I am very supportive of this amendment, because all it asks us to do is think about all of the issues and come back. Perhaps the Minister will commit to writing to all of us to put our minds at rest that the Government will create a lot of good fire risk assessors or de-risk some of the issues—this is the problem—that have been created by this emergency measure, although I understand why it was done. With those brief words, I hope that the Minister will respond positively.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I should perhaps explain that, while I am a RICS member and fellow and a registered valuer, I do not actually deal with this particular thing. But, as a valuer, I understand constructs of risk and the attitude of lenders, because they so often dictate the process that is put in place by the valuers: they often set the fee for valuation and their form is used for this particular process. I say again that it is very difficult for a professional institution that tries to weigh up all these different bodies to get away from the big beasts of the mortgage lenders and the insurance world when it is dealing with this sort of thing. But I make no apology for that—there have been problems, and the noble Baroness is absolutely right that they have been visited, as she would say, on wholly innocent leaseholders. It is right that the whole thing should be kept under constant review.

[Lord Khan of Burnley (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 132 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is a little but very important amendment and, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, “Every little helps” in making sure we get this right. I admire what the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who spoke with great expertise, said about ending the confusion and providing clarity. That was a very important point. As a Lancastrian, I have never agreed with somebody from Yorkshire as much as I have agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, during the course of this Bill. She is quite right: leaseholders should not bear the costs for issues they have no control over. It is not their fault. We need to end the logjam.

This is my final contribution in Committee. It has been a fascinating debate. I have a special message for the Minister in Latin, to continue the theme: “Da operam, si potes”, or “You can do it, if you try hard”. We have debated a lot of fantastic amendments during this Committee. I am sure the Minister can do it and make this landmark Bill even better, to help people, residents and leaseholders across the whole country.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for her amendment. It has been a fascinating debate, with lovely Latin phrases which I am sure have been worked on all afternoon using Google Translate.

As the Government have made clear, it is important that we restore a sense of balance and proportionality to fire safety. We must ensure that fire risk assessments of external walls do not require unnecessary work and reduce the risk aversion we have seen in the sector. The department has already taken steps to ensure that industry takes a proportionate approach to the assessment of the external walls of buildings and I can reassure my noble friend that we will continue to work with industry, including lenders and surveyors, to keep under review the process used to assess external wall systems.

The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned that we have been tracking the data from mortgage lenders and it is available on the GOV.UK website. I have been looking at my Apple iPhone—I have given the brand away, but I do not know how I could have coded that without using the brand name—and the vast majority of mortgage valuations for flatted developments do not require an EWS1 form. The trend is also going down. I think the most recent data in January was that around 8% of mortgage valuations require an EWS1, so 92% do not. That is down from 9%. My department estimates that 492,000 leaseholders in residential buildings of 11 metres and above do not need to undergo an EWS1 assessment for their building for them to sell their property or remortgage. It is important that we continue to work with mortgage lenders to track how that is evolving over time. These things take time, but the trend is in the right direction.

The Government are also making preparations to launch a professional indemnity—or PII—scheme, targeted at qualified professionals to enable them to undertake EWS1 assessments where otherwise they would not be getting PII cover. A condition of PII coverage under the scheme will be that EWS1 assessments are carried out in line with PAS 9980. An audit process will be in place to monitor compliance to the standard.

I thank my noble friend for raising this important matter. She has absolutely championed that the Government get to grips with some of these points. I think we are making progress on a number of fronts now. I assure her that this work is of critical importance for the Government. We will continue to work closely with industry in the coming months to ensure that. I therefore ask that she withdraws her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend, particularly for giving the figures. Before Report, it would be good to have the figures for the non-high-risk buildings as well, because one of the concerns I had was that the industry was requiring people who were not caught by measures following Grenfell to have these EWS1 assessments. It was a probing amendment and I will reflect further in light of what has been said. It was a very good debate.

There is confusion and concern about the logjam, and we need to make sure that we have the support of the industry professionals who are needed to do this. Things can take a long time in the building industry, as I think we will hear when we debate retentions. I certainly did not want to lock horns with the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, who is such an excellent member of the Built Environment Committee, but to make sure that we had this debate and that we really do sort this issue, as I know the Government have said that they wish to. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 132 withdrawn.

Amendment 132A

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

132A: After Clause 133, insert the following new Clause—
“Local authorities: impact of land contamination on building safety
Local authorities must assess, within their local areas, the risk posed by land contamination to building safety.”

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Noble Lords may have noticed that I am not my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but I am here to move Amendment 132A and speak to Amendment 132B, both in her name. I am sure that the Minister is listening, because it is quite important that he agrees with me on this.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I am listening.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am so sorry—I thank the noble Baroness.

These amendments create an obligation for local authorities to locate contaminated land in their areas and for the Government to review the management of contaminated land. This is the first parliamentary outing of what has been called Zane’s law. It is named for Zane Gbangbola, for whom the Truth About Zane campaign was also founded, which is still working. There is wide support for the campaign—from Sir Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham to the FBU, the CWU and the Conservative-controlled Spelthorne Borough Council—to get on the record the truth about the seven year-old’s death in Chertsey in 2014, when floods swept hideously toxic hydrogen cyanide into the family home from a nearby historical landfill site. That is not what the inquest verdict concluded in 2016, but the campaign continues to fight that inequality of arms and the illogic of that verdict.

Last year, Zane’s parents, Kye and Nicole, and their supporters took up an even broader issue: the question of why it was that they and the rest of the community had no knowledge of the danger of the historic landfill site near their home. I am old enough to remember Aberfan in 1966; it was a well-known site, but it was unstable. As most noble Lords probably know, 116 children and 28 adults were killed when the landslip came on to a school. What happened to Zane—and his father Kye, who was left paralysed by the hydrogen cyanide—could awfully easily happen to another family or a whole community.

The issue goes back to 1974, when the Control of Pollution Act first took control over waste disposal. However, before that came into effect, many dumps were quietly closed and, since then, have been pretty well forgotten, as campaigner Paul Mobbs explains in a disturbing video, which I do not have here with me. EU regulations on waste and pollution required the tightening of those controls under the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 143 brought in an obligation on local authorities to investigate their areas and draw up

“public registers of land which may be contaminated”.

Section 61 gave local waste authorities powers to inspect closed landfills and clean them up if necessary. However, lots of new housing developments, in particular, are on old landfill sites. Under pressure, the Government held three consultations on contaminated landfill registers from 1991 to 1993, eventually deciding that the aforementioned Section 143 would not be enacted and all plans for public registers of contaminated sites would be dropped. The explanation given was cost and the desire not to place new regulatory burdens on the private sector.

Limited powers were brought in in 1995, although they did not come into force until 2000, which meant that when developers found contamination problems, public authorities often had to pay. But it got worse. In 2012, as part of the Cameron Government’s “bonfire of red tape”, to reduce the statutory burdens, the right of enforcement authorities to use the law was further reduced—the emphasis being on “voluntary” clean-up, with no real power to check it had been done. This is clearly a problem for existing buildings, but also for buildings being constructed right now. It is evident that there is a great risk at potential locations of new homes right around the country, from Carlisle to Cambridge, and Dudley to Newbury.

There is also the issue of the climate emergency and the new extremes of weather, particularly floods, but also heatwaves, that cause events such as that which tragically claimed young Zane’s life. To identify the size and scale of the problem, in every local authority in the land, there has to be a starting point to fixing it and preventing future risk to life. I beg to move.

19:30

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for introducing these two amendments. When I read them, I thought, “You know, this isn’t possible. You cannot build on contaminated land.” Certainly, from all the planning committees on which I have sat over the years, I know that it is not possible. I live in an area where there is quite a lot of land contaminated by dyes from the woollen industry, which have cyanide in them. My experience of development on contaminated land, which is a bit different from the issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has raised, is that such sites are raised by planning authorities as part of the National Planning Policy Framework, they have to be identified as part of strategic local plans, and the Environment Agency and the Environment Act all contribute towards ensuring that contaminated land is cleared—decontaminated, if you like—before it is developed.

That is a bit different from some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, which were about building adjacent to such land. Again, I am surprised that the environment legislation which controls old landfill sites has enabled that to happen. It may be a failure of legislation, but I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

The only thing I would say is that the Government are very keen for development of brownfield sites, and there is a desperate need for those sites to be cleared and decontaminated before they can be redeveloped. Everybody wants the Government to continue providing grants to developers to do so. I have experience from my town, where a site has been left empty for at least 15 years. It has been allocated for housing, but no grants have been provided to decontaminate it from an old chemical works that was on the site. So former green-belt land has been developed first, because we are waiting for grants for decontamination of derelict sites.

My one plea to the Minister is to take that back to the department and to say that, if it is to be brownfield sites first, such sites nearly always have significant contamination. Sometimes it is asbestos in older buildings. Certainly, in the Midlands and the north where there have been industrial complexes, there can be quite serious chemical contamination, and decontamination is necessary before anybody can get near them. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief, because there will probably be another vote soon in the House. We are very happy to support the two amendments tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her comprehensive introduction.

We know that local authorities, as we heard, are responsible for determining whether their land is contaminated. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, talked about the grants that her authority has been waiting for to clean up land. It is really important that these grants are dealt with quickly, because it can be incredibly expensive to clean up contamination. If we are to use brownfield sites, local authorities need to be able to do so in a way that is cost effective for them. That was an important point.

We are also aware that availability of land is one of the biggest barriers to building at the moment. The government targets for housebuilding mean that, in particularly populated areas such as the south-east, any additional homes are more likely to be built on previously developed brownfield land. No one would want to build on contaminated land by choice, but “brownfield” does not necessarily mean that land is contaminated. We need to be clear about this.

However, there is a need to ensure that houses constructed on sites affected by contamination are built to the appropriate standards, including those next to an area of contamination. We need to know where the contaminated land is so that we can do these checks properly. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said, things such as flooding can bring contamination across a very wide area, with, as we have heard, sadly catastrophic consequences. As she said, on the surface of it, Zane’s law seems pretty simple and straightforward to implement. If we can identify the size and scale in every part of the country where contamination is, that would be a very logical starting point to prevent future risk to life and support local authorities in tackling the whole issue of contamination so that we understand it better as we move forward with more development and housing. I hope the Minister will listen to this, because it seems to me that Zane’s law ought to be supported.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for tabling her amendments, so ably introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I welcome her raising the important issue of contaminated land in this Committee. As always, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made some very powerful points—as did the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Pinnock—on the need for speeding up the process of decontamination. I believe the ambition to bring a version of Zane’s law on to the statute book is well intentioned but I consider that the policy intent behind these proposals is already met by existing legislation and statutory guidance.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is right that Section 143 was repealed, but it was replaced by Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which provides a framework for identifying contaminated land in England and allocating responsibility for its remediation. It provides a legal definition of contaminated land and lays out the responsibilities of local authorities and the Environment Agency for dealing with it. These responsibilities include a requirement for local authorities to inspect their area to identify actively land that may be contaminated, to investigate and remedy contaminated land and to maintain a public register of information relating to contaminated land. This includes contamination from non-operational historic landfill sites and is regulated by local authorities. Further, Part C of the building regulations requires reasonable precautions to be taken by developers to avoid any risk to health and safety caused by contaminants in the ground where they are carrying out building work.

Lastly, assessment of contaminated land risk currently focuses on the impact of contaminated land on human health and the environment. Shifting focus on to buildings and building safety may dilute the aims of the existing framework. Given that this existing framework is already embedded into legislation and guidance, the proposed amendments regarding contaminated land would create unnecessary duplication and could cause confusion for local authorities. Therefore, while I appreciate the concerns of the noble Baroness, I ask her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her response, and I will of course check the Environmental Protection Act, exactly what it does and what protection it gives. I also thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman of Ullock and Lady Pinnock, for their support.

I care very much about this, even though this amendment is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, because it seems that the poor always suffer. This is one of those things where, if you live on an old industrial site or whatever, you are likely to have a much lower form of housing and much less protection in any case. If we are talking about levelling up, this would be a very good thing to do.

By the way, I want all your Lordships in this debate to know that this is a much friendlier debate than the one next door. It was a real relief to come in here out of there; there will of course be another vote soon.

I understand that this is not the moment to push this amendment, but it will probably come back on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment 132A withdrawn.

Amendment 132B not moved.

Clause 134 agreed.

Clause 135: Review of regulatory regime

Amendment 133

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

133: Clause 135, page 142, line 20, at end insert—
““building function” has the meaning given by section 3;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “building function” for the purposes of Clause 135.

Amendment 133 agreed.

Clause 135, as amended, agreed.

Amendments 134 to 136 not moved.

Amendment 136A

Moved by

[Lord Aberdare]

136A: After Clause 135, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of safety impact of retention
(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must publish a review of the impact on building standards and safety of retention of payments due to sub-contractors by building contractors.(2) Matters which the review may consider include, but are not limited to—(a) cash flow difficulties sustained by sub-contractors as a result of retention,(b) ability of sub-contractors, as a result of retention, to afford materials of a suitable quality for future contracts,(c) ability of sub-contractors, as a result of retention, to recruit sufficiently qualified staff, and(d) other factors which may cause sub-contractors to make savings on building standards and safety because of retention.”

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, it has been interesting and instructive for a non-expert to listen to the debate in this rather impressive Grand Committee while waiting for my sole amendment to be reached as the very last group.

Amendment 136A is a probing amendment that seeks to encourage the Government to take some long-overdue action to tackle the pernicious practice of retentions in the construction sector. I start by thanking, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He crafted this amendment in a form deemed to be in scope and then allowed my name to appear above his. I am sorry to hear that, as I gather, he has fallen prey to Covid, but I wish him a speedy recovery and I shall certainly miss his powerful support today. I am also grateful to the Minister for sparing time last week to meet me and David Frise, representing the engineering services alliance, Actuate UK, whose members are among the firms most impacted by retentions.

I shall make just three points relating to the amendment. First, retentions are a cancer affecting the construction industry, which, as noted in the Hackitt report,

“can drive poor behaviours, by putting financial strain into the supply chain”.

These can damage both quality and safety; for example, by causing subcontractors to use cheaper, substandard or unsuitable materials or to cut corners on quality in other ways. In some cases they may withdraw from contracts or even be forced out of business altogether, causing the “golden thread” which is such an important part of the thinking behind the Bill to fray, if not snap.

Retentions poison relationships between subcontractors and contractors, creating a fundamentally adversarial relationship rather than a far more productive collaborative partnership. They deprive smaller firms of funds for investment in skills, technology, growth and productivity, while causing them to waste substantial time and effort chasing payments which are due to them, but which in some cases are never paid at all—notably when the business owing them goes bust, as in the case of Carillion. Retentions are not even a particularly effective way of preventing or remedying defects; the sector has been developing much better approaches, such as modern methods of construction and the Get It Right Initiative. I salute the Minister’s evident commitment to improving the quality and culture of the construction sector, but that aim will never be achieved while unregulated retentions persist.

My second point relates to the need for legislation. There is a high degree of consensus across the sector that something needs to be done about retentions, and there is even a target date, endorsed by the Construction Leadership Council, for there to be zero retentions by 2025. That is a laudable goal, but, as Ministers regularly point out, there is no industry consensus about how to reach it. Of course there is no consensus between firms that benefit from withholding retentions, often using them to artificially boost their own working capital, and those who are deprived of funds due to them. So we have a stalemate that can only be resolved by government through legislation, whether primary or secondary.

19:45

Thirdly, the Bill provides the right opportunity for government to act—or at least to set a process of action in place, which is what this amendment rather modestly seeks to initiate. It would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the Bill becoming law, to publish a review of the impact of retentions on building safety and standards. Such a review would inevitably make crystal clear the damaging impact of retentions in ways set out in the amendment: cash flow difficulties for subcontractors, their inability to afford materials of suitable quality, their inability to recruit and train staff with the right levels of competence, and other ways in which retentions harm safety or quality, including situations where subcontractors are unable to complete work that they are contracted for.

I would like to see a much stronger amendment, requiring specific action by government to finally tackle the issue of retentions, following the safety review that the amendment requires, either by banning them outright or at least by ensuring that they are ring-fenced so that subcontractors can rely on their funds not being lost. This might take the form of regulations made under the provisions of Clause 138, accompanied by guidance to the building safety regulator, along with appropriate enforcement powers. Such an amendment might possibly be suitable for tabling on Report.

Meanwhile, I would like to hear the Minister—whose commitment to shaking up the culture of the construction sector to achieve a much higher level of collaboration, quality and safety I greatly welcome and admire—tell us that, after all the years of government reports, reviews and consultations, he will be the Minister who finally slays the dragon of retentions, putting St Stephen up there with St George. At the very least, he should be looking at actions such as updating the Construction Playbook to discourage retentions and ensuring that both the playbook and his department’s Procurement Advisory Group’s Guidance on Collaborative Procurement for Design and Construction to Support Building Safety are actually taken up and complied with by the sector.

Having spent most of my education studying Latin and Greek, I have been deeply embarrassed during this debate by my inability to find a suitable Latin or Greek quotation to match those quoted by many noble Lords. The only one that I could come up with was “Nil desperandum”, or “Never despair”. Many small construction firms do despair at how retentions hamstring them from achieving the performance that they aspire to, in terms of quality, safety and productivity. I cannot say that I expect the Minister to answer their prayers today, but I can of course say, “Dum spiro spero”—while there is life there is hope. I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, although I am not sure whether it made its way on to the list. I support the great work of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in his quest for a resolution on the subject of retentions—that is, the retention of part of a contract cost.

The noble Lord may recall that, when I was a Minister during the passage of a motley business Bill about six years ago, I promised that a review would be undertaken by the then DHCLG. At first blush, the arrangements seemed wrong and unfair to me, from my experience of the building industry. Somehow, delivery has been extraordinarily slow. It would be nice to have my ministerial promise delivered, albeit somewhat late, by St George here. I very much hope that the Minister will do the right thing and accept this modest proposal for a long-overdue review or whatever else might be agreed between now and Report, with the ever-energetic and nil desperandum noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has certainly been energetic, forthright and determined on this issue, and rightly so. He has reminded the Committee that the Hackitt report made it clear that the withholding of money from second-tier, third-tier and fourth-tier contractors and suppliers put pressure on them, which made it much more difficult for them to deliver a proper and effective product or job on site. The downward pressure that they faced as a result of the withholding of that money was a major problem for them as functioning entities. That was the view expressed in Hackitt, based on the evidence that had already emerged from the Grenfell inquiry.

Of course, there is much wider evidence around the country. The collapse of Carillion is an example. I think that £140 million of retentions were held by Carillion and thereby lost from those on lower tiers in the pyramid. Whatever else might be said about it, that put a number of companies at risk of going out of business, and indeed a number of companies did so just because that money was lost to them. The evil impact of this is very clear.

Some of the impact is less clear but just as difficult. Such companies find that they do not have the resources to invest in skills, training and continuing professional development, simply because they do not have that cash in hand. So it has an impact. Under

“Matters which the review may consider”,


the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has sensibly listed in his amendment three important ones and then put “(d) other factors”. I would add investment and training as one of the other factors that suffer as a result of this.

I want to remind the Minister that it is government policy that all government contracts should be written in such a way that retentions are not in place. Unfortunately, not every government department has read the memo. I asked the Business Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, a Written Question and subsequently an Oral Question about how that was progressing. He was quite frank in admitting, and it is on the record, that the Department for Education had so far refused to implement the Government’s overall guidance that all public procurement should be without retentions built into the contract documents. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is having a good go at the education department; I hope that I can add to that today and another Minister will have a good go at it, at the very least to make sure that the Government get their own departments to follow their own policy, which would be very much in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is advocating. I have probably said enough, but I certainly hope to hear good words from the Minister in a moment or two.

[The Earl of Lytton (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Aberdare. The matter of retentions comes right at the end of this series of Grand Committee sessions, but it is part of a culture. It is the race to the bottom, value engineering or cost-cutting. Construction contract architecture and the practices that have grown up with it are all part of the perverse incentives that have somehow been built up.

At one stage in my professional life, retentions of, say, 5% or 2.5% for limited periods, as the case may be, started as security for the proper completion of works as set out and to a required standard. However, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that this has now gained the appearance of an informal and unconsented bankrolling of construction costs at the expense mainly of subcontractors and their suppliers. This has to stop. It is like all such situations: retentions have a legitimate use but have been subject to serial abuse. If we could keep our eye on one and render the other improbable, that would be all very well, but if the bad practitioners do not get the message, some brutal measures may indeed be necessary and better regulation and protection of sums due may follow from that. I cannot help thinking that the small and medium-sized enterprises that have dwindled and atrophied as a component part of the construction industry are the chief sufferers. They are unable to take on the big beasts of construction.

There is a real point behind this. If the memorandum that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to became a universal code of practice in the sense that you really had to justify yourself before stepping out of line, that would at least be a start. There is a lot we can do with what we know and the existing situation in terms of decent treatment, honest measures and taking care of the whole supply line we are dealing with. What the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, said about investment, training and that sort of thing is absolutely on point, and I certainly support the thrust of this amendment.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has raised a very important issue and certainly has our support. Something has to be done to resolve this, and others who have spoken have swung in strongly behind the noble Lord. I am sure the Minister has listened and is taking note.

We have heard that retention is the customary practice of withholding monies to cover defects and incomplete work, but it is also being used for so much more than that, as the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, explained. Depending on the size of the project, it can be insignificant or very significant. Large construction projects can be worth £1 billion; huge sums of money can be affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, reform of the problems this can cause is long overdue.

Retention is often a cause for complaint and quarrel. Subcontractors often find it difficult and can see it as a tool to be bashed with by the paying party, who can hold back payment whether there is good reason to do so or not. I guess that I ought to declare a past interest in that I used to work for a small business that was contracted into large infrastructure projects, so I am very aware of the kind of impact that retention of monies can have. We worked with a lot of other small businesses within large projects. If payment is held back through retention, often for many months, small businesses have a serious cashflow problem, often meaning they cannot pay their staff. This is about not just training but the basic running of the business. They can then become dependent on constant, rolling bank loans, which is not the way a small business wants to run.

All that could be solved if this was sorted out. We see signs everywhere about considerate contractors, but contractors are not always considerate to their subcontractors. We need to sort this out. As we have heard, it can be such a source of pain and concern when the party holding the monies goes bankrupt. Other noble Lords have mentioned Carillion, which is probably the largest example of that happening.

I will not say any more, because we are nearly there, and we are nearly at another vote, I think. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, very ably introduced his amendment, so I think the Minister will have heard his message loud and clear. The last thing for me to say during this Committee is that today in particular, and throughout, the Minister has been given an opportunity to slay a number of dragons, not just this one, so I look forward to his response.

20:00

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

“St George,” “St Stephen,” “It is so easy, just do it”: I have had all the usual exhortations. I did really enjoy meeting the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and David Frise. I think it was towards the end of last month, so relatively recently. David Frise, part of the Building Engineering Services Association but representing Actuate UK, had gone through the quite traumatic experience of building up a business then effectively seeing it dismantled because of the pressures of being a subcontractor. I have declared my business interests—as someone who has started a small business, I know exactly what it is like when you are working for bigger businesses, particularly in the early days. It is tough, particularly when people withhold payments that you are contractually due just because they know they can.

Another practice we see in payments is: “Why do we not pay you in 180 days’ time?” You have delivered the services and paid all the costs, but: “We are a big company, and our payment run is every 180 days.” It is that kind of line; it does not happen all the time, and I know that is not something Every Little Helps would do; it will have a code of practice. But that is the kind of thing we have seen, and it is important, if we want to encourage smaller organisations, that we see the end of those kinds of practices. I think we are, generally speaking; certainly, blue chip companies would not do that.

One of the things I would also say about the whole construction issue is that one of the things I want to know as a businessman is who makes the money. It is clear that developers have made good money since Grenfell. Before Grenfell they made good money, but since Grenfell even more. Some of the manufacturers of the construction materials have done really rather well as well. But actually, construction is a cash-flow business on wafer-thin margins, and the further you go down from the prime contractor, the more they squeeze the margins, and that is the kind of the thing the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, has been talking about—the value engineering. That is why you start to see the corners being cut.

We have to understand that we are dealing with a real cultural issue. That is what we said to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in the meeting. Yes, I would like to wave my magic wand and say there is a legislative solution—but we recognise that he is going to set out in writing to me a number of thoughts about this. I think that is what we agreed. Then, we are going to take some of those thoughts to Dame Judith Hackitt and also talk to Amanda Long, who ran the Considerate Constructors Scheme and is also building a building safety charter, to try and get players on board. Perhaps they can consider cash retentions within that. There is also the New Homes Quality Board and the new homes ombudsman, which operates underneath that. Perhaps they can think about some of these issues.

There are a number of things I can talk about that could potentially also help. The Construction Leadership Council has a business models workstream focused on collaborative contractual practices, which I think has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. We are also looking at the culture of late payments that I already referred to. Our efforts include introducing payment practices, reporting through legislation and guidance. Prompt payment is also important.

What I resolve is not to accept the amendment but to work with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, because I really feel passionate about this. It is an abhorrent practice, and we should do what we can to ensure the culture of good practice prevails and that we address those that are not following the right way. But let us get the culture right.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, I wonder if he could comment on the Department for Education’s performance.

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

That is a really good way to end the debate. I will have to write to the noble Lord, because I do not know a lot about the Department for Education other that it is on the street near Marsham Street. I have been there maybe two or three times when I was a council leader. I will write to the noble Lord, but I think it is probably something, as he would well know, that I am not in a position to answer at the Dispatch Box right at this minute.

At this point, I am allowed to sit down. I have avoided a Latin phrase for the whole four hours of this debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has provoked me: he responded to me saying that I would not resort to Latin by saying, “Id gratum esset”. I knew enough Latin to know that that means, “It would be appreciated”. Well, I have appreciated this debate, and I look forward to moving on to Report and taking this landlord Bill through this House.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, which at least confirmed my prophetic abilities and had quite a bit of encouragement. I confirm that we are working on a letter to him along the lines that he described, and we will get that to him in due course—that is a bit pessimistic; we should say “shortly”. I thank him for the other comments that he has made, which I will study and act upon.

I was absolutely delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, was able to contribute to the debate. As she said, she was the Minister responsible when I first accidently got involved with retentions in 2015. For a glorious moment, I thought that she might prove to be the dragon-slayer, but I am delighted that she continues to support the cause. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, made a very important point about investment in training as well as the fact that government itself is not doing all that it could to bring this practice to an end.

As always, I depend heavily on the vast expertise of my noble friend Lord Lytton, whom I thank particularly for focusing on the impact on SMEs. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, also did so, again pointing out the issue of cash flow and its importance. Fortunately, my SME was never in the construction sector, so that is one problem that we did not have, although we certainly had plenty of cash-flow problems. Of course, I also thank the Minister.

Fixing this issue will be a key part of achieving the goal that the Minister is setting out to achieve: a productive, high-quality, collaborative, innovative, forward-looking and, above all, safe construction sector, providing the sorts of homes and other buildings that we can be truly proud of. I am not convinced that we should not come back to this issue on Report, but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 136A withdrawn.

Clause 136 agreed.

Clause 137: Crown application

Amendment 137

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

137: Clause 137, page 143, line 2, at end insert—
“(ba) sections (Remediation of certain defects) to (Meeting remediation costs of insolvent landlord) and Schedule (Remediation costs under qualifying leases) (remediation of certain defects);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the new clauses and Schedule relating to the remediation of certain defects to bind the Crown.

Amendment 137 agreed.

Clause 137, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 138

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

138: After Clause 137, insert the following new Clause—
“Application to Parliament
(1) The following provisions do not apply in relation to the Parliamentary Estate—(a) sections 101, 102 and 105 (compliance notices under Part 4);(b) paragraphs 1 to 3 of Schedule 2 (powers of entry of authorised officers).(2) If the Palace of Westminster (or any part of it) is a higher-risk building within the meaning of Part 4, for the purposes of that Part the accountable persons for the building are the Corporate Officer of the House of Lords and the Corporate Officer of the House of Commons, acting jointly.(3) No contravention by a Corporate Officer of a provision made by or under Part 2 or 4 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) In subsection (3) “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.(6) In this section “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 Parts 2 and 4 to Parliament.

Amendment 138 agreed.

Clauses 138 and 139 agreed.

Clause 140: Regulations

Amendments 139 and 140

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

139: Clause 140, page 144, line 19, after “71” insert “, (Meaning of “relevant building”)(2)(c), (Remediation orders)”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the draft affirmative procedure to apply to certain regulations.

140: Clause 140, page 144, line 21, at end insert “or paragraph 4, 12 or 13 of Schedule (Remediation costs under qualifying leases),”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for the draft affirmative procedure to apply to certain regulations.

Amendments 139 and 140 agreed.

Amendment 141 not moved.

Clause 140, as amended, agreed.

Clause 141: Extent

Amendments 142 and 143

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

142: Clause 141, page 144, line 41, at end insert—
“(ba) sections 120 to 127 and Schedule 9 (new homes ombudsman scheme);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for certain provisions about the new homes ombudsman scheme to form part of the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

143: Clause 141, page 145, line 4, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“(3) Section 2(2) and Schedule 1 (amendments of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974) extend to England and Wales and Scotland.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment to page 144, line 41 that appears in the Minister’s name, providing for the new homes provisions to form part of the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Amendments 142 and 143 agreed.

Clause 141, as amended, agreed.

Clause 142: Commencement and transitional provision

Amendments 144 and 145 not moved.

Amendment 146

Moved by

[Lord Greenhalgh]

146: Clause 142, page 146, line 18, leave out “, 39 and 86 to 88” and insert “and 87 to 89”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first amendment of Schedule 5 in the name of the Minister (and also corrects the numbering of the paragraphs referred to).

Amendment 146 agreed.

Amendment 147 not moved.

Clause 142, as amended, agreed.

Clause 143 agreed.

Clause 1: Overview of Act

Amendment 147A not moved.

Clause 1 agreed.

Amendments 148 and 149 not moved.

Bill reported with amendments.

Committee adjourned at 8.11 pm.

House of Lords

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Wednesday 2 March 2022

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

Music Education in State Schools

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked by

[Lord Black of Brentwood]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support music education in state schools.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I declare interests as chairman of the Royal College of Music and a governor of Brentwood School.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to high-quality education for all pupils and music is integral to this. We are working with experts to refresh the national plan for music education for publication later this year. This follows the publication of the Model Music Curriculum last year. We will also invest around £115 million a year, for the next three years, in music, arts and heritage education, including the network of music hubs working across England.

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. The sad, blunt truth is that music education in state schools is on life support. The number of pupils taking A-level music is down by a third since 2014—sadly, often because it is simply not available as a subject. GCSE applicants have come down by 17% over the same period and 29% of state schools have seen a reduction in the number of qualified music teachers, while the number of trainees is falling inexorably. Is my noble friend aware that while 50% of pupils in private schools get sustained music education, just 15% of state school pupils do so? Should this not be at the top of the levelling-up agenda? We need a national plan soon, so can she tell us more precisely when that is coming? Can we also be assured that practitioners and musicians will be able to have their say before it is implemented?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The Government share my noble friend’s concern about the importance of music education in all of our schools. We see it, along with other arts subjects, as integral to a good, strong curriculum. In relation to the numbers that my noble friend quoted on the music GCSE, I point out that while he is right that uptake of the GCSE has declined, uptake of the VTQ—the vocational qualification—has increased, so actually there are almost 53,000 children today taking either the GCSE or the VTQ, compared to almost 50,000 in 2016. On the timing of the announcement of the plan, as I said, it will be later this year. I will take his recommendations on further consultation back to the department.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, I will follow directly from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Black. The Minister may be interested to know that my daughter is a professional musician who spends part of her working life, like so many of her colleagues, teaching in an independent school where the list of peripatetic and full-time music education staff takes up half a page on the school’s website. This shows that parents value music education and, in that case, are prepared and able to pay for it. Does the Minister think that parents of state school pupils care any less about music education? I am sure that she does not. None the less, she will be aware that my daughter’s own children, who attend state schools, do not have access to anything like the provision which my daughter is part of providing in an independent school.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that parents in every school care about the richness and breadth of the curriculum which their children undertake. The music education hubs that were created in 2012 now work with around 91.4% of primary schools in this country and almost 88% of secondary schools. Since 2018, there has been a sharp increase in both music tuition and whole-class ensembles.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the effect of the accountability measures on the arts is becoming increasingly clear as the years pass by. The narrowing of the curriculum at key stage 3 has led to a reduced uptake in music courses at key stages 4 and 5. In some cases, courses are not even being offered. If the Government truly believe in a broad and balanced education, then the EBacc and Progress 8 measures will need to be fundamentally reassessed.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I cannot agree with the noble Earl. The EBacc was designed to be limited, absolutely to allow for the study of other subjects—many of which I know the noble Earl rightly cares a great deal about.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister have any figures on the number of schools without qualified, musically trained teachers attached to them? I declare my interests as a former chair of the Voces8 Foundation, which has been going into primary schools, particularly where there is no teacher present with any musical training, to introduce some basic singing.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I do not have that specific figure to hand, but I am happy to write to the noble Lord with it.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Would my noble friend agree to receive a small group from the Royal School of Church Music, which reaches out to children in all parts of the country, many of whom go to state schools where they are not properly tutored in music? It does enormous work.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I would be delighted to meet the group.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, could the Minister join me in congratulating Nicola Benedetti on becoming director of the Edinburgh International Festival? Bear in mind that she is on record as saying that

“Music teaching is vital to a child’s education.”


Moreover, is the Minister aware of the concerns of musicians, such as Julian Lloyd Webber, that music is being squeezed out of state school syllabuses and is increasingly coming to be seen as the preserve of only the rich? Music has the ability to enrich all children’s lives, throughout their lives.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I remind the noble Viscount, as I am sure he knows, that music is compulsory in all maintained schools from the ages of five to 14. After the age of 14, all pupils in maintained schools must be offered the opportunity to study at least one subject in the arts.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, my grand- daughter went to a splendid primary school, Eleanor Palmer, in Camden, where every child aged nine had to learn a musical instrument—whatever it might be; the recorder or anything else—for a year. Does the Minister think that is something that could be pushed in primary schools?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

We believe that the network of music hubs we have set up gives children choice, including specialist individual music tuition in an individual subject, and for other children perhaps group singing or other activities.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Black, has had the same answers in the same kinds of debates for many years, since he has been asking this really important question. It is very clear that music education enhances memory, improves dexterity, includes collaboration and is a major part of learning. Indeed, it has been shown repeatedly that it improves and facilitates learning in other subjects. However, not even sufficient instruments are available in primary schools, despite what the noble Baroness asserts. There should be far more done to ensure music is an essential part of the curriculum. Does the noble Baroness agree?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I absolutely agree that it is an essential part of the curriculum: that is why it is compulsory in all maintained schools. I go back to the work of the music education hubs, which have had fantastic outreach into schools but have also linked schools and the children in those schools with music groups in their communities, so they can expand their interests.

[Lord Lingfield (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware, following my noble friend Lord Black’s point, that whereas 85% of independent schools have school orchestras, only 12% of state schools do? While the music hubs she has mentioned indeed do a good job in providing individual instrumental tuition, the best way of encouraging young people to love music is to give them the opportunity to play in school-based orchestras and ensembles. Will the new national plan please take this into account?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The new national plan is being led by my noble friend Lady Fleet, leading a team of experts from the industry, education and other relevant fields, with a focus on making sure that music education is available to all those children noble Lords have referred to, both regionally and in terms of disadvantage and diversity.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the figures enunciated by the noble Lord, Lord Black, are indeed compelling. They are very largely the result of the English baccalaureate being introduced and will not be offset by the updated national music plan, to which the Minister referred. In the 2019 Tory manifesto, there was a pledge to introduce an arts premium in all secondary schools, with the aim of “enriching” the experience of all pupils. That was reinforced in 2020 in the Budget by the Chancellor, offering a £90 million arts premium. Both of these promises have been reneged on. Should we be concerned that the man who, as Education Secretary, introduced the English baccalaureate is now the man entrusted with delivering the so-called levelling-up agenda?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think we should be extremely comforted that the man who introduced the English baccalaureate and has been one of the leading energetic forces of reform is leading the levelling-up agenda.

Cryptocurrencies

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

15:18

Asked by

[Lord Haskel]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to regulate and supervise the use of cryptocurrencies.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Her Majesty’s Treasury and UK authorities have taken a series of actions to support innovation while mitigating risks to stability and market integrity. These include launching a new anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing regime for crypto assets in 2020, and consulting on a proposal to ensure that crypto assets, known as stablecoins, meet the same high standards expected of other payment methods. The Government will issue our response to this consultation shortly. In January, the Government announced our intention to legislate to bring certain crypto assets into the scope of financial promotions regulation, requiring them to be fair, clear and not misleading.

[Lord Haskel (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her response, which certainly deals with the marketing and promotion of crypto but does not deal with its actual use. For example, as reported in today’s Financial Times, crypto is being used as a way round the financial sanctions against Russia and can be used to get round the controls of the proposed economic crime Bill. Does the Minister agree with the Financial Stability Board that this poses a risk to the stability of traditional currencies and public security? Will the Government listen to these concerns and apply strong, prudential controls? Most importantly, will they give agencies the resources and powers to enforce controls, and, for example, call on the G20 to co-ordinate international regulation and supervision?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

In my original Answer I did not only talk about the financial promotion of crypto assets; I also talked about the regulation of stablecoin. In response to the noble Lord’s point about the anti-money laundering regulations and counterterrorist financing regulations which apply to crypto assets, I would like to reassure noble Lords that the regulations imposing sanctions on Russia apply to crypto assets. Legislation being introduced this week in the economic crime Bill will give the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation the powers it needs to enforce financial sanctions.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Does my noble friend not think that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is very important in the current context of sanctions? Is it a practical proposition to ask the providers of cryptocurrency facilities to remove from their list anyone with a Russian email address?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I absolutely agree on the importance of this issue. On firms placing blocks on Russian transactions, the Government and the FCA have communicated with crypto firms to ensure that they understand their obligations with regards to sanctions, which include applying risk-based controls to mitigate the risk of sanctions evasion. However, we do not require that all Russian persons have their accounts suspended or frozen; that would not be in line with our current approach.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that cryptocurrencies, which are unfortunately named, and all digital assets are widely misunderstood? Does she further agree that they are here, we have them—more than 3 million people in this country already hold them—and when they are properly regulated, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, would have us do, they will be an important and innovative growth opportunity for the UK economy? Cryptocurrencies were referred to by another noble Lord this week as “the beast”. Will the Minister be “the beauty” whose good offices turn the beast into a handsome prince?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I agree with all the points that the noble Lord makes. Earlier this week I tried to emphasise that, while we are cognisant of risks from certain types of crypto assets and will regulate appropriately, we are also keen to see the opportunities for the technology that lies behind these and want to promote innovation in a secure way.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot resist the temptation to engage a Minister on this issue for the third day in a row. From January 2020 firms carrying out crypto asset activities in the UK have had to comply with the money laundering, terrorist financing and transfer of funds regulations and to register with the FCA. The FCA helpfully publish a list of 220 or more businesses that appear to be, in its words,

“carrying on crypto asset activity that is not registered with (the FCA)”

for anti-money laundering purposes. I have given the Minister notice of my question, which is: why are we allowing—if we are—non-compliant crypto asset businesses to trade with impunity, and when can we expect that they will be put out of business?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I hope the third time is at least in part the charm. It is a criminal offence for a crypto asset exchange provider or custodian wallet provider to operate in the UK without anti-money laundering registration, and the FCA is empowered to take enforcement action against such a firm and its offices. The FCA is contacting firms on this list to establish whether they are operating in the UK, and it will take appropriate follow-up action.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I would like to pick my noble friend up on the Answer she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. My understanding is that the Government have consulted on the Financial Action Task Force’s recommendation that international standards be brought in to clamp down on crypto- currencies being used for money laundering, terrorist financing and sanctions busting. There was a consultation last summer, and my understanding is that it ended on 14 October. Can she be very precise, given the current international situation and crisis we are in: when will the Government implement these recommendations?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will have to write to my noble friend with the precise answer to that question, but I can say that there were discussions at the G7 yesterday, in part on this issue, following which we are considering how the UK along with its allies can prevent crypto assets emerging as loopholes to evade sanctions. Also, at an international level we will seek to intensify our lobbying efforts to drive improved anti-money laundering and counterterrorist financing regulation, licensing and supervision across other jurisdictions, as well as the UK.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, at this moment, thanks to economic sanctions, ordinary Russians effectively cannot transfer from roubles into currencies such as dollars and pounds, but they can move into crypto if they are not one of the named sanctioned individuals. There are exceptions: the exchange Coinbase has shut Russia out entirely, and so have some others. Binance has not and, notably, is registered in the Cayman Islands. On Monday, the Minister said she would look to talk to those exchanges and make sure that they understood that they had to follow the advice of the Ukrainian Government and shut out Russia. Has she done so, and why are the Cayman Islands not co-operating?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I did take the point that the noble Baroness raised back to the Treasury. As I said in an earlier answer, on blocking Russian transactions, the position is that firms are currently obliged to apply risk-based controls to mitigate the risk of sanctions evasion, rather than taking a blanket approach.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, I do indeed believe that this is a beast that needs to be tamed. Has my noble friend read the comments of the Governor of the Bank of England, who said of cryptos:

“It’s not a financial stability issue today, but it has all the potential to be one, particularly if the system starts getting leverage into it”?


Does this not underline the need for some sort of regulation if we are to avoid the problems we saw in 2008, when financial institutions and others dealt with products that were not fully understood and not properly regulated, leading to a major recession?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I have indeed read those comments by the Governor of the Bank of England. My noble friend is absolutely right that the situation is dynamic and the market in crypto assets is growing. That is why the Bank of England is monitoring crypto assets’ financial stability. It is also why the Cryptoassets Taskforce, the Treasury, the Financial Conduct Authority and Bank of England are taking an approach to regulate aspects of crypto assets, particularly those that pose the greatest threat to our financial stability.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, there is no specific tax legislation relating to cryptocurrency assets, so holders of them are instead covered by broader tax rules, which is highly unsatisfactory. How long do the Government need to deal with this problem?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, profits from trading in and gains from disposing of crypto assets are taxed in the same way and at the same rate as those from other assets, as the noble Lord says. HMRC’s Cryptoassets Manual is one of the most detailed publications from any tax administration and explains the tax consequences for different types of transactions involving crypto assets, for both businesses accepting them and individuals using them.

Investments: Environmental, Social and Governance Criteria

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

15:28

Asked by

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the level of demand for investments that are advertised as meeting Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria; and what steps they are taking, if any, to ensure that such investments are in line with (1) the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals, and (2) the Paris Agreement on climate change.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, demand for sustainable finance is growing rapidly. Some 49% of UK-managed assets now integrate ESG factors, and there is strong demand from consumers and investors for such assets. The Government are committed to ensuring that this growing market is well regulated and that the UK is the best place in the world for sustainable finance. That is why the Government have taken world-leading action to green our financial system, safeguard consumer interests and prevent greenwashing.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. I know that she is aware of the recent article in the Financial Times, entitled “ESG: the next mis-selling scandal?” This suggested that there were strongly misleading claims being put on financial products labelled as green, sustainable, ESG, et cetera. Does the Minister agree that no product should be so labelled if it is not compliant with the Paris and, indeed, Glasgow climate agreements, international biodiversity treaties and the sustainable development goals? Given that report and many others, do the Government not need to act urgently to ensure that there is adequate regulation or legislation to make sure that people are actually getting what they believe they are putting their money into?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. That is why the UK is developing an economy-wide regime for ESG disclosure, focusing in the first instance on those requirements related to climate change. Alongside that, the FCA is creating a consumer-facing label, so that consumers seeking to invest in ESG products know what they are investing in and that it meets the high standards that they would expect.

[Lord Oates (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the comments made yesterday by the chair of the US Securities and Exchange Commission? He said of the ESG funds:

“When I think about these questions, I’m reminded of walking down the aisle of a grocery store and seeing a product like fat-free milk … in that case you can see objectives figures like grams of fat … Investors should be able to drill down and see the ingredients underlying these funds.”


What activity is the FCA taking to ensure that such detail is provided? Is there co-ordination with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

On the point about co-operation with the United States, I will have to check and write to the noble Lord. On the FCA, in addition to developing this consumer-facing label so that people can, with transparency, understand what they are investing in, it is also looking at the question of regulating the firms and providers that look at ESG ratings and providing that information also.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the Government on their commitment to green finance and on encouraging sustainable investing. Following on from the previous Question by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, will the Minister tell us what assessment the Government have made of the impact in terms of climate change of the so-called mining of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, which, in itself, seems to have caused more greenhouse gas emissions per annum than many countries over the last year or two? Are the Government concerned about the sustainability of crypto from that perspective?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We are aware of the huge energy use that can be involved in these currencies. The UK is developing a green taxonomy, which will make us the first country in the world to make disclosures aligned with our Paris and other commitments mandatory economy-wide, including the financial-services sector. That will bring transparency over the climate impacts of firms’ activities and allow the market and consumers to respond accordingly.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in recent days, we have seen a variety of organisations announce their intention to divest from investments in, or associated with, Russia. This is a welcome response to Vladimir Putin’s ongoing and flagrant breaches of international law in Ukraine. While it is not for government to dictate how private organisations invest their money going forward, what steps are Ministers taking to promote investment opportunities that are greener, socially responsible and likely to be of long-term economic benefit to the UK, as well as our friends and neighbours?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The work that we are doing to green finance and green our economy means that there will be far greater transparency on the impact of firms on climate change and the wider environment. This will allow firms to make those kinds of decisions. The noble Lord talked about divestment. In terms of our approach or view on that with regard to climate activities, we expect investors to use SDR disclosures to integrate climate into stewardship activities. That may eventually lead to divestment, but beforehand, they may use their position as investors in major companies to encourage them to greener positions before considering divestment altogether.

[Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an adviser to Banco Santander and apologise because I probably should have mentioned that when I spoke on the previous Question. Can my noble friend clarify, in the Government’s approach to the green taxonomy and ESG, how nuclear and certain types of gas power stations will be classified? Will they be classified as green and environmental?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Government set up a specific panel to look at those very questions, and I cannot pre-empt the outcome of its work.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I understand that the noble Baroness cannot prejudge what the panel will say on the green taxonomy. However, does she agree that it is essential, if that taxonomy is to be useful both in this country and internationally, that it is both science- based and free of vested interests?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

Yes, I agree with the noble Baroness on that point. I think the approach that the UK has taken to date to this whole area meets that test and will continue to do so.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

The director of the think tank InfluenceMap said about the same FT article to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred, that if you label something that invests in fossil fuels “sustainable”, and there is a whole body of scientific opinion that new gas, oil and coal production is incompatible with net-zero targets, there is probably quite a good chance that the fund is being mis-sold in some way. Does the Minister agree that a legal definition of greenwashing is urgently needed to prevent mis-selling of financial products?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think we will be taking quite that approach to a legal definition of greenwashing. We will, through the green taxonomy, provide a clear way by which firms are transparent and what counts towards their sustainability claims, accompanied by regulation from the FCA on the consumer-facing label, but we will also look at whether firms that provide ESG data and ratings should be included in regulation.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

The noble Baroness who asked the Question referred to the case for fresh legislation in this area. Do the Government believe that further legislation is required; and, if so, when will it be introduced?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I believe much can be done under existing powers in FCA regulation and the UK’s green taxonomy, but if any legislation is needed, it will be put forward in the usual way.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, many investors are saying that with the EU, the UK, the US and other countries choosing different definitions for their green taxonomy, it is becoming almost impossible to work around and through this confusing, complex system. What are the Government, together with other centres, doing to try to come to a single, clear definition that the world can rely on?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a good point. The UK is working with the International Sustainability Standards Board to develop global sustainability reporting standards. We are also signed up to an initiative that combines the UK and China to create a globally recognised approach to the green taxonomy that will be common across different jurisdictions.

National Farmers’ Union

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Question

15:39

Asked by

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the remarks by Minette Batters, president of the National Farmers’ Union, on 23 February, about the challenges facing farming.

[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. Defra continues to actively engage with the farming industry to deliver the changes we are implementing to support a strong and thriving agricultural sector, including measures to support productivity, raise standards and deliver environmental public goods. The NFU president raised many interesting and wide-ranging points during her keynote conference speech on 22 February, and we welcome them as a constructive contribution to the ongoing debate on the future of our agricultural industry.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

I thank the Minister for his reply. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of our nation’s food security in the light of the current conflict between Ukraine and Russia, mindful of the fact that those two nations between them produce 30% of the world’s wheat? In anticipation of the loss of that harvest, the conflict will have a catastrophic impact. Does he agree that now is the moment for us to give active encouragement and increase support to our hard-working farmers as they try to guarantee our nation’s food supply, particularly given that household bills are going up?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate makes some good points. It is now a requirement under the Agriculture Act for the Government to publish where we are on food security in this country, which we did a few weeks ago. It shows that the position has been more or less static for at least two decades, and we want to make sure that we increase the amount of food that we produce locally. It is obviously too early to say what the impact will be on wheat imports as a result of the conflict in Ukraine, but we want to make sure that we are working with other departments so that we are as prepared as possible and that the market is able to adjust itself.

[Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Minister protect British farmers and consumers by ensuring that those companies that have manipulated falsely markets in their own financial interests, as we have discussed before, are not allowed to operate in the United Kingdom market? I point out to him, as I am sure he knows, that one of those companies with a terrible track record of abuse of market opportunities owns two subsidiaries in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Lord is right to point out that it is vital that we protect the agricultural and food supply chain. We have powers in the Agriculture Act that allow us to introduce statutory codes of conduct that increase the transparency of business relationships and protect farmers and others from imbalanced commercial terms. We are currently exercising that in a number of sectors.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

Will my noble friend join me in celebrating livestock farming in this country? He will be aware that much livestock production is conducted by tenant farmers in upland and common land areas. What future does he envisage for tenant and livestock farming?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I and my ministerial colleagues are keen to sustain jobs in agriculture in our uplands and make sure that the support incentives that we give to farmers are accessible to tenant farmers, freeholders and all the varying degrees of the tenanted sector, that there is a future for livestock farming, and that we continue to produce at high standards in a way that the consumer will want.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Is my noble friend aware that the National Farmers’ Union still believes that Defra has been extremely unable to explain to it the full programme that will follow the removal of production subsidies? Is he also aware that the NFU is fed up with a Government who promised to protect farmers and are now signing trade deals that mean that the farmers will be competed with by countries that are not meeting our climate change obligations?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

We as a sovereign nation are negotiating trade deals with other countries. We recognise that some concerns have been expressed around the impact of new trade deals on our farming and food sectors. I reassure the House that our recent agreements with Australia and New Zealand, and, indeed, those with any future partner, will not compromise our high standards. All products imported into the UK will have to, as now, comply with our import requirements.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, already over 40,000 healthy pigs have been culled and the meat thrown away. A further 200,000 pigs are stranded on farms awaiting slaughter with no one available to slaughter them. Does the Minister agree with Minette that the disaster in the pig industry

“should have, and could have, been avoided”,

and that the situation with pig farmers truly is an utter disgrace?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The situation for pig farmers affected by this is serious. That is why we continue to work very closely with the industry. There was a perfect storm of a loss of exports to the Chinese market, disruption to CO₂ supplies and a temporary shortage of labour in the processing sector. We have been working hard on that with the private storage aid, the slaughter incentive payment and a package of measures to address these unique circumstances. On 10 February, my colleague Victoria Prentis chaired a pig summit and she is doing another one on 3 March. We are working really hard to resolve the problems in this sector.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

I speak as a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee and, in fact, in relation to a letter that Minister Prentis sent us in relation to ELMS. She says that the Government are exploring how they can best support leverage of private finance into ELMS. The recent spending review set an ambitious target to raise £500 million in private finance every year to support nature’s recovery to 2027, rising to £1 billion by 2030. Exactly how will the Government commercialise the environmental land management scheme?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I should explain to the House that this is not as part of ELMS. In addition to the support we are giving through the environmental land management scheme, which is ring-fencing the £2.4 billion to the end of this Parliament, we are seriously encouraging green finance similar to the points made in the Question earlier. That is a responsibility I have in Defra. We are taking the publishing of the Treasury’s green taxonomy extremely seriously and making sure that we are focusing what Minette Batters talked about in her speech—the trillions of pounds floating around in the ESG markets —on nature’s recovery and benefiting farmers’ incomes by getting them access to that green finance.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

The call to increase wages for seasonal workers is causing concern among fruit and vegetable growers. While it is important to pay a decent wage, this will lead to food inflation. Given the increase in fuel prices already heralded and those likely to arise from the invasion of Ukraine, does the Minister believe that this is the right time to put added strain on the growers and increase the cost of food?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I think there is a bit of confusion, which again was pointed out by Minette Batters in her speech, in relation to the minimum basic payment and the amount of hours a week that seasonal agricultural workers will be working. We are working hard to resolve that with the Home Office and I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness with information on that.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, where I live in Devon almost every small farmer has given up farming. What are the Government doing to help small farmers?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The common agricultural policy and the basic payment scheme were, and to an extent still are, not small-farmer friendly. We want to make sure that the environmental land management scheme is much more focused on supporting smaller farms. I have visited farmers on the edge of Dartmoor who rent 100 or 200 acres and have grazing rights on Dartmoor. I realise the difficulty they have in gaining a living from their activities. We want to make sure that they have a living, and that the whole support network that we are providing and the addition of green finance will help them as much as it will help other farmers.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that what has happened in Europe in the last week should be a warning for us, because the environmental schemes that we have just passed through this House in two Bills are inevitably going to lead to a reduction in the amount of land actually used for farming for food? What is happening indicates that we cannot rely simply on being able to buy cheaper food from other countries. Will he commit to maintaining the amount of land still used for farming and to encouraging food as the primary enterprise of farmers?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

The noble Baroness makes a very good point and it was well made in Minette Batters’s speech at the conference. I entirely agree with her that we do not want to create some sort of idyllic garden in the countryside and export our carbon and other footprints to other countries with worse livestock and environmental standards. We want to continue to see farmers producing food of the highest possible quality, and that is what underpins our reforms.

Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL]

Order of Commitment discharged
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment

15:50

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

Cigarette Stick Health Warnings Bill [HL]

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment

15:50

Moved by

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I too understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

Onshore Wind Bill [HL]

Order of Commitment discharged
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Order of Commitment

15:51

Moved by

[Baroness Hayman]

That the order of commitment be discharged.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

Motion agreed.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) Regulations 2022

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:51

Moved by

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 17 January be approved.

Relevant document: 28th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 23 February.

Motion agreed.

Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Motions to Approve

15:52

Moved by

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 January be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 23 February.

Motions agreed.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day)

15:52

Relevant documents: 7th and 9th Reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, 11th Report from the Constitution Committee, 18th and 19th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 15: Asylum claims by persons with connection to safe third State: inadmissibility

Amendment 31

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

31: Clause 15, leave out Clause 15

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 15 puts into the Bill an existing immigration law on inadmissibility that makes any asylum claim inadmissible in a number of circumstances, including if the claimant has passed through, or has a connection to, a safe third country. The result of a finding of inadmissibility is that, unless the Secretary of State decides that there are exceptional circumstances, the claimant will be denied access to the UK’s asylum system for a “reasonable period”, currently defined as six months in Home Office policy, while the UK seeks to transfer them to “any other safe country”. With the huge backlog and delay currently in the system, it is impossible to understand how adding another six months to the asylum process will help an already dysfunctional system.

Clause 15 as it stands is neither acceptable nor deliverable in practice. We also have concerns on the definitions of “safe third state” and “connection”, and on the lack of relevant international agreements. Serious concerns have been raised by the UNHCR and the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights, among others. There is an absence of adequate safeguards against returning individuals to countries to which they will be denied rights owed to them under the refugee convention.

Safe returns as part of an international asylum system are not new and are accepted under agreed conditions, but this clause does not provide for safe reciprocal return agreements. Even as it stands, the Government do not have returns agreements with EU member states, namely the safe third countries that refugees are most likely to have passed through. Instead, this provides for cases to be stalled and unilaterally declared inadmissible, without a requirement for a relevant returns agreement but on the basis of dubious connections to another state, where a person may or may not be able to enter an asylum system. We are talking here about asylum, not general immigration.

The clause provides that a claim is inadmissible if a person has a connection to a third state. It then clarifies that a connection can be made with a state that a person had never been to. It further clarifies that a person can be removed to a completely different state other than the one that they have been deemed to have a connection with. The UNHCR has described this as

“a significant and highly problematic departure from international practice and UK case law.”

I will endeavour to be brief. I appreciate that this is Report and not a rerun of Committee, but in Committee the Government accepted on more than one occasion that we needed to have returns agreements in place. There was no direct answer given to a question asked by my noble friend Lord Dubs, who sought confirmation that to date we do not have an agreement with any country for the return of the people whom we are now talking about. This is about asylum. The answer no doubt is that we just do not have any such agreements. Despite saying in Committee on more than one occasion that we needed formal returns agreements in place to return people, the Government later went on to claim that we do not necessarily need formal return agreements in place, and that we could have

“formal and informal, diplomatic and otherwise.”—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1106.]

The reality is that we need formal return agreements in a situation where the number of people the Government intend to deem inadmissible will be high. In that situation, you cannot address this through unstated, unclear, ill-defined, informal ad hoc arrangements, as the Government seek to suggest. This clause is clearly based on the presumption that the Government can persuade other countries who already take greater asylum responsibility than the UK to accept people from the UK and agree to relieve us of a substantial part of the modest responsibility we currently take.

The reality of Clause 15 is that no such agreements are likely to materialise in the foreseeable future, as was clear from the debate in Committee. Dublin III has now gone and not been replaced. That is why my Amendment 32 provides the much-needed safeguards that Clause 15 can come into force only if the UK has safe returns agreements with third states and not before. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 15 allows the Secretary of State to declare an asylum claim inadmissible if the person has a connection with a “safe third state”. Because it is a declaration of inadmissibility, there is no appeal other than judicial review, and there is nothing to stop the Home Secretary from removing the person to another third state with which they have no connection in the meantime, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained. A connection to a safe third state includes where a claim for asylum in that country has been refused, a country where they could have claimed asylum but failed to do so, or where the Home Secretary thinks that it would have been reasonable to expect them to have claimed asylum in another country.

16:00

By that definition, any refugee who has travelled through a so-called safe third state could be considered to have a connection with that country and therefore risks having their claim for asylum in the UK being ruled inadmissible, and therefore not even being considered by the Home Office. My understanding is that currently inadmissibility creates a six-month delay in processing an application while the Home Office tries to deport the person, and that if the Bill is passed that delay will become indefinite.

The likelihood of the UK Government being able to send back an asylum seeker to any third country that the Government have no agreement with appears unlikely, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said. The other place may be bored with too many take-out amendments. As an alternative, therefore, Amendment 32, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to which I have added my name, would ensure that the powers in this clause would be brought into force only once the Government have agreed a formal returns agreement with the third country that the Government claim the asylum seeker has a connection with and to which they intend to send them. Amendment 32 is not as good as taking out the clause but it is better than no change at all, so we will support this amendment in the event of a Division.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, the provisions for an admissible asylum claim, where there is a connection —as defined in new Section 80B, which is to be inserted into the 2002 Act—are quite plainly contrary to the refugee convention and a breach of the UK’s obligations under it. In particular, the conditions in new Section 80C(4), which is where a claim could have been made to a third state—the claimant was present in a state eligible to receive and offer a safe space for him or her—and new Section 80C(5), where the claimant should have made a claim to a safe third state whether or not he or she had ever visited or been associated with it, are both plain breaches of the convention and find no place in its wording.

Condition 4 in new Section 80C is really another way of stating the coming directly from the country of persecution requirement in Clause 11 and Clause 36(1). On Monday this House rejected the Government’s interpretation of Article 31 of the convention in relation to that requirement, by rejecting Clause 11 as part of the Bill. With regard to condition 5 there is nothing whatever in the convention to justify rejecting as inadmissible a claim to asylum by a refugee as defined by the convention in the circumstances specified there. The only explanation, or example, given in the Explanatory Notes, is where the asylum seeker has close family members in the safe third country, whether or not there is another connection of any kind whatever.

Both these conditions are a rewriting of the convention and not a legitimate interpretation of it. The fact that Clause 15 provides, in new Section 80B of the 2002 Act, that a decision that a claim is not admissible because of an asylum seeker’s connection to a safe third state is not subject to a right of appeal, makes Clause 15 an all the more egregious breach of the convention. There is, in effect, no legal redress for the refugee if the Secretary of State has declared the asylum claim inadmissible under the proposed safe third state provisions.

Logically this leads to the conclusion that Clause 15 should be left out of the Bill. I am content, however, to support the alternative approach of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, in Amendment 32, which is to fix a start date for the Clause 15 provisions if a formal returns agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom and a third state to which it is said the asylum seeker has a connection.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I say at the outset that the Government have been consistent and clear about their belief that people who require international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, rather than make dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK to claim asylum here.

Inadmissibility processes, in particular the first safe country principle, are well established, both in the UK, through long-standing measures in the Immigration Rules, and internationally, including as part of the Common European Asylum System. For example, the procedures directive recognised at recital 22 that

“Member States should not be obliged to assess the substance of an application for international protection where a first country of asylum has granted the applicant refugee status or otherwise sufficient protection and the applicant will be readmitted to that country.”

An overriding objective of these processes is to prevent secondary movements by those who have already reached safety. By definition, that is not about denying safety to those who need it but about having rules which aim to reduce unnecessary travel across borders by those who are already safe.

Amendment 31 seeks to remove third-country inadmissibility powers from primary legislation altogether. It would weaken our ability to deploy inadmissibility processes appropriately and decisively within a strong legal framework, and with that, erode our ability to deter unsafe migration and focus our resources on those most in need of our help.

We are confident that the measures in Clause 15 are fair, appropriate and fully in line with our international obligations. The clause sets out the strict circumstances in which a person’s behaviour or circumstances could lead to inadmissibility action. It requires decision-makers to take account of exceptional mitigating factors that may apply when considering those circumstances. It sets out minimum criteria that must be met by any country before it can be regarded as a safe third country of return, including it being one where a person would not be at risk of persecution, would not experience a breach of Article 3 ECHR rights, and would not be sent to another place where they would be persecuted.

The primary protection afforded refugees under the refugee convention and its protocol is non-refoulement, including no onward refoulement. It is therefore clear that non-refoulement is the primary requirement of “safety”. The same is true for protection afforded under Article 3 of the ECHR. Furthermore, an individual may not meet the definition of refugee under the convention but still require protection. A state may still be safe for them where they will not be refouled, even though they are not a refugee. Therefore, our criteria for determining whether a country is safe, and for subsequently making a claim inadmissible, upholds the UK’s obligations under international law.

Nothing in Clause 15 requires extensive delay in processing inadmissibility decisions. It is right that we consider inadmissibility action and, where appropriate, seek the agreement of the relevant third country, or countries, for the person’s admission there. In some cases, particularly where we are reliant on case-by-case requests to partners, this may take some time, but we have not operated, and will not operate, the inadmissibility system in a way that puts someone in indefinite limbo, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about—able to access neither the asylum system in the country of proposed removal nor the UK system. That would be contrary to the object and purpose of the refugee convention. Our existing processes, which Clause 15 strengthens, are clear that where return cannot be arranged within a reasonable period, the person’s claim would be admitted to the UK asylum system for substantive consideration. That ensures compatibility with the refugee convention.

Individuals will have an opportunity to explain their actions and circumstances prior to claiming asylum in the UK, and that explanation will be carefully considered in deciding whether an inadmissibility decision is appropriate. They will also be able to make representations on why any safe third state is not safe in their particular circumstances. Any decision to declare a claim inadmissible and remove an individual will be subject to the standard principles of public law, including rationality. The inadmissibility provisions are therefore compatible with the refugee convention. For these reasons, I do not agree with the amendment seeking to leave out the clause.

Turning to Amendments 32 and 86, as we have stated on previous occasions, the UK-EU joint political declaration made clear the UK’s intention to engage in bilateral discussions with the most concerned member states to discuss suitable practical arrangements on issues around asylum and illegal migration. We continue to do that with EU member states on these issues. We have been clear that formal agreements, though valuable, are not the only way in which an inadmissible asylum seeker may be accepted for removal by a safe third country. I think it is right to seek removals on a case-by-case basis where appropriate and, with the consent of the relevant country, make that removal. This approach has formed part of our inadmissibility process since the changes to the Immigration Rules in December 2020—and, until the Bill’s provisions come into force, we will continue to rely on the Immigration Rules.

The structure of case-by-case removal arrangements will not be uniform for each country of removal. A wide range of factors will still affect the formality and administration around such removals, not least the diverse organisational structures in place in the third country, the levels of centralised and decentralised decision-making, and other circumstances that may be specific to the individual. These arrangements will inevitably vary, but the framework in which cases are considered, within which third countries are assessed for safety and claimants are progressed to removal, will not. We have a clear and consistent approach to these fundamental and important issues, and we stand by our international obligations.

I do not agree that these provisions are unworkable without formal agreements in place. We aim to make the process work as a whole and to return people where appropriate. Where it becomes clear that an individual cannot be removed to a safe country, either because we do not have formal returns agreements in place or because a case-by-case removal cannot be agreed within a reasonable period, the individual’s asylum claim will be considered in the UK. To go back to the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I say that this will ensure that we do not keep people in limbo, in accordance with our obligations under the refugee convention. I do not think this amendment is required and ask that it be withdrawn.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, can she clarify? She insists that the Government’s intention is not to put asylum seekers into indefinite limbo; in other words, if the Government attempt to send them back to a safe third country and fail to do so, at the moment there is a six-month time limit on that. Can the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an indefinite status of limbo?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Given what I have already stated about an indefinite state of limbo, surely the Minister’s words would have some sort of weight. I have also said that any decision to declare a claim inadmissible and remove an individual will be subject to standard principles of public law, and that we will consider their obligation within a reasonable time.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that there are two amendments down: one takes the clause out and the other seeks to amend the clause to provide for safe return agreements to be put in place. I appreciate that other noble Lords can ask for a vote, but I will not be seeking a vote on taking the clause out. Instead, I intend to seek a vote on the amendment we have put down.

16:15

I appreciate what the Minister has said about Clause 15 and the arguments she has made as to why it should remain in the Bill. I will, however, come back to the issue of return agreements, which is essentially what our amendment seeks to address. Those safe return agreements must be in place before Clause 15 is brought into effect. There was no argument from the Government about this in Committee. I appreciate that the Minister was speaking on behalf of the Government, but what she said was:

“I am not disagreeing with the need to have formal arrangements in place to return people. On that we are at one.”

She then said:

“I think it is both. We need to assess people on a case-by-case basis and we need to have return agreements in place.”

Subsequently, she said:

“I do not accept that Clause 15 is meaningless. I am agreeing that we need to have return agreements in place. I do not think anyone would disagree with that point.”—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1104.]

This is all that my amendment is seeking to say. Before you bring it into effect, have these safe return agreements in place in respect of one or more states. So clearly I will have to put my amendment to a vote, since I am not confident the Government actually agree with it, despite what they said in Committee. All my amendment is seeking to do is put on the face of the Bill what, as far as I am concerned, the Government were agreeing with in Committee.

I have made clear what my intentions are, and I will not be seeking to put the stand part Motion to the test. However, when reference is made to Amendment 32, I will be seeking a vote on that.

Amendment 31 withdrawn.

Amendment 32

Moved by

[Lord Rosser]

32: After Clause 15, insert the following new Clause—
“Safe third State: commencement
(1) The Secretary of State may exercise the power in section 83(1) so as to bring section 15 into force only if the condition in subsection (2) is met.(2) The condition in this subsection is that the United Kingdom has agreed formal returns agreements with one or more third States.(3) A “formal returns agreement’’ means an agreement which provides for the safe return of a person making an asylum claim (a “claimant”) to a State which is party to the agreement, where the claimant has a connection to that State.”

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

16:17

Division 1

Ayes: 221

Noes: 172

16:37

Clause 18: Asylum or human rights claim: damage to claimant’s credibility

Amendment 33

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

33: Clause 18, page 22, line 36, at end insert—
“(6C) This section also applies to failure by the claimant to produce identifying documents when entering the United Kingdom or when intercepted in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 33 and thank my noble friend Lord Green of Deddington for his support. This amendment would add the failure to produce identifying documents as a factor that could be taken into account in an asylum or human rights claim and might damage a claimant’s credibility.

The background to this is my concern that migrants, especially those coming across the channel in boats, are destroying any documents they have because they believe—usually on the advice of the people smugglers— that they will secure better treatment under the asylum system. I fear that the system we operate makes this a reality.

My concern increased when I saw the results of a freedom of information request by Migration Watch UK, which showed that just 2% of the thousands who have made their way to the UK in small boats across the channel are in possession of a passport. Between January 2018 and June 2021, there were 16,500 such arrivals, and only 317 were found to have a passport at the time of being processed in the UK. This figure also dropped from 4% to 1% during that period, so something was happening.

Asylum claimants found to have destroyed their documents can be prosecuted under a 2004 law passed by the then Labour Government, but there were only two prosecutions in 2019—a sharp decline since 2013, when there were 49 prosecutions, 44 of which were successful. The fact is that by destroying their documents, migrants make it harder for the authorities to identify the claimant and assess their claim.

In responding to a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, emphasised the case-by-case nature of decision-making, which I think was welcome to noble Lords. Clause 18 of the Bill before us adds two new behaviours to Section 8 of the 2004 Act: providing late evidence without good reason and not acting in good faith. He hinted that the destruction of documents would be an example of the behaviour that a deciding authority might think was not in good faith and concluded that my amendment was not necessary. However, when pressed by my noble friend Lord Green, he refused to confirm the documentation example and wished to leave the matter to decision-makers and the courts. This is not always the safest or cheapest approach.

Against the worrying factual background that I have been able to set out today, I believe that this is much too uncertain and likely to lead to a continuation of the current deplorable practice. The lack of clarity is an invitation to the people smugglers to persist with their wicked advice, and their wicked and dangerous trade. My Lords, what are the Government going to do about it?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

This is a thoroughly nasty amendment. That is all I have to say about it.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I will not be quite as brief as that, but I will try to be brief.

I rise to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which I have co-sponsored. It is surely right that the failure to produce identifying documents should be a factor—I put it no stronger than that—in assessing the credibility of a claimant. The destruction of identity documents has long been a means of undermining our asylum system. As I mentioned in Committee, we overcame a similar problem for those arriving by air simply by photographing the documents before they got on the plane, so if they stuck them down the loo, it was not going to help them, and that had been going on for some considerable time.

It is no accident that today, 98% of all cross-channel arrivals, whether by truck or boat, have no documents. Indeed, it is not in dispute that people smugglers instruct them to destroy any documents to reduce the risk of being returned to their home countries. In many cases, the applicants are making fools of us. Surely, the least we can do is to specify in law a requirement to take into consideration the absence of documents as a factor in judging the applicant’s credibility. I can think of no reason why that should not be the case and I strongly support the amendment put down by the noble Baroness.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I rise briefly to support this amendment. I had an opportunity years ago, when we were part of the European Union, to participate in an inquiry about FRONTEX and to go to Heathrow Airport to see the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Green, has just addressed. We were asked to be there at 8.30 in the morning to see what happened when people arrived at Heathrow on the overnight flights. Issues that have since been cured, largely, were then putting the immigration officers under enormous strain.

For example, on the day that we were there, a young man from Australia arrived who claimed to be British, but he came without any documentation; and a man from Brazil arrived for a holiday but without any money, so he was obviously going to work. Most significantly, a man on a flight from Nigeria claimed that he could not speak any of the languages available through interpreters at terminal 3, which is quite a wide range. I asked the reason for that, and they said that he will not speak until the flights back to Nigeria have left, and then he will start to speak, because otherwise he will be put back on the next flight to Nigeria. This was a prevalent issue, but I think it has now largely been tackled for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Green. It was a huge gap in our ability to provide control. Those measures are not applicable to channel crossings, but we do need to find ways to tackle this issue, just as the noble Lord, Lord Green, described how we tackled it at airports. In the absence of that, we need to make it clear in law that the lack of clarity referred to by my noble friend when she moved the amendment should be taken into account by immigration officials.

16:45

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness who moved this amendment and her supporter to consider the actual conditions of refugees who have passed through Europe and managed to get somewhere near our shores. They usually face closed frontiers. They probably live rough over a considerable period, being chased, for example, by the French police and the garde républicaine de sûreté. They are tear gassed, pepper sprayed and so on. Can they always be expected to have retained their correct documentation?

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been following this Bill since its inception. I have not spoken up to this point, but I have been increasingly concerned about the effect of this particular legislative initiative and its potential impact on our reputation internationally, which had been very good in this area up to now, largely because of our role as one of the founding signatories of the refugee convention.

The present situation is one about which the Government are clearly not being frank with the public and the House. My noble friend Lord Rosser quoted chapter and verse very effectively just now when he quoted the Minister saying that at one point she was in favour of, and at another point against, having reciprocal return agreements with other countries. If she wants me to give way to her, I am happy to do so. We should know the answer to that. We should know the answers to things we do not know the answer to. For example, in this country, are we committed to not breaking up families? Can we assume it is a guiding and regular principle that we will not break up families? If we do break up families of asylum seekers or otherwise, we shall be acting completely outside the pale of civilised behaviour. That would be extremely worrying to an awful lot of us.

The Government are known, in international rumour, to be in negotiation with a number of African countries—Rwanda, for example—on establishing some sort of camp or facility to take failed asylum seekers from this country, but we do not know what the terms of such an arrangement would be. The Government have not been frank enough to tell us. There are a lot of rumours going around, most of which are very unattractive. I hope the Government might do something about that.

There is a fundamental weakness at the root of what the Government are trying to structure here. People who have come in small boats and hidden in lorries have been accused of coming here illegally. Logically, one can see the reason for that accusation, but there is no way in which they can come legally, as far as I can see. The Government should think about setting up an office in, say, Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne-sur-Mer so that there will be some direct contact with these potential illegal immigrants. It would not cost that much. They could make some progress in filling out forms and getting an initial reaction from the bureaucracy to their claim. That might be helpful all round.

The fact is that the Government are proceeding in their own way and have not always been very straight- forward with us. I hope that changes. I think all of us remember from our school days the Spartans in ancient Greece. They led a terrible life and were third-class citizens.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, with great respect, is the noble Lord actually referring to the specific amendment under discussion?

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

I am endeavouring to do so but I shall not stand here for very long.

The ancient Spartans were helots. Their problem was that they had no rights—they had a growing population but no rights at all. I am very much afraid that if we take on board illegal immigrants and send them to some place in Africa, they will have no legal rights. It would be very worrying to have a population with no rights at all in a country that believes that that is firmly based on the law.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Order.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

If I may—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

No. My Lords, this is Report. First, we are allowed to speak only once during a debate. Secondly, even if noble Lords were not here for Second Reading or Committee, they should not be making Second Reading or Committee speeches on Report.

We cannot support this amendment because there is no differentiation between documents that are genuinely lost or stolen. We know that people smugglers control the people they are smuggling, including stealing and taking their documents away from them deliberately, so it may not be the fault of the asylum seeker that they do not have a document. This amendment and the other provisions in the Bill seem to ignore the fact that officials and tribunals are quite capable of deciding, on the basis of the evidence, what weight they place on the evidence that is provided to them and what should be considered in terms of the credibility of the claimant, without what is contained in the Bill or in this amendment.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, on the basis of a freedom of information request, that only 2% of asylum seekers were in possession of a passport. Only four in 10 Americans have a passport. Is it any wonder that those fleeing war in less developed countries, often when normal government services have completely collapsed, do not have passports? If you are fleeing war, if you are being bombed, if you are being persecuted because of your sexuality or your political views, the first thing on your mind is to get out of that country, not to go to the Government and ask for a passport.

This amendment and the related clauses in the Bill that seem to be telling officials and tribunals what interpretation they should put on evidence should not be supported by this House.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, under Clause 18, where an asylum seeker provides late evidence, this should damage their credibility. Amendment 33 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, would provide that a person’s credibility should also be damaged where that person fails to produce ID documents when they enter the UK or are intercepted at sea. We do not support the clause or believe it should be part of the Bill, so we do not support the addition to it. A person’s credibility should be based, as it always has been, on the full picture and the worth of the evidence that is submitted.

As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, where people are fleeing the horrors of war and risk to life, they may not bring the right documentation, or it may have been lost or stolen along the route. As we can see from recent horrors around the world, I am not sure that it would be anybody’s first priority to go back to wherever they were to find any documentation they might have—it would be to get out of danger. However, under the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Green, they would be penalised: it would be a failure by the claimant to provide identifying documents. Such a carte blanche failure to produce identifying documents would mean that such people seeking asylum would automatically be excluded from doing so. I do not think that that would be something that the country or, indeed, this Chamber would want.

There are other issues I wish to raise that are more relevant to the next amendment; however, if this amendment is put to a vote, we will vote against it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for raising the issue and of course I understand the concerns that lie behind it.

Clause 18 adds two new behaviours to the existing credibility provisions in Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. It introduces the principles that providing late evidence without good reason or not acting in good faith should be damaging to the claimant’s credibility. Where, conversely, there are good reasons for providing evidence late, that would not affect the claimant’s credibility.

The concept that certain conduct should be damaging to credibility is not new. Decision-makers must already consider the claimant’s conduct. It is then open to the Home Office or the courts to decide the extent to which credibility should subsequently be damaged. The focus of Clause 18 is, therefore, the Home Office and then the judicial decision-making process. It is intended to address the issue of late evidence raised in unfounded protection and human rights claims and put beyond doubt that behaviour designed to abuse the system will be taken into account. Clause 18, therefore, is intended to apply to those individuals who have made a protection or human rights claim and have been issued with an evidence notice as per Clause 17. It is not intended to apply, for example, to individuals immediately when intercepted in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.

Against that background, I suggest that Amendment 33 is unnecessary. The destruction, alteration or disposal of a passport without reasonable explanation, or the failure to produce a passport on request to an immigration officer or to the Secretary of State—again, without reasonable explanation—are behaviours to which Section 8 already applies. The good faith requirement in the Bill is intended to address behaviours such as those mentioned in the amendment, as well as any other behaviours that a deciding authority thinks are not in good faith. Specific instances of a lack of good faith are necessarily caught by the broader provision that refers to good faith: the greater includes the lesser. Therefore, there is no need to single out the behaviours prescribed in this amendment.

As to the detail of the amendment, I say that verification of someone’s identity normally takes place on land. However, should a claimant be in possession of their passport or identity document and fail to provide this when requested by an immigration officer, Section 8 will apply, as I said. Moreover, where evidence is provided late following receipt of an evidence notice in a protection or human rights claim—again, without good reason—this should be taken into account as damaging the claimant’s credibility.

As this amendment refers to specific examples of behaviour designed to abuse the system, and that type of behaviour as a whole is already caught by the provisions of the Bill, I respectfully suggest that the amendment is necessarily unnecessary. For those reasons, I respectfully invite my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe to withdraw it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this brief debate. The very real problems of refugees, noted by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and of course the fact that some people do not have passports are very well understood by me. That is why my proposal is to add an extra factor that needs to be taken into account, not least to reduce the power and profiteering of the traffickers. As has been said, tribunals and officials can then take a fair view.

Having said that, I think that there seems to be a chink of light in some of the comments from my noble friend Lord Wolfson on how this would work. Perhaps we could discuss further before Third Reading what the Government’s approach will be, the associated regulations and so on. I am very conscious that we need time for many votes today, especially as the electronic system seems a bit slow, so for today I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 33 withdrawn.

Clause 25: Late provision of evidence in asylum or human rights claim: weight

Amendment 34

Moved by

[Baroness Coussins]

34: Clause 25, page 30, line 25, at end insert—
“(2A) The deciding authority must treat evidence provided late as provided late for good reason where the applicant is a child, or where it is reasonable to attribute its lateness to the applicant's experience of, but not limited to —(a) torture,(b) trafficking or modern slavery, or(c) sex or gender based violence, abuse or exploitation.”

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 34 is in my name, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her support. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for meeting me last Friday to discuss this amendment and for agreeing to follow up our discussions with the Home Office. I am hopeful that this is going to lead to a positive outcome.

Clause 25 authorises the deciding authorities to give minimal weight to late evidence submitted by asylum applicants unless there is a good reason for it. My amendment would require the authorities always to assume that there was a good reason for late evidence in certain circumstances: where the applicant is a child or where the reason for lateness could reasonably be attributed to their experience of torture, trafficking or modern slavery, or sex or gender-based violence, abuse or exploitation. I have based that on the evidence to which I referred at Second Reading: that it is widely acknowledged that the trauma associated with sexual violence or trafficking can lead to significant problems with memory and recall, as well as a reluctance to share details which could bring shame, fear or humiliation. Critically, I rely also on existing Home Office guidance, which acknowledges all that and says that an application should not be disadvantaged in those circumstances.

17:00

However, in Committee, the Minister explained why he could not accept the amendment, which was admittedly drawn much more widely at that stage. I accept that one of the flaws in that version of the amendment was that, as he pointed out, there are unintended consequences which are undesirable—for example, the lateness of the evidence could be completely unrelated to the categories of situations that I listed. In addition, he pointed out that listing some categories and not others could, in principle, tie the judiciary’s hands and result in unfairness—for example, treating an applicant who is two days short of an 18th birthday differently from somebody who was 18 two days previously. Other circumstances could equally have resulted in an asylum seeker’s trauma which were not listed—for example, faith-based persecution.

I have tried to adapt and amend the wording of my amendment to accommodate those reasonable objections, and I have done so by not listing the categories of person but by listing experiences and linking directly the attribution of late evidence to those experiences. I have also inserted the words “but not limited to” to try to encompass some of the other circumstances, which would otherwise have resulted in a list as long as the Bill itself.

Another way of coming at the problem of late evidence which the Minister and I discussed is by looking at the crucial role of Home Office guidance, which currently refers to some but not all of the criteria listed in my amendment. It refers to trafficking and sex and gender-based violence, but not to the other conditions or experiences which could equally lead to good reason for late evidence, such as torture, modern slavery, mental health issues or faith-based persecution. With that in mind, the Minister kindly undertook to consult Home Office colleagues over the weekend to see what scope there might be to expand, strengthen and update the Home Office guidance to cover a much broader range of those contingencies. The aim was to see whether that would, in practice, provide sufficient reassurance for asylum seekers suffering the kind of trauma which could account for late evidence, but which would avoid the need for an inevitably selective list being included in the Bill—which might at first sight look like the right thing to do, but which could arguably have the effect of disadvantaging some refugees not caught by the stated categories.

I hoped that my inclusion of the words “but not limited to” could overcome that concern, but I shall be interested to hear what the Minister can report from his discussions with the Home Office to see whether we can find an acceptable way forward through new strengthened and updated Home Office guidance rather than an amendment which, I agree, could risk unintended consequences. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment, which I hope the Minister will be able to respond to positively, given that it has been revised to take account of concerns that he raised in Committee about its wording, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said.

I want to come back to the question of children. I welcome the publication last week of the factsheet on the Bill’s impact on children—better late than never—although it was only by chance that I found out about it, even though I had raised a number of concerns in Committee about the Bill’s failure to protect children. That point was made strongly by children’s organisations such as the Children’s Society. The factsheet, not surprisingly, echoes what the Minister said in Committee about guidance setting out how decision-makers will exercise their discretion with regard to children and more generally on a case-by-case basis.

However, as the Children’s Society warns:

“Assurances that children will be looked after in guidance are not sufficient. Guidance and case-by-case determinations do not provide the legal protection children desperately need. As highlighted in the recent inspection report of Asylum Casework, guidance is often neither followed nor implemented by Home Office caseworkers. Home Office staff themselves stressed ‘they did not have time to consider each case on its own merits, contrary to the guidance they receive’. Leaving decisions that will have a profound impact on a young person’s life to case-by-case determination can trigger further trauma for young and vulnerable claimants.”


Moreover, when the factsheet states:

“The best interests of the child are a primary consideration in every decision taken in respect of the child”,


forgive me if I am sceptical, given that the Court of Appeal last year ruled that the Home Office had failed to take account of the child’s best interests when setting the fee for citizenship registration—an issue to which we will return on day three.

Therefore, I am afraid that I am not reassured by what has been said about guidance and a case-by-case approach. Can the Minister tell us when that guidance will be published? Will organisations working with children seeking asylum be consulted on it? What opportunity will there be for Parliament to consider and provide views on the guidance? I realise that those questions may need to be referred to the Home Office but, if so, I should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to pass them on and request that the Home Office writes to me with the answers.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we support the amendment as far as it goes, particularly the emphasis on those subjected to sex and gender-based violence, abuse or exploitation. However, there are many others, such as those from sexually and gender-diverse communities, who will hesitate to bring forward all the evidence that they rely on in support of their claim. As I said in the last group, and as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, said, officials and tribunals already weigh evidence and credibility but if, in the Bill, the Government insist on leaning on decision-makers in relation to the weight that they should place on late evidence, then this or an expanded amendment should be included; that should also include children.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not want to add much to what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and my noble friend Lady Lister said in support of this important amendment. They outlined some of the problems well.

The amendment relates to Clause 25(2), which says:

“Unless there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late”.


It bedevils any Government that as soon as you state, “Unless there are good reasons”, the argument then becomes, “What do you mean by good reasons?” Then you produce a list and people complain that the list does not include everything. So you state that there will be guidance and then the Government do not produce guidance for people to look at to see whether it is worth it or needs to be improved. I appreciate what the noble Baroness and my noble friend said about engagement with the Minister, but these are real issues because people will be excluded from asylum claims on the basis of late provision of the evidence—and we do not know what the good reasons are that will prevent those claimants being excluded as a result of being classified as having given late evidence. It is not satisfactory.

At this stage, on Report, there is this question for the Minister. The list has been produced. The Minister will say, exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, that by having a list, you will miss people out. That is why the amendment is trying to insert “but not limited to”. This is quite an unsatisfactory situation. Can the Minister not say a little more about what the guidance will say? Can he not give us a little more, in consultation with the Home Office, about whether there could be a draft of some sort, even at this late stage, to give some indication of what the guidance will be on what “good reasons” actually means? I appreciate that this is an ask for the future but the amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Lister, is extremely important and goes to the heart of the problem with Clause 25 —notwithstanding the fact that many of us do not agree with the clause anyway. In seeking to improve the parts of the legislation that we do not agree with, what “good reasons” means is absolutely fundamental to our understanding.

As I say, I support the amendment; I appreciate that it seems to be a probing amendment. However, these are important issues and the Minister will need to go further to deal with them, I think.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her engagement with me, as the House will have heard, on the amendment, which she has redrafted since Committee, for the reasons she set out in her speech. I am also grateful to the amendment’s co-sponsor, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.

We have a proud history of providing international protection to those most in need. This is a responsibility that we take seriously, but we need a system that is efficient as well as effective. By introducing a statutory requirement to provide evidence before a specified date, the Bill redresses the current balance. It is right that decision-makers have regard to the principle that minimal weight is given to evidence that is late following the receipt of either an evidence notice or a priority removal notice without good reason. The House will appreciate that Clause 25 is therefore essential to the architecture of this part of the Bill. However, at the same time, it is important not to tip the balance too far. Decision-makers in the Home Office and the judiciary will maintain their discretion as to whether, having considered the principle and in the absence of good reasons for lateness, it is appropriate in all the circumstances of the particular case to apply minimal weight to late evidence, taking into account the claimant’s particular claim and any specific vulnerabilities.

I have been asked to define “good reasons”. This has not been defined in the Bill for, if I may say so, a good reason. We cannot legislate for every case type where someone may have good reasons for providing late information or evidence in relation to their protection claim. To do so would be impractical and would detract from the important principle that decision-makers are best placed to consider an individual’s particular vulnerabilities on a case-by-case basis. I say this because “good reasons” can include both objective factors, such as practical difficulties in obtaining evidence—for example, where the evidence was not previously available—and subjective factors, such as a claimant’s particular vulnerabilities relating to their age, sexual orientation, gender identity or mental and physical health. Decision-makers must be able to respond on a case-by-case basis.

I contrast that with Amendment 34, which would place an obligation on decision-makers not only in the Home Office but in the judiciary to accept that there were good reasons for late evidence in all asylum and human rights cases where either the claimant or the claim type fell into one of the listed categories. I suggest that this would undermine the principle that we want decision-makers and the judiciary to apply their discretion on a case-by-case basis. By setting out a non-exhaustive list—I appreciate that it includes the words “not limited to”—of potential experiences or categories of claimant, it is true that this amendment does not exclude those not listed in the amendment from having good reasons. However, in any non-exhaustive list, there is a risk of focusing attention on the factors in the list, thus putting other applicants with different issues at a relative disadvantage.

17:15

I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary because Clause 25 already provides sufficient safeguards to all individuals captured by the amendment and, indeed, further individuals not covered by it. I have indeed followed up on the undertaking I gave and can confirm to the noble Baroness and the House that guidance on good reasons will set out how decision-makers should make an assessment of reasons for lateness. I can specifically confirm that the guidance will cover all those categories of claimant and types of experience listed in this amendment as well as others. As to the timing, I can also confirm that the guidance will be published at least two months before it comes into effect.

I will make some other short points in response to the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to children in particular, so let me say a word about that. Where a child raises a protection or human rights claim, decision-makers will take into account the age and particular characteristics of the child before deciding whether to issue them with an evidence notice. Where evidence is thereafter provided late, it will be, as I have said, for the Home Office and the judiciary to decide on a case-by-case basis whether there are good reasons.

In that context, guidance will be published, and I have set out the timing, setting out how decision-makers should take into account the age of the unaccompanied asylum-seeking child in the exercise of their discretion. The evidence provided by a child will be considered in the light, therefore, of their age and their degree of mental development and maturity, both currently and at all relevant earlier material times. Where there are good reasons for late evidence, there will be no penalty or adverse consequences for the claimant and decision-makers will not therefore need to have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to the late evidence.

I point out, as I think the noble Baroness accepted, that there is a problem with Amendment 34 because it can create a different statutory approach to individuals who may be equally vulnerable—for example, where a claimant is suffering from severe anxiety or depression or other mental health-related issues that are not included in the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to other categories and it is essentially the same point. I invite the House to accept that the approach in Clause 25 is the better one because that preserves the discretion for the decision-maker.

Finally, there is a risk as well of perverse outcomes. The amendment would possibly encourage claimants. There would be incentive to claim that you fall into one of the listed categories when you do not if there a hard cut-off, for example at the age of 18. That would incentivise somebody who is 18 and a half to claim that they were just about six months younger than they were. That would increase the burden on the authorities and act to the detriment of those under 18 and any others who need a high level of support.

I hope I have set out—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

Just before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether there will be any consultation on the guidance? Can someone write to me on that point?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have the detail at my fingertips, but I can certainly undertake to write to the noble Baroness. I was just about to sit down after inviting the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, to withdraw the amendment for the reasons that I have set out.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and all other noble Lords for their support on this amendment.

I was very happy to hear the Minister’s commitment, having discussed it with the Home Office, that there would be new guidance. Assuming that this new guidance on late evidence is genuinely expanded and strengthened, this has the potential to go a long way towards meeting my objectives. However, I underline the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that it would be very helpful to be consulted on a draft before the two-month cut-off point when the new guidance would come into force. I would be very grateful if Home Office colleagues could take that on board. Although the noble Lord is an MoJ Minister, can he please keep on this as well, and ensure that the Home Office does not lose sight of this guidance in the greater scheme of things?

Assuming that this will be on track, it amounts to a satisfactory way of meeting my objectives and would give vulnerable and traumatised refugees some of the comfort that they deserve. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

Clause 28: Removal of asylum seeker to safe country

Amendment 35

Moved by

[Baroness Stroud]

35: Clause 28, page 33, line 20, leave out paragraph (a)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to the amendment to leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope due to Covid, I will be moving Amendment 35 in his name.

It is disappointing that the concerns expressed by many noble Lords in Committee have gone unheeded and the practical questions that were posed are yet to be answered. My noble friend Lord Kirkhope is a former immigration Minister, who speaks with authority on this matter. Many years ago, after carefully examining this policy of offshoring, he rejected the proposal to offshore asylum seekers on the basis that it was impractical and ineffective. The reasons that he did so still apply today.

There is still too much that we do not know about this policy, even at this late stage. How would the powers given be used by the Government? Whose legal system would be used to assess asylum seekers that we have offshored—Britain’s or the third country’s? Once assessed, would these asylum seekers be returned to the UK? How would the Government exercise their safeguarding responsibility for families thousands of miles out of UK jurisdiction? How much would each case cost? The numbers from Australia suggest up to £2 million per year just to keep one person who is in need out of this country.

All this fails to fit in with our legal and international obligations, let alone our constitutional principles. Today, we see this clearly, more clearly even than when we were discussing it last time, through the events in Ukraine. This tragic and unnecessary unfolding humanitarian crisis will certainly play out through the European continent. Many refugees fleeing Ukraine may well attempt to come to the UK. Last Saturday evening, the Prime Minister clearly stated that we would welcome refugees from Ukraine here. By Sunday, that commitment had become that we would support refugees in neighbouring countries to Ukraine. Today, we can see that the approach has moved again and that the Government are committed to expanding their family visa scheme and introducing a new community sponsorship scheme for Ukrainians, both of which are significant and welcome steps.

However, are we still saying that every other Ukrainian refugee who reaches these shores would fall into tier-2 status, have no recourse to public funds and be subject to potential offshoring? How would this work practically? How are we going to apply an operation that would be, at the best of times, excruciatingly complex to execute on a potentially huge scale? Of course, there is the irony of people seeking safety only to find themselves in a position of renewed vulnerability, potentially held indefinitely in detention abroad. Instead of designing a structure that draws a proper distinction between economic and humanitarian motivations for migrants trying to reach our shores, it seems that the Government are muddying the water and resorting to this extraordinary measure of offshoring.

As we have learned more about the realities of life in the Australian processing centres, many noble Lords have become increasingly concerned by the reports of what children have been forced to endure. The Nauru files—a cache of more than 2,000 leaked incident reports from the detention centre on Nauru—highlight hundreds of reports of neglect, violence and abuse against children in the detention centre, often by guards. I cannot fathom a situation where the UK would tolerate the mistreatment of children, but in the absence of explicit protections and the rule of our own legal system, we have to assume that any scenario is possible.

In conclusion, this proposal is deeply concerning and unworkable on numerous levels. The powers it would grant our Government are on the one hand ill-defined and on the other far-reaching. They are potentially hugely expensive and yet ineffective, exposing vulnerable people to further trauma rather than offering protection.

As great as these concerns are, I have one further concern: what does this policy make us? This is our moment as an independent nation that can demonstrate western liberal values at a moment when they are under attack—values of democracy, rule of law and freedom of speech, yes, but also the value and dignity of every human being. We all believe in taking back control, but if there is one lesson to learn from Australia’s experience, it is this: any country that chooses to outsource its constitutional responsibilities compromises its control. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, in rising to support Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, to which I have added my name, I declare my interests in relation to both RAMP and Reset and set out in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for the way she introduced this amendment, and I fully support all her points.

I set out my reasons for supporting this amendment in Committee. However, a significant concern for me now is that the Minister was not able to give assurance that children in families would be excluded from offshoring, nor that families would not be split up in the process. This is deeply concerning. I appreciate that the policy document of 25 February sets out that exemptions will depend on the country where people are being offshored and tat publicising exemptions will fuel the movement of the most vulnerable not subject to offshoring.

However, I would set out that, for children, onward movement to any country after an often traumatic journey to the UK, in addition to the trauma in their country of origin, is simply never in their best interests. All the concerns I set out in my Committee speech regarding the monitoring of the practice of offshoring processing centres are especially true for children.

The Home Office has processes to confirm identity and actual family relationships, which it uses for a range of visas as well as in the asylum process. It would seem that, if this is the concern, there are ways to avoid children being used in this way. Given the deep harm that offshoring would do to everyone, particularly children, I fail to see why the Minister cannot give this commitment.

I am deeply concerned that throughout the Bill, where we have highlighted the deep harm of policies on the most vulnerable, we are told that guidance and discretion can be applied on a case-by-case basis. I understand the logic of that, but what worries me is that it does not speak of any standardised process where everyone can be confident that there is equal treatment.

I further ask whether an economic assessment of the costs of offshoring has been properly made, and, if so, what the outcome of that assessment has been—and if it has not, why not? I ask these questions while fully supporting the need to remove this clause of the Bill in its entirety.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 35. In Committee, I and a number of other noble Lords asked various questions to which the Minister responded that she promised to write to us. Well, I have not received a letter. I contacted her office this morning, checked with our Whips’ office, and—the right reverend Prelate is also shaking his head—there was no letter.

I was going to raise the question of children, but the right reverend Prelate has already dealt with that very well. The fact sheet came out at the end of last week. My reading of it was that, yes, families with children will potentially be offshored—which is, as the right reverend Prelate said, very troubling.

I simply return to a question I raised at the very end of our debate in Committee, when I said that

“a whole range of noble Lords asked a question, in different ways, about what happens to the asylum seekers if they are granted refugee status in the country to which they have been offshored. Are they allowed back into this country or are they just left there? If they are left there, they have, in effect, been deported.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1421.]

That seemed to me a rather basic question, and I was rather surprised that the Minister said that she could not answer it. I took her at her word that she would write to us, and she has not—so could she answer that question today, please?

17:30

[Lord Horam (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee, so I will not make any more than a few brief remarks on Report. I cited the Australian example, which now has all-party support in Australia, for dealing with a particular form of offshoring.

The problem of dealing with cross-channel migration is undoubtedly very difficult, but it is not impossible; we have had some success in dealing with the problem of people coming across in lorries, which is one of the reasons they are now coming by sea. But the reason I cannot go along with my noble friend Lady Stroud is that if you are dealing with a very difficult, protracted and visible problem like this, you need to consider all the options available. Some of them will turn out, on closer analysis, to be impractical. It will turn out that you simply do not want to do some of them because of the reasons raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about some of the ramifications. Some of them may simply be politically impossible to do, but it is an obligation on the Government to explore every avenue to resolve this very difficult problem.

Also, this is clearly an international problem. It is not only Britain that is dealing with this issue; it is Greece, Italy, France, Spain and so on. One thing I am sure noble Lords have said in the past is that, when looking at this, we should not simply confine ourselves to what we think is right. We should look abroad to see how other countries have tackled it. Some countries have had some success, some have had less success, but it would be foolish to ignore what is happening abroad and what methods they are trying.

For all those reasons, it is just common sense to keep the wording of the Bill as it is at the moment to give the Government the opportunity to explore a number of different avenues, some of which, I agree, may not turn out to be very sensible, and some of which may be more productive. To stop this now and to exclude some aspects because there are unanswered questions at this stage, when the Government are clearly in negotiations on this—they are half way or quarter way through the process; I do not know—would be foolish in the interests of looking at the whole picture.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, often makes the point that this aspect of asylum seekers and refugees coming across the channel is only a small part of a much larger picture of migration; I think he used the figure that asylum seekers make up 6% of those coming over. But we have to get back to the bigger picture of what is happening on migration. By the way, I include Ukraine in that. Obviously, we all hope that no Ukrainian has to find a way across the channel via a smuggler. We hope that this country will be generous enough to deal with all those coming here properly. As I understand it, the Prime Minister said at Question Time today that he had been in discussions with the Poles, for example, about how Britain could help the Polish Government to deal with the massive influx they have had over their borders. That is an entirely separate issue which I hope we can deal with far more generously than so far.

I think this is a distraction, if you like—a difficult and problematic distraction from a very much bigger picture, which I hope we can return to if we really can solve this. But I urge the House not to rule out any particular measure, however difficult it may be and however many questions it may pose, at this stage.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak rather briefly; it seems to me that brevity has a very wide definition. Let me just say that outsourcing is entirely unacceptable. I would like to see the back of this clause and schedule; they should not be in a Bill dealing with asylum or refugees. As I said in Committee, this will place vulnerable people again at risk. I give the simple example of someone who might be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender ending up in a country to which they are outsourced where they could be criminalised, persecuted and under real threat. What kind of signal do we send to the rest of the world when we treat vulnerable people in this way? I support all the amendments in this group. I think that is brief enough.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Horam, makes the mistake of thinking that this House trusts the Government. Of course, it does not—or rather, by and large, the majority in this House does not, because the Government have broken their word so many times.

I will speak briefly as well, because I am very concerned that we can vote as much as possible but I do not understand why the Government are trying to move people to other countries. This makes no sense, and it is one of the many ways that the Government are trying to avoid their obligations. Instead of trying to deport people while the Government dither about processing their claims, we should provide them with decent accommodation and work so that they can start to retrieve some of their lives. If there was ever a moment when this Government should come out against the far-right ideology within their own ranks, this is it.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with and support what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. Offshoring while an asylum seeker is having their claim assessed is wrong in principle, oppressive in practice and, critically, lacking sufficient safeguards under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, mentioned Australia’s policy of offshoring as a successful process, as he did on Monday. On the contrary, from a humanitarian perspective, Australia’s offshoring shows all the defects and injustices of such a policy.

In Committee, I mentioned the 2013 Amnesty International report This is Breaking People, highlighting a range of serious human rights concerns at the immigration detention centre on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea. I also mentioned and quoted from Amnesty’s follow-up report, which stated that on 16 and 17 February 2014, violence at the detention centre led to the death of one young man and injuries to more than 62 asylum seekers. Indeed, some reports suggested that up to 147 were injured. I quoted more from this report in Committee, but it is not appropriate or necessary to repeat that now.

What is absolutely critical—here I take serious issue with the noble Lord, Lord Horam—is that before any such notion of offshoring can be pursued by the Government under this or any other legislation, certain assurances have to be provided in primary legislation, none of which is addressed in the Bill, the Explanatory Notes or any other guidance by the Government. First, how will asylum seekers have access to legal advisers with knowledge of the law and practice relating to UK asylum claims, which is complex and difficult? Is that going to be done four and half thousand miles away on Ascension Island? Secondly, legal aid and advice is available to refugees in the United Kingdom. Is there anything to suggest that it will be available to refugees in offshoring holding centres? If conditions, as in Australia, in the proposed offshore centre are so bad as to cause physical or mental harm to refugees—whether through physical conditions in the centre or, in the case of single women or LGBTQI people, for example, because of discrimination, harassment, bullying and violence from staff or other asylum seekers—will they be able to have recourse or bring proceedings in the UK, or will they be restricted to such remedies as might be available in the foreign countries?

These are fundamental questions. They cannot be left outstanding while individual arrangements with separate countries are being negotiated or considered. They have to form the legal framework within which any such discussions should take place and be seen on the face of any legislation, including this Bill. Although I raised these points in Committee, the Government have not given any answer on any of those issues and, until they have done so, I suggest that these amendments necessarily have to be carried.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I want to briefly restate what I said in Committee. Not only is the Home Office seeking the power to remove an asylum seeker to any country while their claim is being considered but it is seeking to remove them to a country and then tell that country, “If you think they are a refugee, you take them; they’re not our problem any more”.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has just said, according to Amnesty and Migrant Voice, offshoring by Australia effectively excluded legal, judicial, medical, humanitarian and media scrutiny. It has cost it over half a billion pounds a year, according to the British Red Cross, and failed to stop those seeking asylum, including by boat. Evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place from independent academics supports these conclusions. The UNHCR has

“voiced its profound concerns about such practices which have ‘caused extensive, unavoidable suffering for far too long’, left people “languishing in unacceptable circumstances’”

and denied them “common decency”.

I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, says: the Government should be looking at every option, but surely they should be taking into consideration the evidence that I have just cited and considered any counterevidence. Then, having worked out its practicalities and decided whether it is to go ahead, they should bring forward legislation—not bring forward legislation and then decide whether they are going to use it.

Clause 28 and Schedule 3, as drafted, should not be part of the Bill. We support all the amendments in this group that seek to prevent anyone being removed from the UK while their asylum claim is being considered, particularly Amendment 35, to which I have added my name.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendments 35 and 37 would remove the subsections of Clause 28 and Schedule 3 which allow for offshoring. That is, as we know, the power to export offshore any person in the UK who is seeking asylum without first considering their claim. Let us just repeat: we are talking here about asylum, not general immigration policy.

Clause 28 amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which states that a person seeking asylum cannot be removed from the UK while their asylum claim is being processed. The Bill withdraws that right by allowing the transfer of any asylum seeker to any country listed by the Government. The Government have been somewhat reticent in telling us about the progress of any negotiations they are having with any other countries on this score. I think that is where we hear the term about the Government not wishing to give a running commentary; in other words, “We’re going to keep you in Parliament in the dark about what is going on”.

The Bill is silent on what, if any, legal obligations the UK would consider itself to have towards asylum seekers once their asylum claims have been dealt with. This issue was raised again by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and others. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has commented that the provisions of the Bill allow the Government to externalise their obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers to other countries with only minimal human rights safeguards, an issue to which my noble friend Lord Cashman referred. The only thing the Government have said is that the model the Home Office intends to proceed with is

“one where individuals would be processed as part of the asylum system of the country that we had an agreement with, rather than people being offshore and processed as part of our asylum system.”

It is not just offshoring—it is also treating and dealing with people under another country’s asylum system rather than ours.

17:45

The UNHCR has been highly critical of efforts to offshore asylum processing, noting how

“offshoring of asylum processing often results in the forced transfer of refugees to other countries with inadequate State asylum systems, treatment standards and resources. It can lead to”

indefinite warehousing of asylum seekers

“in isolated places where they are ‘out of sight and out of mind’, exposing them to serious harm. It can also de-humanise asylum-seekers.”

I have a sneaking suspicion that that reference to “out of sight and out of mind” may well be a big attraction for the Government. There would be no pictures in the papers or on TV, apart from the ones showing these asylum seekers being bundled out of this country.

Clearly this policy is intended, in the Government’s view, to act as a deterrent. Such measures assume that people have a choice in the decisions they make. In reality, people forced to flee their country because of violence and persecution have no such choice. Consequently, deterrent measures will not stop them making the journey to find safety.

Can the Government say what their evidence is to substantiate the claim in the Explanatory Notes that the policy will

“deter irregular migration and clandestine entry to the UK”?

As I say, we are talking here about refugees and asylum seekers. Where is the evidence to substantiate that claim in the Explanatory Notes?

In the Commons, the Minister said

“Schedule 3 is designed to be part of a whole system deterrent effect to prevent illegal migration. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, and not driven by the actions of criminal enterprise”.—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 26/10/21; col. 388.]

Yet since no assessment would be made of need before a person could be moved to a third country, need cannot enter into it as far as the Government are concerned. Although the Minister in the Commons mentioned “criminal enterprise”, this clause is not targeted at criminals. It is targeted at people who are desperately seeking refuge and have legitimate reasons to be granted it. It is not targeted at those involved in the kind of criminal enterprise to which we all object most strongly and wish to see stamped out.

The proposal to offshore asylum claims is inconsistent with the global humanitarian and co-operative principles on which refugee protection is based. Frankly, if every country adopted the Government’s proposed approach, where would that leave the provisions and spirit of the refugee convention? I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that we should take the Government on trust and accept that we are not going to be told the details of how it would work.

I fully sympathise with what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said in reiterating that a number of questions had been asked in Committee and we have not had a response. Quite honestly, if the Government are not prepared to tell us what they intend to do and why, and answer legitimate questions raised by Parliament, which surely has a right to know the answer, then I sincerely hope that Amendments 35 and 37 get carried if they are put to a vote. I have tabled amendments about leaving out Clause 28, but we would be prepared to support the amendments spoken to by the noble Baroness, since they take out the worst parts of Clause 28.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thought it might be helpful, although we will be dealing with this in further groups, to start off about Ukraine and our support for our friends and colleagues there. I know that things are moving quite quickly, and noble Lords may not have caught up with the latest, so I thought it might be helpful to outline it.

We are establishing an expansive Ukrainian family scheme that will allow British nationals and settled people in the UK to bring a wide group of family members to the UK, extending eligibility to adult parents, grandparents, children over 18, siblings and their immediate family members. We are committing to establishing a humanitarian sponsorship pathway, which will create a new route to the UK for Ukrainians. These will be fee free; no fee will be required for any of the elements of the packages we are offering.

In terms of other support, we have extended visas for Ukrainian temporary workers in some sectors so that they can now stay until at least 31 December 2022, if they cannot return to Ukraine. We are providing £40 million-worth of humanitarian support to provide Ukrainians with access to basic necessities. This will be on top of the £100 million-worth of ODA funding that has already been pledged for energy, security and reform.

We have deployed a team of UK humanitarian and military logistics experts to the countries neighbouring Ukraine. We have called on Russia to enable humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians to flee the violence. We also have 1,000 troops on standby to support the humanitarian response in the region. We stand ready to further support Ukraine’s economy through £500 million- worth of multilateral development bank guarantees. I think that demonstrates that we are trying to do everything we can to help our Ukrainian friends and colleagues.

Before I turn to the amendments, I will update the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the letter. I will not assert that it was sent at 3 pm, but that is my understanding. Given my record on letters in this place, I know that the noble Baroness will come back to me if she has not received it—

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

I say to the Minister that 3 pm today is far too late for this debate, and we have not received it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not deny that 3 pm is too late, but that was my understanding. I will chase it, if indeed it did not go. I am glad I did not assert that comment, because I have been proved—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, it may assist my noble friend to know that I have received the letter.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am so pleased that my noble friend has been able to confirm that to me. I was just trying to be helpful.

In terms of these amendments, I will remind noble Lords from the outset that changes within Clause 28 via the schedule do not enable overseas asylum processing. The final arrangements will depend on our negotiations with like-minded partners. The arrangements will of course be compatible with our domestic and international obligations—this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. On the face of the Bill, we set out the requirements a state must meet for us to remove a person with a pending asylum claim there.

I turn now to the amendments. Changes within Clause 28 via Schedule 3, which the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope propose, relate to two policies. The first is to improve our ability to remove individuals with no right to remain in the UK to safe third countries. The second supports our future objective of enabling asylum processing overseas by making it possible to remove someone overseas while their asylum claim is pending and without having to issue a certificate under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 in every case. I will now consider each policy in turn.

At the moment, it is too easy for removals of individuals with no right to remain in the UK to be delayed as a result of speculative, and in some cases unfounded, Article 3 human rights claims. The changes we propose will ensure we continue to adhere to our obligations under the ECHR, while preventing unnecessary delays to removal. The introduction of a rebuttable presumption that an individual’s rights under Article 3 will not be breached in certain specific safe countries, upon their removal there, is intended to prevent speculative, unfounded human rights claims from delaying removals—although individuals will be able to present evidence to overturn this presumption to prevent removal. It will also make changes to simplify the current legislative drafting in relation to asylum claim appeals, although the effect remains the same: an individual has no right of appeal against the decision that removal to the specified countries would not breach the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention. I cannot support Amendments 36 and 39 which, perhaps unintentionally, block these important improvements to our ability to swiftly remove individuals who have no basis to remain in the UK.

As I made clear in Committee, we are currently undertaking discussions with like-minded partners which seek to establish overseas asylum processing. This policy is novel and has garnered significant attention as a result. The fact that discussions are ongoing means that I cannot give any particulars on how the process would work or how the costings would pan out. Many of these matters are for the negotiating table. I will reiterate that this policy will only ever be operationalised in accordance with our international obligations. We are committed to ensuring that overseas asylum processing is both humane and safe, taking into account circumstances which may mean that overseas processing is not appropriate for particular individuals.

For far too long, we have allowed people smugglers to decide where and how people cross borders and claim asylum. These uncontrolled and unsafe routes have led to terrible tragedies off our shores—as we have all seen. The key aim of the Government is to destroy the business model of the people smugglers. One facet of achieving this is to reduce demand for smugglers’ services by making it easier to remove individuals who undertake dangerous journeys or otherwise abuse the asylum system. We believe that access to protection in the UK should be based on need and focus primarily on people who remain in regions of conflict.

My noble friend Lady Stroud and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about Australia to this end, and I will illustrate the point. The Australian high commissioner gave evidence on 23 September 2021 in which he clearly explained that, within 9 months of Operation Sovereign Borders, flow had

“ceased completely. Since then, there has not been a single irregular maritime arrival on Australia’s shores, as far as we can tell.”

The high commissioner stated that the most important thing was to

“drive the people smugglers out of business by depriving them of a product to sell and destroying their cash flow.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 23/9/21; cols. 76-78.]

That is a very clear message, and it is precisely what the new plan for immigration is designed to do.

The agreements that we are pursuing will have these principles at their core. They will be based on a shared commitment to finding fair and sustainable solutions to address global migration challenges, and to protect the most vulnerable. We are working to establish an effective, functioning system which provides protection to those in need while simultaneously preventing abuse.

Noble Lords will want to know who will be removed overseas for asylum processing and who will be exempted from this. Some noble Lords have already referred to the fact that, in the other place, my right honourable friend Minister Pursglove made clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would not have their claims processed overseas. This demonstrates our commitment to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, as expressed in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. This is one example of how this policy will only be operationalised in accordance with our domestic and international obligations—and, of course, there are other examples.

After a fuller consideration of issues pertaining to vulnerability, we have determined that we should not be drawn further into listing particular exemptions to removal, partly because exemptions depend on the particular circumstances of the countries with which we are working. More importantly, however, being definitive about exemptions from the policy at this stage is likely to hamper its potential to be effective and would incentivise people smugglers to target the most vulnerable in the hopes of keeping their operations viable. It is essential that we do not curtail our efforts to undercut the business model of people smuggling and discourage other dangerous or unwanted behaviours by eroding the policy before it has even begun.

18:00

My noble friend Lady Stroud and, I think, another noble Lord asked about those who are granted refugee status being allowed to return to the UK. We will take all reasonable steps, in accordance with international human rights standards, to enable a transferee who is available for return to the UK to do so, should the UK be legally obliged to facilitate that person’s return.

I hope that I have answered the noble Lord’s question, and with that I ask the noble Lord to—

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, the letter that she kindly sent us today sets out at greater length what she has just said: she cannot tell us with which countries she is negotiating with, what exactly she is negotiating for or what exemptions would be provided. She admits that the policy is novel and that she is not surprised that the House is asking questions, but she tells us that she can answer none of these questions now. So with this provision she is asking us to sign a blank cheque.

She has answered none of the questions asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, of which the biggest, in my view, is how legal assistance on British immigration law is to be provided to these people, in these unknown countries, who are going through a process about which we have been told nothing. I really do not think that we can sign this blank cheque.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

On a point of clarification, the Minister said that the Minister in the other place had given an undertaking that children would not be offshored under this scheme. Does that mean that if a family arrives on UK shores the parents of the child could be sent overseas—offshored—while the child remained in the UK, because of that undertaking?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thought that I had made it clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would not be offshored.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

Can we be absolutely clear: the Minister is not saying that children could not be offshored if they are members of a family?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I have gone as far as I am willing to go by confirming that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would not be subject to offshoring, but on some of the wider vulnerabilities it would be wrong to be drawn at this point.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I have been trying to read the letter on my phone, but it did not arrive until after 4 pm and the Minister’s office did not have the courtesy to reply to my email. If I had had the letter at 3 pm I would have been able to read it. So I may have missed this, but I am not clear—and I apologise if the Minister explained this right at the very end—what happens to an asylum seeker who has been offshored, a horrible term, and is deemed to have refugee status by whatever country they have been sent to. Will they be sent back to the UK, or not?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it would depend on the circumstances of the case.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that a number of very serious outstanding questions about this policy need to be answered before we can give the Government these powers. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, I agree that it is right to explore every possible policy, and that some of them will turn out to be impractical—or even, as he stated, impossible. But that process is undertaken before you bring in legislation and take powers like this: you do not bring in the legislation and then work out whether it is impractical or impossible. So I believe it is right to test the will of the House on this policy.

18:05

Division 2

Ayes: 208

Noes: 155

18:18

Amendment 36 not moved.

Schedule 3: Removal of asylum seeker to safe country

Amendments 37 to 39 not moved.

Clause 31: Article 1(A)(2): well-founded fear

Amendment 40

Moved by

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

40: Clause 31, page 34, line 45, leave out “first”

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 40 to 45 in place of my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who greatly regrets that she cannot be in her place. She is very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Chakrabarti, for their support, and to Women for Refugee Women for its briefings.

Amendments 40 to 44 relate to Clause 31. They are being brought back at this stage because the Government’s response stopped short of providing the reassurances we hoped for. Some 27 organisations with significant expertise in supporting people seeking asylum support these amendments to Clause 31.

In Committee, the Minister stressed that Clause 31 was necessary to provide clarity and consistency of decision-making, the argument being that proving a status of persecution on the basis of reasonable likelihood is too vague and inconsistently applied. Clause 31 seeks to resolve this apparent lack of clarity by instead inserting the balance of probabilities test and a new fear test. This will raise the standard of proof for gaining refugee status, which will have a disproportionate impact on certain vulnerable groups. For women fleeing gender-based violence and those seeking asylum on the grounds of sexuality, providing this increased proof will be difficult and is likely to be highly traumatising, particularly given what we already know of the Home Office’s culture of disbelief and approach to such victims. For this reason, the UNHCR and, indeed, UK courts have consistently applied the reasonable likelihood test. Clause 31 will put us consciously and deliberately out of step with the way the UNHCR believes that the convention should be interpreted and how our own courts, notably the Supreme Court, have interpreted it.

What is most odd, and the reason for pressing this again, is that the Government believe this change will provide clarity. It is not clear why this should be true. There is already a problem with disbelief in the Home Office, which can be readily shown by the fact that 48% of appeals against the Home Office’s decisions to the First-tier Tribunal are successful, and 32% of judicial reviews are settled or decided in favour of claimants. Clause 31 does not seem to provide any additional clarity. Adding two different limbs to the test with different standards of proof seems a recipe for creating more confusion, making it harder for legitimate victims and so inevitably prompting more appeals. Amendments 40 to 44 therefore look to keep the status quo standard of proof and keep us aligned with the UNHCR and existing UK case law.

I turn briefly to Amendment 45, which relates to Clause 32. This was discussed at length in Committee and I will not go over the old ground, but in short, the interpretation of the convention applied in Clause 32 seems punitive towards women and other victims who use the particular social group reason without any clear or positive purpose. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, argued in Committee, if Clause 32 is necessary to clarify the “particular social group” definition, there is no reason it could not be provided by clarifying once and for all that the two conditions are alternatives, not cumulative, as has been the understanding in UK law since Fornah and was recognised by the Upper Tribunal as recently as 2020. This would provide clarity without disadvantaging women and other vulnerable groups.

More than 40 organisations in the ending violence against women and girls and anti-trafficking sectors have supported this amendment to Clause 32. This week, three UN special rapporteurs released a statement on the impact of the Bill, in particular Clause 32, on women. I urge the Minister to listen to their plea. As of 2019, only 26% of asylum applications have come from women. Why would we want to make it harder for legitimate victims of gender-based violence and other gender-related forms of persecution to seek help? Might the Minister say why gender is not mentioned in Clause 32 in the way that sexual orientation is, since it is mentioned in the EU directive on which the Government seek to rely?

Clause 32 not only reverses UK case law but does so against the UNHCR’s standards, following an interpretation of EU law that was rejected by our own Upper Tribunal in 2020. The Home Office did not appeal that decision; nor was that change included in the New Plan for Immigration. It seems to have come from nowhere with little scrutiny or expert oversight. As with Amendments 40 to 44, Amendment 45 is not radical. It simply asks that the Bill continue to operate with the status quo interpretation of the 1951 convention, which is well understood and used by UK courts. The alternative is an unnecessarily punitive barrier being put in front of vulnerable groups. I beg to move.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am rationing my interventions on Report to facilitate the early and many necessary Divisions. I know that other critics of this Bill are doing the same; I am grateful for that.

Given the events in the last century that led to the creation of the refugee convention, it is particularly distasteful that so much of the Bill seeks to rewrite the convention and its jurisprudence against the interests of the refugee. The Government protest otherwise, of course, but all the world’s leading scholars, practitioners and custodians disagree. I am glad to say that your Lordships’ House gave its own view on that general proposition very clearly earlier this week.

Clause 31 is a case in point. I support the right reverend Prelate’s amendments to it, not least because, among other things, they seek to delete the cross-referencing to Clause 34, which absolutely denies refuge to those who do not currently face a well-founded fear of persecution in part of their country. If one looks at the end of Clause 34, there is no discretion there at all. Although we are grateful for the Minister’s earlier comments about Ukraine, convention protection is based on international law, not exceptional executive largesse. If these clauses are not amended, a Ukrainian refugee might well be denied refuge on the basis that they could return to, for example, a part of their country that is not currently occupied or being bombarded by Russia. There is no discretion in Clause 34 at all, despite Ministers waxing lyrical about discretion and case-by-case analysis being so important. This is discretion that works against the refugee, with convolutions and contortions, when it would be for the courts to protect the refugee.

Another trick that has been used in Ministers’ speeches at various times during the passage of this Bill is talking about Parliament having the right to rewrite and interpret the convention—“Parliament this, Parliament that”. However, they use “Parliament” as a euphemism for “the Home Office”, and it is not. I believe I know what your Lordships’ House of Parliament thinks about that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, although I support all these amendments, I will speak only to Amendment 45, to which I have added my name. Once again, I thank Women for Refugee Women for its support with the amendment.

The right reverend Prelate has made the case for returning to Clause 32. I just want to pick up some points made by the Minister in Committee. He argued that it is difficult to attack the definition in Clause 32 as wrong, yet, in effect, that is what the Upper Tribunal did in the 2020 judgment referred to by the right reverend Prelate, when it confirmed that this approach to membership of a particular social group is contrary to the humanitarian objective of the refugee convention. Moreover, in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, dismissed this approach as a grave mistake that would cause grave injustice. Was he wrong?

Having listened to his less than convincing justification of the definition in Clause 32, I ask the Minister this: does he accept that Clause 32 means that a woman fleeing gender-based violence with good grounds for being accepted as a refugee is less likely to be accepted, as the UNHCR and myriad civil society groups have warned? His answer in Committee—given loyally, if I may say so—was this:

“What it means is that a woman, like anybody else, who has a proper claim under the refugee convention will find refuge in the UK.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1452.]


I will repeat the question and ask the Minister to give us a clear “yes” or “no” answer, given that clarity is supposed to be what this clause is all about. Does he accept that Clause 32 means that a woman fleeing gender-based violence with good grounds for being accepted as a refugee is less likely to be accepted—yes or no?

18:30

Finally, in response to criticisms made of the equality impact assessment, the Minister promised monitoring of the clause, which is welcome. Could he please give us more information about how it will be monitored? What data will be collected, will the data be published and, if so, how frequently and starting when? Will it include statistics on the number who successfully rely on membership of a particular social group to claim refugee status, and the number of those who fail to secure such status because of their inability to fulfil the criteria? What categories will be used? For example, will survivors of gender-based abuse be included? What will the Government do if the monitoring shows that the clause is having the damaging effect that is feared? I realise that those are again questions for the Home Office, so I should be grateful if the Minister would pass them on and ask the Home Office to write to me.

In conclusion, there is a certain irony that we are debating these clauses the day after the Home Secretary launched a campaign to say “Enough” to violence against women and girls. On Monday, in her summing up on Clause 11, the Minister concluded with the words that the clause was

“fair in its acknowledgement that we absolutely must be sensitive to the vulnerabilities of certain asylum seekers.”—[Official Report, 28/2/22; col. 627.]

I fear that Clauses 31 and 32 make a mockery of such claims.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall be brief and summarise the position I took in Committee. I support all the amendments in this group, particularly those relating to Clauses 31 and 32. I do so because the amendments will protect the most vulnerable, including women and girls who have been subjected to gender-based violence and abuse and the long-term harm those cause. They will also protect other vulnerable groups with protected characteristics, and recognise the immense and deep trauma such individuals have suffered but often deny because of a deep sense of shame. The amendments also restore the principle of a civilised and humane approach to asylum and ensure that we conform with the UN refugee convention and our international legal obligations. Finally, I have been deeply moved by the letters and some postcards I have received, particularly from women and other vulnerable groups, who express that they have much to fear from the clauses and the effects that they will have on their lives.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

I have two amendments in this group, but they are quite distinct from what has been debated so far and distinct from each other. One is concerned with Clause 32(5) and the other concerns Clause 36(1). Because the amendment to Clause 32(5) is a manuscript amendment tabled only today, if I may, I shall start with that to Clause 36(1), because your Lordships will be familiar with the background to that.

Clause 36(1) seeks to define, for the purposes of the convention, the meaning of coming “directly” to the United Kingdom from a country of persecution. The same definition was relevant to Clause 11, because that cross-refers to the provisions of Clause 36, so we have in Clause 36 as a matter of proposed domestic legislation and as a matter of interpretation of Article 31 of the convention the same definition of arriving “directly”. Your Lordships will recall that the issue was whether, as the Government contend, if an asylum seeker passes through an intermediate state on the way to the United Kingdom from the place of persecution—through a place considered to be somewhere they ought reasonably to have applied for refugee status—they have not come “directly”. In fact, the only way they could come directly, if they are surrounded by other countries—Ukraine is a good example—would be to fly.

The House rejected that definition, because it accepted the amendment to remove Clause 11. It expressly rejected that definition of arriving “directly”. Amendment 46 simply takes out the corresponding provision in Clause 36(1), which was incorporated in Clause 11 but would otherwise simply remain at large but, so far as I can see, would have no relevance whatever to anything else in the Bill. If I am wrong on that and there is some purpose in retaining Clause 36(1), although that interpretation of arriving “directly” was rejected by the House when it approved the removal of Clause 11, the House would want to know what it is being retained for: why it is being retained and in relation to what other provisions in the Bill. My amendment would remove Clause 36(1) from the Bill.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

This is another of those occasions when saying “From these Benches, we support” and not much more must not be taken as any lack of support for all the amendments in this group, nor any dilution of the points made.

I just want to register concern about Clause 32(2). The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke to this and I record our support, particularly for the amendment that deals with what is meant by “a particular social group”: that you do not qualify unless the group in question is perceived as being different by surrounding society. As has been pointed out to noble Lords in briefings, a trafficked woman would need to show not only that her status as a trafficked woman is an innate characteristic but that trafficked women as a group are perceived as having a distinct identity in the country of origin. That is very difficult to show. Judged by the perceptions of the society in her country? It would be very challenging to find objective evidence on that, and on that being a distinct group. It is very dangerous to suggest that one can tell those things by looking—or, rather more accurately, perceiving.

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I spoke at some length on the legal aspects of this group of clauses in Committee and, having had the advantage of being able to indicate an overall view of them in the newspapers earlier in the week, I really do not want to try the patience of the House, and I certainly do not want to weaken rather than strengthen the number of compelling arguments that have already been heard on them in the past few minutes.

However, they are such objectionable clauses that I cannot simply remain silent. I do not criticise the Minister for this, I am a great admirer of his, but on Monday, at 5.49 pm, in the middle of the debate, we finally got a seven-page letter that sought to argue—if only I were still a judge and could deal with the arguments conclusively by rejecting them—the Government’s case for redefining the requirements of the convention.

When we come to Clause 31, the Minister, very fairly, recognises that it would overturn 25 years—a quarter of a century—of settled jurisprudence of the clearest authorities in this country. That is how we have been dealing with it for 25 years. He does not say that it was a wrong approach to the convention; all he argues—as I say, I do not accept it—is that what they are doing provides another possible interpretation of the convention. Is this really the moment at which to reject our established jurisprudence and substitute for it what may or may not—I would say not—be an arguable alternative view of the whole of this.

Clause 31 rejects what has been accepted as the holistic approach: you look at fundamental question arising under Article 1(A) of the convention in the round, you take all circumstances into consideration and you apply the standard of proof of reasonable likelihood—because heaven knows that is the standard which you should be using. You do not carve it up and create endless difficulties, and then say, “Well, actually, part of it has got to be on the balance of probabilities”.

I have quoted this before, and I will end with this: Hugo Storey, a recently retired judge of the Upper Tribunal who has spent his life dealing with these sorts of cases and is the immediate past president of the International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges, said that this clause would produce prodigious litigation and endless problems, and that it is not compliant with the way that the UNHCR wants Clause 31 to be applied. I will not go into the arguments on Clauses 32, 34 and 36—they are all objectionable, for the reasons already given. We really must vote down as many of these as we can.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. I wish to say that we agree with the amendments in this group, which seek to address the issue that the Bill is seeking to change existing, long-standing definitions and, frankly, make things worse and harder for many of those who would be involved in, for example, seeking asylum. We support the intention of these amendments, and I will leave it at that.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who propose these amendments: the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, speaking through the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I agree of course with the importance of the UK carefully assessing whether asylum seekers have a well-founded fear of persecution, as required under Article 1(A)(2) of the refugee convention. However, we do not agree with these amendments which, when taken together, will effectively maintain the current standard of proof for all elements of the well-founded fear test.

There are other undesirable implications of the amendments which I will set out briefly. The House has heard short speeches supporting a number of these amendments. I have obviously got to reply to all of them, so I hope that the House will indulge me. I will try to address them in a comprehensible order, because some of the points are related and some are discrete.

I come first to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who asked how Clause 31 would produce clarity. Clause 31 is drafted to introduce a step-by-step process for decision-makers, considering whether an asylum seeker has a well-founded fear of persecution. The central point I would make is that currently there is no such clearly structured test.

18:45

Amendment 40 would remove the approach set out in Clause 31. What does Clause 31 do? It imposes a requirement for the decision-maker to first consider—this is in subsection (2)—what you might call the subjective element of the well-founded fear test, where a decision-maker will consider whether the asylum seeker in fact has a characteristic often referred to as a “convention reason” as specified in the refugee convention, and whether the asylum seeker in fact has a fear of persecution as a result of that convention reason.

There is then a second stage of the approach under Clause 31(4), where the decision-maker would consider whether there is a reasonable likelihood—not a fact, as in the first part of the approach—that the asylum seeker would be persecuted if returned. The amendment, however, in combination with other amendments, instead maintains the status quo in expecting decision-makers to take a decision in the round, based on all the evidence available, and therefore wraps up what are conceptually quite different parts of the test into one overall question. Having separated out and identified those two elements of the test, Clause 31 raises the standard of proof for the first element of the test to the balance of probabilities. That is because, at that stage of the test, at its core, we are asking claimants to establish on a balance of probabilities that they in fact are who they say are and that they in fact fear what they say they fear.

Reports from non-government organisations, and speeches from noble Lords in Committee and again today, have warned of the effect that this clause may have on those with certain protected characteristics: those, for example, with LGBT+ claims, or women fleeing gender-based violence. I can say that we have obviously considered this very carefully. There are several ways in which we would ensure that such individuals were not disadvantaged by the change. We have already put in place specific asylum policy instructions on considering sexual orientation and gender in asylum claims, and these guidance documents set out in some detail how decision-makers should fully investigate the key issues through a focused, professional and obviously sensitive approach to questioning. As part of putting this guidance into practice, we will update both the guidance and training provided to decision-makers, and we will ensure that interviews are sufficiently detailed to enable claimants to meet the higher standard required, regardless of the nature of the claim. Let me be clear: the proposed test will not prevent LGBT+ or female claimants, or any other cohort for that matter, who are genuine refugees from being recognised as a refugee in the UK.

As I said in Committee, there is international precedent that supports our decision to raise the threshold for assessing the first part of the test, the facts that a claimant presents, on a balance of probabilities. Both Canada and Switzerland have systems which examine to this higher standard at least some elements of a claimant’s claim. Although I heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham say that this makes us out of step with the UNHCR and our own courts in their decisions to date, ultimately, as I explained in Committee, interpretation of the refugee convention is not a matter for the UNHCR or the courts, in the sense that the UK, as a signatory to the convention, is entitled under the Vienna Convention to interpret the words of the refugee convention bona fide. Of course, the UK does that through this Parliament—and I am not using the word “Parliament” as some sort of euphemism for “Home Office”. Indeed, I think the results of the votes in this Report stage would indicate that certainly this House is not an extension of the Home Office. I was stating that as a neutral point—noble Lords might think that is good, bad or indifferent.

I will not deal directly with Amendment 42, because I think it is fair to say that it is a consequential amendment on Amendment 41, so my argument on Amendment 41 therefore applies there as well.

Amendment 43 would remove the requirement for decision-makers to consider whether the asylum seeker in fact has a fear of persecution as a result of a convention reason. That link is a vital part of the assessment, which would be removed altogether as a result of these amendments. Refugee status in the UK must not be granted to those who do not have a genuine fear of persecution for a convention reason. I suggest that that ought to be incapable of dispute.

Turning to the second part of the test in Clause 31(4), the standard of proof for the second element of the test—this is whether the claimant would be persecuted if returned to their country of origin or country of former habitual residence—remains at the standard of reasonable degree of likelihood. That is because this element of the test—the future fear of the claimant—is obviously harder for the claimant to demonstrate, and therefore a lower standard of proof is appropriate. It seems that there is no disagreement across the House on that point.

However, while Amendment 43, for the most part, mirrors the closing stages of Clause 31, which would otherwise be removed by Amendment 44, it has one major omission, and I was not sure whether this was accidental or deliberate. From certain of the speeches, it appears to be deliberate, and that is this: the removal of reference to consideration of whether an asylum seeker can internally relocate in their country of origin to a place where they would not have a well-founded fear of persecution. Our interpretation of internal relocation is outlined in Clause 34, and the result of these amendments would, therefore, be a lack of clarity for decision-makers as to whether this factor remains a core part of the well-founded-fear assessment. I suggest that it has to be, considering that internal relocation is a common aspect of the asylum decision-making procedure among our European Union counterparts and other international partners. Therefore, it remains entirely unclear to me why this consideration should be removed if, as I say, it is a deliberate removal.

As I noted in Committee, I set out in the letter, which I heard the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, was going to subject to judicial analysis, the concerns of noble Lords regarding the compatibility of this clause with our international obligations, in particular obligations under the refugee convention. I have sought to set out the position, and I apologise twice: first, for the length of the letter—I am afraid that it takes a little time to set out the position—and secondly, for the fact that the letter was sent out later than dated. It was provided to the Whips Office at the end of last week, but it was only circulated, as the noble and learned Lord said, on Monday. I am the person on my feet; I am the person responding to this debate, so it is only right that I make the apology to the House for the lateness of that letter. I am sorry that it was sent out later than it should have been and later than I intended.

I am not going to repeat the contents of the letter, but I will set out the conclusion. Consideration of historic case law, views of authoritative academics, the approach of a number of other jurisdictions and Article 31 of the Vienna convention show that the current policy is not the only possible good-faith interpretation of the convention. We have set out our interpretation in that letter.

Turning to Amendment 45, Article 1(A)(2) of the refugee convention states that a refugee is an individual who has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Clause 32 sets out what precisely is meant by each of those characteristics—the “convention reasons”. Focusing on “a particular social group”, the clause sets out that the definition of that term means that a claimant must meet both conditions of the test, in Clauses 31(3) and 31(4), in order to be considered a member of a particular social group.

I remind the House that far from being clear what the position is in law, there has been a degree of confusion in this area for many years. One can cherry-pick Upper Tribunal decisions from here, there or anywhere, but I am afraid the fact is that there is a clear mismatch between how the concept of “particular social group” has been defined in current legislation and government policy in different tribunal judgments and how it has been interpreted in some courts. Therefore, we have set out a clear definition in primary legislation, because at the moment there is no universally agreed definition.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

I am afraid that I have been caught rather short on procedure, so I hope the House will indulge me. I did not address Clause 32(5), which is the focus of my manuscript Amendment 45A, but the Minister is now dealing with Clause 32. It would not be appropriate in the circumstances to make a speech on this, but I ask the Minister to respond to two questions.

First, in general terms, what are these acts that are referred to in Clause 32(5) that are criminal and, in some way or other, said to bear upon a quite different issue: sexual orientation, which is an identity? At the moment, it seems as though Clause 32(5) is mixing apples and pears—one on identity, to live a life freely and openly and without fear of persecution, which is what orientation is, and then we have some exclusion or cutting down on acts. I assume that we are not going back 100 years and saying that all those people who are LGBTQI have some inclination to paedophilia: I hope that we are not saying that.

Secondly—

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I think my noble friend is able to answer the questions that he is posing. Moreover, this is Report, so although noble Lords can rise for small points of clarification, it should be no more than that.

[Lord Etherton (CB)]

I have one more point of clarification. Could the Minister explain what the position will be for refugee asylum seekers who are under 16 and for whom any sexual relations would be a criminal offence?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I was coming to each of those points in my speech. I am not going to do so just yet, because I was, it is fair to say, on a different point, but I will come to those points in due course when I deal with the manuscript amendment.

Before the noble and learned Lord’s intervention, I was setting out the definition of “particular social group.” I was making the point that there is no universally agreed definition and no authoritative definition of that phrase. There is, as I have said, conflicting tribunal-level case law. For example, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to the Fornah decision of this House in its former judicial capacity. The point there is that it is obiter. That is really important, because that bit is obiter: it is not part of the ratio of the decision. That really underlines my point that we cannot, with great respect, cherry-pick passages of decisions which are obiter, particularly decisions of the Upper Tribunal. Ultimately, it is for the UK, as a member state and signatory, and, for this Parliament—not the Home Office—to interpret the refugee convention. That is what we have sought to do here.

There are two clear conditions, and let me underline the following point: this is not a change in government policy. These conditions do not change the position—they reflect current government policy. The first condition is that members of the group share either an innate characteristic, a common background test that cannot be changed, or a characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to identity or conscience that a person should not be forced to renounce it.

The second condition is that the group has a distinct identity in the relevant country because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society. The amendment would mean that a group need meet only one of the characteristics to be considered a particular social group. Obviously, that would significantly widen the scope of people who could qualify as a refugee but, relevantly for this debate, it would erode the concept that people deserve and need protection based on fundamental characteristics that go to the core of who they are, such as their faith or sexuality. It would broaden the definition to cover potentially transient factors such as an individual’s occupation, and that, we say, is incompatible with very purpose of the refugee convention.

19:00

On this point, as I set out in Committee, our proposed definition accords with the widely used and accepted interpretation of “particular social group”. It follows the formulation applied across much of Europe, which is normally something that would commend it to those on the Benches in that corner of the House. Perhaps in this case they take issue with the EU qualification directive which underpins the Common European Asylum System.

There was concern in Committee about the impact this clause would have on vulnerable groups—for example, faith groups.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

Will the noble Lord give way?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am not sure that one generally takes questions on Report. I am newer than the noble Baroness, and I do not want to be rude; equally, I want to maintain the approach of the House.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My noble friend is correct on that. Noble Lords are guided not to speak after the Minister.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I want to respond to the concern expressed in Committee about the impact the clause would have on vulnerable groups—particularly, for example, female claimants fleeing gender-based violence—and to respond to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. Victims of gender-based violence may still be considered to be members of a particular social group for the purposes of making an asylum claim if they meet the conditions in Clause 32(3) and (4). In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, this clause does not therefore mean that women who are victims of gender-based violence are less likely to be accepted as a member of a particular social group: all cases are assessed on a case-by-case basis.

I cannot say, of course, that all women fleeing gender-based violence will always be found to be refugees, if that was the nature of the point that was being put to me. What I can say with certainty is that the structure of the definition does not preclude it. I think I heard, in the way the noble Baroness put the question, that the example was of a woman with “good grounds”. If she is asking, “Will this application be accepted?” good grounds is not the test and therefore, if good grounds is part of the question, I am afraid that that is why I necessarily gave the answer I did. I think if the noble Baroness looks at Hansard, she will see that I have now, again, answered the question directly.

I turn to Amendment 45A from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. It is vital that we provide protection to those in the UK who require it as a result of persecution they would face due to sexual orientation, but I suggest that it goes without saying that protection must not be afforded on the basis of one’s sexual orientation where the acts in question are criminal in the United Kingdom. I shall deal with both his points.

First, I note the explanatory statement on the amendment. For those who have not seen it, I shall summarise it. The obviously well-meaning intention of this amendment is to prevent applicants under the age of consent in the UK being excluded from refugee protection—I hope I have understood that correctly. I reassure the noble and learned Lord and the House that line 9 of Clause 32 does no such thing. That is because, although an asylum applicant may be under the age of consent in the UK, they can still be persecuted as a result of their sexual orientation. For example, a 15 year-old homosexual applicant may still be recognised as a member of a particular social group should they meet the requirements of Clause 32, even though they are not legally able to consent to sexual activity in the UK. I distinguish in this regard—I hope this is helpful to the noble and learned Lord—between sexual orientation and sexual activity. In that context, I come to the other point.

Let me say what should not need to be said—of course this is not the noble and learned Lord’s intention—but we are concerned that, as drafted, the amendment could allow convicted paedophiles and other convicted sex offenders to be granted refugee status in the UK, solely on account of their criminal acts relating to their sexual orientation. Of course, that is not the intention of the amendment: we are concerned that it is an unintended consequence of it. I hope that what I have said already deals with the intention behind the amendment and reassures the noble and learned Lord.

Lastly, I come to Amendment 46. Clause 36 provides the interpretive framework for Clause 11, which sets out Parliament’s position on Article 31(1) of the refugee convention. Clause 36 is still relevant in terms of providing the UK’s interpretation of key terms in Article 31 of the convention, such as immunity from penalties, so it is not just there to serve Clause 11, which was the first point made by the noble and learned Lord. The convention does not define what is meant by coming “directly” or “without delay”. Again, we have taken the opportunity to define those terms. We have taken into account that group 2 refugees will still be protected and not refouled, and will receive relevant entitlements so that the object and purpose of the convention are upheld.

Clause 36 is clear that there is discretion not to grant differentiated entitlements where a person could not reasonably be expected to have claimed in another safe country or where a person made a claim as soon as reasonably practicable. I made points earlier as to discretion and individual assessment. So this does not necessarily rule out the position taken by the House of Lords in R v Asfaw; it will all turn on the particular facts of the case.

Finally, I will prevail on the Home Office, I hope, to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the point she raised. For these reasons, and with apologies that it has taken a little longer than I anticipated, I respectfully invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full and considered response and all noble Lords for their contributions. The strength of feeling is strong and again I make the point that these clauses are overly punitive towards women and victims of gender-based violence. I fear that that concern was not answered in the very full answer we were given. In particular, I still do not think that the responses given take any awareness of the trauma of so many of the women who come forward. I fear that to talk about “sufficiently detailed interviews”, as the Minister did at one point, would raise hackles on that front.

I have no doubt that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester will read Hansard very carefully and may well write off the back of that. I thank the Minister for making the promise to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—I was about to ask him to, but he got in there before us. It is rather regrettable that we have not been able to persuade the Government on these points, and the Bill will not now adequately protect those who are subject to gender-based violence. That is the deep concern. That said, with deep regret, I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 40 withdrawn.

Amendments 41 to 44 not moved.

Clause 32: Article 1(A)(2): reasons for persecution

Amendments 45 and 45A not moved.

Clause 36: Article 31(1): immunity from penalties

Amendment 46 not moved.

Amendment 47

Moved by

[Baroness Ludford]

47: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Refugee family reunion
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days. (2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons he or she deems appropriate.(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.(5) In this section, “family members” include—(a) a person’s parent, including adoptive parent;(b) a person’s spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;(c) a person’s child, including adopted child, who is either—(i) under the age of 18, or(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;(d) a person’s sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—(i) under the age of 18, or(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,(ii) the best interests of a child,(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;(b) “best interests” of a child must be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Ukrainian family scheme drives a welcome coach and horses through the usual Home Office approach to refugee family reunion, which is to oppose anything but a very narrow definition of “family”. The Home Office, in my opinion, seeks to restrict this safe route very considerably. As I understand it, the new scheme would allow children as well as adults to sponsor parents, grandparents, siblings and their immediate families, as well as allowing adults to sponsor their children over 18. It does not go as far as Amendment 48 from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in including, for instance, reunion with an aunt or uncle, and I look forward to him speaking to that amendment.

The Ukrainian family scheme is not the normal, routine Home Office approach. That approach was expressed at Second Reading of my Private Member’s Bill on refugee family reunion, and in Committee in response to my amendment, which was essentially the text of that Private Member’s Bill, as is Amendment 47 today.

In Committee on this Bill, the Minister said that the Home Office recognised

“that in some cases there will be exceptional and compassionate circumstances which warrant a grant of leave”

for the purposes of family reunion and that the guidance on exceptional circumstances would be “published in due course”. Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made in publishing that guidance? Yet again, as so often, the basis of the policy is just the exercise of discretion. It does not give certainty.

The Ukrainian family scheme is of course welcome, but in its recognition that, having fled to safety, refugees need their families, it should be a precedent, not an exception. As to allowing children to bring in family members, the Minister said at Committee stage of this Bill that

“noble Lords will at least grant that I have been consistent in opposing that sort of policy, because of its negative consequences”,

which, she claimed would creative incentives for children to be encouraged and forced

“to leave their family and risk extremely dangerous journeys to the UK in order to sponsor relatives.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1474.]

In fact, it is the lack of safe routes such as family reunion that force dangerous journeys. Families Together, the coalition of 90 NGOs, talks about how the existing rules mean

“that those family members who have become separated but are not covered by the rules are left with the invidious choice of staying put in insecure and dangerous places or embarking on treacherous, expensive, unregulated journeys.”

I agree with another NGO, the excellent Safe Passage, that:

“Safe routes save lives, reunite families and support refugees to rebuild their lives … welcomed by our communities.”


I hope that the Government will take the precedent of the Ukrainian family scheme and widen it out to their family reunion policies. I beg to move.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 48 in particular. I say at the outset that I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble she has taken to give me a chance to talk to her and her officials about the clause and the Government’s view of it. Although I do not think that either of us was persuaded by the other as a result of our conversation, nevertheless I am grateful for the trouble she went to.

I want to just say a word or two about the background. Until we left the EU we had the benefit of the Dublin treaty, particularly Dublin III. To summarise, the benefit of that was that a refugee child or a child claiming refugee status could seek to join a relative living in this country. For example, a Syrian boy in France could apply to join an uncle in Birmingham or Manchester. That worked fairly well. The figures show that it was quite successful and it was an important part of reuniting families.

When we were concerned that Brexit would put an end to all this because the Dublin treaty would no longer apply, this House passed an amendment to the 2017 legislation so that the Government would negotiate to continue the family reunion provision after we left the EU. That was passed by this House on a vote, it was eventually accepted by the Government in the Commons and it became the law of the land. Then came the 2019 legislation and the Government took the provision out again, for reasons we never understood. Many of us were alarmed that something that had been passed could just be reversed, as it were, by other legislation.

Partly to conciliate me, I think, the Minister arranged a meeting. I was quite surprised that there were three Government Ministers and seven officials at the meeting, and me: it was sort of 10 to one. The effort was made to persuade me that everything would be all right under the then Immigration Rules. The then Immigration Minister was Brandon Lewis. He looked me in the eye and said, “Don’t you trust me?” I found this quite difficult. I said, first, “There is no guarantee you will stay in your job for very long.” Indeed, within weeks he was promoted to Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Secondly, I said, “I may trust you personally but I don’t trust the Government.” I am afraid that is still my position on this legislation.

19:15

What we have is a less than satisfactory provision for family reunion under the Immigration Rules as they now stand. All the evidence is that it is not working. For example, according to Safe Passage, with which I work very closely, it is clear that since the Dublin III arrangements ceased very few children have managed to join their families here. Although the amendment goes a bit wider than children, essentially the main thrust of it is to enable children to join relatives.

Under the Dublin treaty provisions, 90% of these applications were accepted and in 2020 Safe Passage had 134 successful cases. Since the end of Dublin III and the provision being taken out of the 2019 legislation, Safe Passage has had 24 family reunion cases, and decisions from the Home Office on nine of those. Of those nine, seven were refusals: three from Greece, three from France and one from Belgium. Two cases were accepted, both from Greece.

We have seen a dramatic decline in the ability of young people on the continent to join their relatives here on the basis of refugee status. It has been a very difficult situation and, much as I wish to be brief, I want to give one or two examples. There have been no successful applications from France. I will briefly quote some of the reasons that have been given. The Home Office has argued that a child being alone in France or Greece is not a “serious and compelling circumstance” to warrant entry clearance to the UK. Safe Passage believes that a child being unaccompanied and separated from family should surely be a serious and compelling circumstance.

In the case of one unaccompanied child, the Home Office responded:

“You currently live in a shelter for unaccompanied Minors with psychological support. I note you have provided no evidence why this arrangement cannot continue or any serious and compelling considerations in your case.”

You have to stay there. There is no future; you cannot join your family.

I have one or two more to quote before I finish. In another instance, the Home Office said:

“From the evidence provided it is noted that you are currently receiving ongoing care”

in a shelter for unaccompanied children

“and no evidence has been provided to suggest this care arrangement can no longer continue … you have evidenced no serious or compelling circumstances to show that your life cannot continue how it is now.”

What are we saying? We are saying that a child should stay in some sort of institution and cannot join their family member in this country. For heaven’s sake, what is all this about?

In another instance, the Home Office said:

“Whilst we sympathise with people in difficult situations, we are not bound to consider asylum claims from the very large numbers of people overseas who might like to come here”—

ha, ha—

“those who need international protection”—

now we hear it again—

“should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach—that is the fastest route to safety.”

I have met young people in Calais and in Greece who desperately want to join their family, often siblings, here. If they cannot do that, they do what any of us would do in that situation: they find another way of getting here to join their family. If the choice was between staying in some hostel, as the Home Office refers to; staying in the conditions in the camp in Moria, on Lesbos—it burnt down, but the situation there is still similar; sleeping under the trees and tarpaulins near Calais; or finding another way of getting to this country to join your siblings, we would do it. They will do it. It is no wonder.

When we still had the Dublin III arrangement, I went to Calais, and in the Jungle talked to people. They said, “When it gets dark we’ll try to hop on to the back of a lorry on the motorway nearby.” I said, “We are working very hard to find you a safe and legal way, so don’t do that dangerous thing.” But some of them did, because the safe and legal way did not arrive.

I have many more examples, but I shall not take up more time. But there is a clear case for family reunion, and if as a country we cannot support family reunion on the basis in which I have described it—on the basis described in this amendment—then we are a much less worthy country than I thought we were.

Lastly, in discussions on previous amendments there was much talk about public opinion. I believe that the British public are essentially humanitarian, and if they are given these arguments they will say, “Yes, we support that. We support family reunion, particularly for these children. Let’s go for it—we don’t agree with the Government.” Public opinion is on our side, so let us make sure that the Government listen to that public opinion.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in what he has just said. I was one of the signatories of the original Dubs amendment, as it became known. It is a pleasure to follow him this evening and endorse his remarks, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I also support and have signed Amendment 50, which is being proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. My Amendment 51 is an all-party amendment. I declare my interest as a patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response, and my involvement in various relevant all-party parliamentary groups.

Amendment 51 has its origins in northern Iraq, where on 3 August 2014 ISIS attacked Sinjar, killing thousands of Yazidis, abducting thousands of women and girls, and forcing the rest to flee. This attack on the Yazidis was followed by mass atrocities in the Nineveh Plains, from where people were forced to flee or to die. People who were different, including gay people, were thrown from high buildings, prisoners were burnt in metal cages, women were raped, and homes were looted. These atrocities then intensified in their number and scope.

In 2019, I travelled to northern Iraq and met Yazidi leaders and members of other minorities; I took statements and evidence. It was truly shocking to hear first-hand accounts of the terrors to which human beings had been subjected. To hold to account those responsible for atrocity crimes, the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide lays a duty on us to protect, prevent, punish and—since the Bosnian genocide—act from the moment it is believed that this ultimate crime of crimes is being perpetrated.

In 2016, believing a genocide to be under way, the four signatories of this amendment tonight did precisely that and acted. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—who is currently in northern Nigeria, collecting evidence on atrocity crimes—the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and I jointly tabled an amendment, calling on the Government to provide a safe and legal route for Yazidis and others dying at the hands of their tormentors. We failed to convince the Government to support it.

However, during that debate, and again in Committee on this Bill, we have again argued that our asylum procedures should create a specific category to help those judged to be at immediate risk of genocide. This amendment would leave the adjudication of whether a genocide was under way to a judge of the High Court of England and Wales, a route suggested to me by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. It was supported as a principle during proceedings on the Trade Bill in 2021 by three-figure majorities of your Lordships’ House and only narrowly defeated in the House of Commons, in what I think was the closest vote of the Parliament on a House of Lords amendment.

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide. Winston Churchill said that the horrific nature of the genocide of the European Jews, the Holocaust, was a crime so unimaginably monstrous that it did not have a name; a Jewish Polish lawyer, who lost over 40 members of his family in the Holocaust, gave it one. Despite the term being named and defined, we nevertheless refused to empower a United Kingdom court to pronounce on it, while knowing that routes to the International Criminal Court are invariably blocked by vetoes.

But the House should note that, as recently as in November 2021, a court—a German one, in Frankfurt—did finally put a name to the crimes committed by ISIS against the Yazidis and others. It convicted a man who had bought a five-year-old Yazidi girl as a slave, and then chained her up in the hot sun where she burnt to death. The court convicted him of genocide. On International Women’s Day next Tuesday, we should recall that little girl and the estimated 5,000 young Yazidi women and girls abducted by ISIS, who suffered horrific and prolific sexual abuse.

Tonight, we have the chance to do something practical, which we have failed to do thus far. Despite all the evidence and a vote in the House of Commons declaring atrocities against the Yazidis to be a genocide, we have still not recognised this as a genocide and we have failed to create a safe or legal route to enable safe passage for those who are so grievously at risk. As I said at Committee:

“Reports suggest that among those resettled to the United Kingdom, there have been no Yazidis whatever and no Christians from northern Iraq—none. I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us what the numbers are, or, if she does not have them, perhaps she could arrange for us to receive them between now and Report”.—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1484.]


I hope we will be given those figures today.

In January, I asked for a bespoke humanitarian visa scheme for Uighurs and was told:

“While we sympathise with the many people facing difficult situations around the world, we have no plans to introduce a bespoke humanitarian visa scheme for Uyghurs.”


But sympathy alone is not enough. The Foreign Secretary herself has said that there is a genocide under way in Xinjiang; the House of Commons has voted to say there is genocide under way; and American Presidents, present and previous, have said there is a genocide under way. Does that not at least require a bespoke scheme to help some of those affected?

This amendment is modest: it will not be able to help the millions of people caught up in the pestilential nature of persecution, demonisation, scapegoating and hateful prejudice evident in the recent genocides in Iraq and Syria, the razed villages of Rohingyas in Burma/Myanmar, or the concentration camps of Xinjiang. It will not in itself stop the hauntingly cruel elimination of innocent humans being murdered because of their religious, ethnic or other identity. This amendment will also not be able to save every life—but it will save some.

In Committee it was suggested by my noble friend Lord Green that the amendment would potentially open the door to millions of people. The signatories of this amendment have listened to that argument, and we have addressed it. Proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment now gives the Secretary of State the power to use regulations to cap the number of people granted asylum under this scheme in any calendar year. That is not unlike what we are doing over Syrians, Afghans or children. If this amendment had been passed in 2016, it would have saved the lives of some of the Yazidis, Christians, gay people and others who were targeted by ISIS.

In 2016, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said:

“I say to my noble friend the Minister: throw away the brief from the Home Office and go back to the department and tell it what has been said this evening. I am certain that, despite the media coverage and the information that is available, people in this country have no idea of the extent of the horrors that are being perpetrated”.—[Official Report, 3/2/16; col. 1894.]


I therefore hope that tonight the House will send this amendment to the House of Commons, so that an injustice can be put right and a safe and legal route opened for small numbers of people, to be determined by the Home Secretary, who are subject to what we declare to be the crime above all crimes, to which we are treaty-bound to do something about. We are also bound to them by laws of common humanity. I hope we can do rather more than simply express our sympathy and sentiment.

19:30

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, again in the absence of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, who still has Covid, I wish to speak to Amendment 49, tabled in his name, which introduces a global resettlement target of 10,000 people each year.

We have just heard from the Home Secretary that the Government have committed to expanding their family visa scheme and introducing a new community sponsorship scheme for Ukrainians, both of which are significant and welcome steps. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the further policy details that she gave us earlier. But it is difficult to know exactly what is being proposed and, more critically, exactly how many Ukrainians will be able to access these routes and the timeframe in which they will be able to do so.

Community sponsorship, while effective, is typically not a rapid response option and requires considerable planning, resource and buy-in from local community advocates and groups. I have long been an advocate for this kind of policy but it is a solution that requires people to be able to plan and build the infrastructure to support it, as exists in, say, Canada. However, as we are all too aware, the moment of crisis is now. This is the second time in a few short months that a major global refugee crisis has emerged, with Ukraine swift on the heels of Afghanistan. The reality is that on both occasions we have simply not had the infrastructure in place to care for people properly in terms of both civil society’s response and local authority capacity.

With that in mind, I turn to Amendment 49, which offers the Government an effective, carefully planned and responsive solution for refugees as regards not only the protracted crisis that we expect to develop in Ukraine but those seeking protection on these shores from other conflict zones. There are two important reasons for that amendment. The first is that we would be playing our part as a nation in responding to global crises and resettling 10,000 of the world’s most vulnerable each year. Secondly, it would mean that we could plan and build a basic level of infrastructure at a local community level to be resilient to crises like the one playing out before us right now.

One of the greatest challenges for Afghan arrivals has been the fact that we have not had the capacity to take in such a big influx so quickly. That is largely because we have not had the stable infrastructure in place for welcome and integration. The success of the Canadian approach to refugee resettlement lies in its consistency. There is strong integration infrastructure there, well-resourced civil society groups and genuine expertise in the local authorities. That is why the Government setting a baseline target for the number of refugees who will be resettled by safe and legal routes could help to build the infrastructure required. If the response to Afghanistan proves one thing, it is that we need to guarantee consistency to both the local authorities and civil society groups that do so much to ensure the smooth transitions for asylum seekers.

A predictable but flexible global resettlement model in which the Government retain control over how places are allocated enables the Home Office to react swiftly to international refugee crises and in a co-ordinated fashion with local authorities, to scale provision in line with demand. Without this amendment, we will continue to lurch from one major crisis to the next. The best way to avoid that outcome is to ensure that we can plan and prepare the infrastructure and manage the flow of refugees. Amendment 49 does not prescribe the exact manner in which the Government should meet their target but simply seeks to address the underlying and fundamental issue—that at the moment we are unprepared and are not playing our part fully in the emerging international crisis.

The success of the Syrian programme in no small part was due to the political commitment and leadership associated with the 20,000-person commitment, which produced voluntary buy-in from local government and, in turn, enabled the build of a well-functioning and properly resourced system. The baseline of 10,000 people is an appropriate number for the future.

I conclude by taking a step back. If we fail to enshrine safe and legal routes, I fear that the two-tier system that the Government are creating with this legislation will come back to haunt us. Does the Minister imagine that the British public will endorse this legislation when its consequences become clear and we criminalise or remove public fund provisions for Ukrainian and Afghan women and children, who will inevitably in their desperation seek other avenues to reach our shores? War clarifies public opinion. The British public are hugely supportive of those fleeing Vladimir Putin’s war. I urge the Minister to consider whether, in the heat of the most major war and potential refugee crisis in a generation, it is the right moment to introduce a two-tiered refugee system. Surely it would be better to pause this legislative process to allow for reflection and see where the land lies.

However, if the Minister cannot consider that, I commend Amendment 49 to the House as a pragmatic way in which to ensure that we have the community infrastructure needed to support people for the long haul. It will send a signal both at home and abroad that we are a compassionate and fair nation.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I support all the amendments in this group but particularly Amendment 48, which has my name on it, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, spoke. It is a great pity that the Government wound up the Dubs scheme for unaccompanied children, which was doing a great deal of good, and that the Government did not want to stay in Dublin III or try to negotiate on that. We are not part of that agreement, and that removed two safe routes for unaccompanied children.

Under the Immigration Rules, as I understand them, it is not possible for a child to come to stay with a grandparent, sibling—a brother or a sister—uncle or aunt. It has to be a parent. Suppose the parents are lost or the situation is such as that unfolding in Ukraine now. Suppose the child has lost the parents en route. Why can he or she not come and stay with their grandparents in this country? The Immigration Rules seem to be too harsh. I therefore support the language of Amendment 48.

The more worrying point for me is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, when he cited the Safe Passage numbers. It is alarming that the number of unaccompanied children coming in by a safe route has dropped steeply now that we are no longer in Dublin, the Dubs scheme has gone and these Immigration Rules are being applied. Where are these children going? Safe Passage tells us that in more than 50% of the cases that it is trying to follow, the children just give up, drop out and disappear off the books. Where do they disappear to? I fear that they disappear down to the beach and into the hands of the crooks.

Safe and legal routes really matter, so Amendment 48, which opens up the possibility again of having a safe and legal route for unaccompanied children, matters in my book. It was in this Chamber that the Dubs scheme was first approved by large majorities. For exactly the reasons that we approved it then, we should approve Amendment 48 now in a world that is, if anything, more dangerous, with more children in such a plight than then. I give my strong support to that amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, in rising to speak to Amendment 48 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 49 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, I declare my interests in relation to both RAMP and Reset, as set out in the register.

I support Amendment 48 as one of a range of safe routes needed to give people seeking asylum an alternative to using criminal gangs. People will do whatever it takes to reach family. I simply endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the case for family reunion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I urge the Minister to consider this proposal as a pragmatic response to the need to find durable solutions to desperate people dying on our borders in order to reach their family. This route will prevent some from ending in the traffickers’ hands.

I now turn to Amendment 49. I support it because we need a target for the global resettlement scheme, to ensure that it is operational to a level which provides a real alternative to people forced to use criminal gangs, and that it reaches countries such as Iran, Eritrea and Sudan, from which the majority of those arriving on small boats originate. We had the annual target of 5,000 for the Syrian resettlement scheme, and that is indeed the number who came, in a controlled, predictable and prepared way. We currently do not have a target for the global resettlement scheme, and just 1,587 came in 2021.

A target enables local authorities, charities, faith communities and the wider community, including businesses, to create and maintain the infrastructure needed to provide good welcome and ongoing support. This infrastructure also makes emergency response easier, as we have needed with Afghanistan and now Ukraine. It becomes less a crisis-to-crisis response and rather a strong infrastructure that can scale up when needed.

I note for the Minister that community sponsorship is deliberately not named in subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by this amendment, as there has been an earlier commitment made by Her Majesty’s Government that those coming through community sponsorship should be seen as additional to those in any set target. However, it is named in subsection (3). The Minister has previously spoken of her strong support for community sponsorship, so I hope that she will take this opportunity also to reaffirm Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to the growth and development of community sponsorship widely, as well as the welcome announcement for it with Ukraine. Further details around that would also be welcomed, particularly by Reset.

It is welcome to see the Home Secretary committing to the humanitarian pathway for Ukrainians. We wait to learn the detail of this and the expected capacity. The point is that over five years, the number coming through on community sponsorship is 700, for the reasons that were named. It takes time. That capacity is growing and building strongly, but it will not answer the Ukrainian question quickly.

Returning to the need for a clear resettlement target, I conclude that without one, I fear that the global resettlement programme will be sidelined, and refugees will have no alternative but to use criminal gangs as what they perceive as their route to safety.

[The Earl of Dundee (Con)]

My Lords, since post Brexit, the EU’s Dublin III regulation no longer protects the rights of unaccompanied children. Therefore, along with many of your Lordships, I strongly support this measure, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has very simply and eloquently indicated that it is a matter of honour that an equivalent to the Dublin regulations should now by us be put in place.

Any ambiguity would thereby be removed and instead we would make sure, as the Dublin regulations used to, that unaccompanied children and certain other people in Europe are able to come here for asylum if a close family member should already be in the United Kingdom.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I particularly want to mention the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs, and spoken to powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the importance of reunion of families.

As some noble Lords will know, I have recently been involved in the evacuation of women judges from Afghanistan. The first flight that I was involved in getting the women out on had 30 women on it. Unfortunately, I was woken at 5 am by a call from our point man at Mazar-i-Sharif airport, who said that the husband of one of the women judges had an out-of-date passport. It was not long out of date, but it was out of date, so he would not be allowed on the plane. I spoke to the woman judge, who I had got to know through her desperate communications with me. She was weeping, and I could hear her children weeping. I told her to get on the plane with her children and that I would do everything I in my power to get her husband to join her.

19:45

She said, “Can you guarantee it?” I said, “That I can’t do, but I promise you I will do everything I can to have him join you”. I did not have the confidence in my heart that I would be able to keep the promise of reuniting her husband with her and her children. I am afraid that the whole family had to be stepped down from the flight, leaving me with seats which had involved a lot of money having to be gathered together for this evacuation, because she could not go on the flight. My heart was heavy, because it was a reflection on what I felt and the confidence that I did not have in our system. I have told that story because reunion of families should be at the forefront of our minds.

My name is on Amendment 51. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken so powerfully about the importance of keeping to our commitment and duty to act when a genocide is in progress and not wait until it is over, and our duty to be of assistance to those who might flee from such persecution. As he has described, a very important protection is in here, in answering the question, as posed, “Who decides whether a genocide is in progress?” This would come before a senior court here, so it would not be a requirement of politicians to make that decision as to whether there was a genocide in progress. However, we must be prepared to support and help those who are fleeing the kind of persecution that is currently taking place in Xinjiang province. There is no need for anxiety that the whole province will end up on our shores; it is very rare that people can flee and make the journey at all. Therefore, I support Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton.

I want to speak powerfully about the importance of there being rapid responses. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has just mentioned how we can invent all sorts of processes but there must be an opportunity to say, “Take people now” if they are in mortal danger. It is what people are feeling about the situation in Ukraine. If you want to be doing these testing and security checks, bring people here and then do the checking. If someone is really a Soviet spy or former KGB agent, make your decision and deport them—but you have to act quickly to save lives.

There is a particular issue here for journalists. Our own Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has run a wonderful project, along with many other nations, on media freedom. Britain was there at the start of this project and now there are 50 countries around the world involved in it. One of the reports by the high-level legal panel that was created under that project contained a commitment made by all those countries to create emergency visas for journalists and other human rights people at the front line whose lives are in mortal danger—as was the case for my women judges. These were people who were dealing with human rights issues, protecting women, protecting people from the Taliban and jailing the Taliban. Not being able to put your hand on emergency visas is a tragedy and puts people’s lives at risk. It should be possible for there to be emergency visas. That is what my Amendment 50, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is about: creating emergency rapid responses for people who are at risk.

I remember Anna Politkovskaya, a great Russian journalist, who came to Britain to receive an award, that I was asked to give to her, for PEN International—a brave journalist who had gone to Chechnya and covered some of the ghastly things that Putin was doing there. She wrote a book, Putin’s Russia, that really put her in his sights. She came to receive this prize, and I remember sitting with her that night; we were all saying to her: “Stay. Do not go back. Your life is in danger”. She said, “I know it is, but my son is 16 and I have to go back to make sure that he could get out with me”. She went back, and I opened my newspaper two weeks later, and there was the blood on her staircase. She had been shot dead.

What was needed was emergency visas. She could have gone to our embassy, secured a visa for her son and got out within days. Instead, weeks passed and she ended up dead. We must have ways of responding to these situations rapidly. My Amendment 50 allows that kind of visa to exist for those facing imminent risk of death, and it should apply to people who, perhaps for reasons of religion, or reasons to do with their personal characteristics, might be in the same mortal danger. I hope that the House will support this amendment too.

[Lord Hylton (CB)]

My Lords, we have heard some very moving speeches. Because I have consistently spoken over the years in favour of family reunion, I will say something about Amendments 47 and 48, which I support. I urge the Government to take them away and combine the best points from both of them into something workable, practical and possible to implement.

It is most important that children and young people who are already here should be able to sponsor their close relatives, and, conversely, older people here should be able to sponsor their younger next of kin.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, I offer just a sentence on some of these amendments.

On Amendment 48, we need to bear in mind the risk that if we set up what is now proposed, children who are not yet in Europe will feel obliged to take quite serious risks to get into Europe to take advantage of it. With regard to Amendment 49, Syria is a good example. We decided that something needed to be done. We chose a target that, if you like, was doable—5,000 a year—and we did it. I take some encouragement from that. However, we need to be careful about the numbers, because we are already taking 40,000 a year, and if the Channel gets any worse that could be 70,000. We need to be careful not to lose the public’s support, which underlies all this.

Lastly, on Amendment 51, I have a good deal of sympathy with the comments of my noble friend Lord Alton on the Yazidis and others in Iraq. It may be that we should aim to do something similar to what was done over Syria, but again with a cap, in case the numbers run out of control. That has, indeed, been included in subsection (4) of the amendment, I think.

I mentioned public opinion, which changes from time to time. There is certainly very strong opposition to what is happening in the Channel; there is widespread public feeling that the Government, having promised to reduce immigration, have in fact lost control of the Channel. That, indeed, is the case. We cannot really expect the public to distinguish very clearly between asylum and other kinds of immigration. They are very uneasy, and in taking policy forward we need to keep that well in mind.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, in addition to the family reunion amendments so ably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lady Ludford, this group includes amendments on setting an annual target for the acceptance of asylum seekers into the UK and the acceptance of refugees in specific circumstances—such as those faced by female judges in Afghanistan, the victims of genocide and those fleeing the appalling situation in Ukraine. If the noble Baroness does not take up the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to combine the best parts of the two family reunion amendments, we will vote for Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, explained, the Government need to build capacity in this country to enable us to take in at least 10,000 refugees a year—a number that is seen almost universally as the UK’s annual fair share of global refugees. Without a target to aim for, the necessary arrangements—the infrastructure and capacity in local services—will not be in place to cope with situations, such as Ukraine, that can arise, as we have seen, with relatively little notice. It is no excuse for the Government to say, “We are unprepared”. We must be prepared, and Amendment 49 seeks to ensure that we are.

I reiterate what I said late on Monday: the British people want to help genuine refugees, like those fleeing the conflict in Ukraine. What they worry about, rightly or wrongly, is being overwhelmed by immigrants. I repeat: in recent years only six in every hundred people coming to the UK to live have been asylum seekers. The British people have nothing to fear from this amendment. On the contrary, if it was explained to them, I am sure that they would support it overwhelmingly.

We support Amendment 50—so powerfully spoken to, and in the name of, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—which makes special emergency provision for people at particular risk, such as human rights defenders, including journalists, and minorities. We also support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, to make special provision for victims of genocide.

To put beyond doubt the mixed messages from the Government about what they will do to support refugees from Ukraine, Amendment 54A in my name, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, puts into primary legislation the requirement to support, by whatever means necessary, Ukrainian refugees who need to come to the UK. We passionately support all the amendments in this group.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, what a powerful debate we have just had on what is one of the most important parts of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke about wishing that we could inform the public. I sometimes wish—I do not know how you would do it, unless you put it on live television—that the public could hear more of the speeches made in places like this. That would inform the debate and take it forward in a way that allowed people to make their own mind up. It is disappointing that it does not happen.

It is important, in this context, to remind ourselves that we are all wrestling with how we deal with refugees, family reunion and resettlement schemes. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, needs to be repeated time and again: this is not about immigration, it is about refugees fleeing persecution and about asylum. That is extremely important.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was also right, with his Amendment 51, to remind us of some of the people who need support.

In speaking to her Amendment 50, my noble friend Lady Kennedy referred movingly to her work to support the judges in Afghanistan. She has dedicated her life to trying to do something for people in such situations.

20:00

We support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and the global resettlement programme that she announced. When the noble Baroness was talking, I wondered whether, in the light of what has happened in Ukraine and the movement of people in all parts of the world, there are the statesmen and stateswomen who could come together to create another 1951 refugee convention. It strikes me that perhaps it is time for the world to come together to understand what we should do about the movement of people across the globe, whether that be through war or famine or whatever. Essentially, this group of amendments—and the issue the Government are wrestling with—is about how we respond to that. The various amendments before us are seeking, in their own ways, to deal with that problem.

Above all, none of us could fail to be moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs. The passion and power that he brought to this issue moved us all and was a challenge to us all. Whether we agree with the amendment or not, what are we going to do about what is a very real situation? As we stand here in this Chamber and debate this, there are unaccompanied children who have nowhere to go. There are people fleeing persecution and war, people facing genocide, who have nowhere to go. That is the reality of what we face and what we are seeking to deal with.

To be fair to the Government, I know that the Minister will describe what they are doing about this issue and refer to the extension to the Ukraine scheme, which we all welcome. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, we obviously need to understand the details of the Government’s proposal. Interestingly, following pressure from this House and the other place, the Government have incrementally improved and extended their offer, which shows the importance of debate and discussion.

We strongly support my noble friend Lord Dubs’ Amendment 48 and will encourage noble Lords and Baronesses to vote for it, should it be put to a vote. Families are split across Europe, and children who seek safety with family members are at very high risk of taking dangerous journeys across the channel and elsewhere to be reunited with their loved ones. Time and again, as noble Lords have said, the lack of safe and legal routes is at the heart of the problem. If those are not put in place, people will seek alternatives—I would; anybody would—so between us, we have to find safe and legal routes. As my noble friend Lord Dubs pointed out, the Government recently closed those safe routes for children. They ended the Dubs scheme, and we need to hear from the Minister what is going to replace it.

On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, it is vital to mention that 10,000 is approximately the number the Prime Minister previously committed to. He said that the 5,000 people a year resettled under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme would be in addition to previous commitment to resettle 5,000. The crucial thing is to have a well prepared and flexible resettlement capacity which can react as needed. This week is a reminder of the reality of that and, as I say, it is good to hear from the Minister that the Government have moved on this.

We used to be a leading country in Europe on resettlement but that has not been the case for the past few years; we now need the Government to commit to our having not just a proud past on resettlement, but a proud future. The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme took five months to get up and running; we need to look at that and understand how we can move much quicker.

On the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, of course we need to do something about genocide. He knows that we have some concerns about the detail, and it would be for the Government to sort out how it would work in practice, but we unequivocally support the principle of what the noble Lord is trying to do.

I go back to the key point of the debate on all the amendments before the Chamber. The lack of safe and legal routes is at the heart of this, and the amendments seek to address the particular problems that arise from that. As we see with the Ukrainian crisis and other crises, there will be a need at some point for greater international co-operation across not just Europe but the world to deal with this ever-increasing movement of people as they flee persecution, war and famine.

Many of these amendments are worthy of support and I hope the Government listen to what has been said. I will finish with this: when the Government are told by everybody that there is a problem with the legislation before us and they need to change some of it, it is sometimes a good idea for them to listen.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who spoke in this debate. To take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I sometimes wish that people would listen to the points I make, but sometimes, because it is politics, they choose not to.

On Amendment 47, which relates to refugee family reunion, we have a comprehensive framework to manage cases that fall outside our rules. For example, refugees can sponsor children aged under 18—including siblings, nieces and nephews—to come here where there are serious and compelling circumstances, and there is further discretion to consider any other familial relationship as necessary. As part of the 2021 safe and legal routes review, we sought to clarify in our Immigration Rules which exceptional circumstances may be engaged for children whose applications are being considered outside the rules. This will bring further consistency and transparency to our policy.

Regarding allowing child refugees to sponsor family members under this new clause, I cannot stress enough the objectionable consequences this could create. It risks incentivising more children to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK, playing into the hands of criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable people, which goes against our safeguarding responsibilities. I know that noble Lords would not want to see that outcome.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for tabling Amendment 48, which is about safe routes for those seeking to claim asylum in the UK, including unaccompanied children, to travel from countries in Europe to join family in the UK. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also support this proposed new clause, but I cannot. It tries to create a scheme similar to the EU’s Dublin regulation in UK law with respect to those who are in a European country but have family members in the UK. However, unlike the Dublin regulation, where the asylum claim is initially made in the EU country they are in, this new clause attempts to introduce a route for those who are in safe European countries to come to the UK to claim asylum.

On the Dubs scheme, we did not end it; we completed what we set out to do, which was to take 480 children under the Dubs scheme. On family reunion under Dublin, noble Lords will see in the table I sent the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and which I distributed to all Members of your Lordships’ House, that Dublin had about a tenth of the number of our refugee family reunion scheme over a similar period. The noble Lord also talked about the Safe Passage cases. I understand that the Home Office asked him to send details of them. We would be very happy to receive them should he see fit to send them.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, noble Lords will be aware that the UK sought to negotiate on these matters, specifically for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but it was not possible to reach an agreement with the EU on family reunion. When the UK was seeking to raise these matters with the EU, our proposals had very clear safeguards for children. This new clause has none and fails to consider the individual needs of children, which raises significant issues. While the noble Lords who tabled the new clause might have good intentions, it is not drafted with a child’s interests as paramount. It creates entitlements to come to the UK to claim asylum if the individual has the specified UK relatives but does not consider whether this is in the unaccompanied child’s best interests. That is a really important fact. Neither does it consider whether the UK relative can actually take care of the child, nor does it involve any consideration of whether the child would be better placed with a relative, potentially an even closer relative, in another European state.

I cannot ignore the fact that this new clause would encourage asylum seekers, including vulnerable unaccompanied children, to make dangerous journeys to Europe to benefit from its provisions. By the same token, it would discourage asylum seekers, when in Europe, who wish to travel to the UK to interact with the care and support mechanisms or the asylum systems of those safe European countries which should provide them with the safety and protection they are entitled to under the same international legal obligations that the UK abides by.

I have been very clear that we will not consider a more favourable approach to family reunion in the Immigration Rules for those in the EU, including unaccompanied children, as opposed to those in the rest of the world who want to join family here in the UK. A single global approach to family reunion—as taken by our current refugee family reunion policy—is fair and does not encourage what are often dangerous journeys into Europe, facilitated by smugglers and traffickers. As I have said many times, European member states are safe countries with international obligations towards protecting asylum seekers and children, as we do here in the UK, affording all asylum seekers in Europe an opportunity to access the rights to which they are entitled.

The right reverend Prelate talked about community sponsorship and my articulated support for it. That does not diminish; I would like to see far more schemes develop here in the UK. He also linked it to the Ukraine humanitarian pathway. The two are not the same. I am sure we will get more detail on the latter in due course, but I think it is a really good idea.

I thank my noble friend Lady Stroud, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, for speaking to Amendment 49. The Government have time and again demonstrated their commitment to helping people in need of international protection. To date, our resettlement schemes have been non-legislative, operating outside of the Immigration Rules and on a discretionary basis. Operating in this way has effectively enabled us to respond to both protracted and emerging humanitarian crises and has seen us resettle over 27,000 vulnerable people since 2015. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, outlined why that was so workable in the Syrian context.

Last summer, the UK undertook the biggest and fastest emergency evacuation in recent history, helping over 15,000 people to safety from Afghanistan. The Government have recently opened, on 6 January, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which will provide up to 20,000 women, children and others at risk with a safe and legal route to resettle in the UK. This scheme is in addition to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, which has already seen over 8,000 people relocated to the UK, with an estimated additional 11,000 likely to be eligible to be relocated under this route. ARAP is neither time limited nor capped, which is a good thing.

20:15

On Amendment 50, I can assure the House of my support for the humanitarian intention behind the proposals. The noble Baroness referred to my commitments made in 2019. We announced our intention to pilot an Emergency Resettlement Mechanism to provide urgent protection in exceptional circumstances to refugees referred to UNHCR in need of rapid emergency resettlement. The implementation of the ERM is on hold temporarily due to the unprecedented circumstances in which we find ourselves as a result of our successful evacuation efforts in Afghanistan which helped bring over 15,000 people to safety. It is important that we consider our capacity in the UK to not place additional pressures on local authority housing and services at a time when capacity is really stretched. The Government remain committed to implementing the ERM as soon as practicable.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for proposing Amendment 51, and for his welcome contribution to this important debate so far. On his point about the Yazidis, we have resettled 40 Yazidis through both the UK resettlement scheme and the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme.

On the wider point about genocide, this strays into some of the FCDO equities. In Committee, I committed to refer this onwards to the FCDO. We are utterly committed to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Our approach to genocide determination does not prevent, and has not prevented us, taking action to address atrocities. Whether or not a determination of genocide is made, the UK is committed to seeking an end to serious violations of international human rights law—and, where appropriate, international humanitarian law—preventing the escalation of any such violations and alleviating the suffering of those affected.

The amendment would represent a significant departure from the Government’s long-standing policy of not assessing asylum claims from abroad. Therefore, we cannot support it. It is not practical for us to be bound to consider asylum claims in British missions abroad from the very large numbers of individuals overseas who might like to come here. Even with a cap on the number of individuals ultimately recognised as refugees under the route, opening an opportunity to claim asylum could make the operation of these locations impractical and unsafe where large numbers sought to do so.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 54A. The Government have made very clear their support for Ukrainians fleeing in fear of their lives. The Prime Minister announced that the UK is prepared to take Ukrainian refugees in considerable numbers. Every conflict and threat situation is unique and requires a tailored response. The Government have already announced a bespoke humanitarian support package for the people of Ukraine, having listened carefully to the asks and requests of the Ukrainian Government. I will also add that the Government have announced that the numbers are not capped.

We have helped hundreds of British nationals and their families resident in Ukraine to leave the country, with Home Office staff working around the clock to assist them. British nationals, and any person settled in the UK, can bring over immediate Ukrainian family members. Through this policy alone, an additional 100,000 Ukrainians could be eligible to come to the UK and access work and public services. I understand that people are being processed through these schemes in a matter of hours, as we speak. This is very good news.

We are establishing an expansive Ukrainian family settlement scheme which will be fee-free and allow British nationals and people settled in the UK to bring a wider group of family members to the UK. This extends eligibility to adult parents, grandparents, children over 18, siblings and their immediate family members. As I said earlier to the right reverend Prelate, we have committed to establishing a humanitarian sponsorship pathway, whereby Ukrainians who may not have family ties in the UK can be sponsored to come here by willing and able individuals, businesses or community organisations. There will be no cap on this scheme, as I have said, and we will welcome as many Ukrainians as wish to come who have matched sponsors.

I outlined some of the other things we have been doing in the debate on a previous group so I will not go over them again, but what I have outlined is an extremely generous and expansive package befitting the need of Ukrainians for our refuge and protection. On that point, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister. I still hope that some lessons will be learned from the Ukrainian family scheme, about which we will probably have some exchanges shortly. I hope for wider reform in future. I heard everything the Minister said but I still think that there needs to be fundamental reform of the family reunion rules for all the good reasons expressed in this debate. However, I am not going to make any further progress so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 47 withdrawn.

Amendment 48

Moved by

[Lord Dubs]

48: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family
(1) The rules laid down by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 1(4) and section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons not having the right of abode must include provision for admitting persons coming for the purpose of seeking asylum.(2) These rules must make provision, for the purpose of seeking asylum, for persons in Europe who have a family member in the United Kingdom who is ordinarily and lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “family member” means – (a) when the person in Europe is an unaccompanied minor:(i) a parent, including adoptive parent;(ii) aunt or uncle;(iii) grandparent; or(iv) sibling, including adoptive siblings;(b) spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner of the person in Europe; and(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to(i) the importance of maintaining family unity;(ii) any dependency between the family members;(iii) the best interests of a child; and(iv) any compelling circumstances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to make provision within the Immigration Rules for unaccompanied children, and certain other people in Europe, to be admitted to the UK for the purposes of seeking asylum where they have a close family member in the UK.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, now is not the time for a long speech. I am disappointed in the Minister’s response. I believe that family reunion for Ukrainians is highly desirable, but she has just rejected family reunion for other people because the system is not working well enough. I would like to test the opinion of the House.

20:21

Division 3

Ayes: 178

Noes: 130

20:34

Amendment 49

Moved by

[Baroness Stroud]

49: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Refugee resettlement schemes
(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for the resettlement in the United Kingdom of at least 10,000 refugees each year.(2) The target under this section includes the numbers of people resettled under—(a) dedicated schemes for the evacuation of people from a geographical locality, such as a specific third State,(b) a general UK resettlement scheme,(c) the mandate resettlement scheme or equivalent replacements, and(d) other routes as appropriate. (3) The Secretary of State must be guided by the capacity of local authorities and community sponsorship groups in delivering the target under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This reflects the Prime Minister’s commitment to make the dedicated Afghan resettlement scheme of 5,000 refugees a year additional to the longer standing Government commitment to resettle 5,000 vulnerable refugees per year from elsewhere in the world.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

I beg to test the opinion of the House.

20:35

Division 4

Ayes: 169

Noes: 122

20:45

Amendment 50

Moved by

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

50: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Emergency visas
(1) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, amend the immigration rules in order to ensure that persons at particular risk are entitled to enter the United Kingdom and be provided with temporary abode.(2) For the purposes of this section, “persons at particular risk” include—(a) a human rights defender who is at an imminent risk to his or her life;(b) a person who is targeted because of their protected characteristic and is at an imminent risk to his or her life.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would allow persons at particular risk to be able to be provided with safety in the UK, in line with the Government’s commitments from 2019.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

Having heard the response of the noble Baroness, I would ask that she might indicate whether she would be happy to meet with me to discuss the delay in the operation of this, because I understood from what she said that Covid had got in the way of perfecting this emergency visa arrangement with the UNHCR. I would like to know how expeditious that can be, and it may be by sitting with the noble Baroness and having a conversation we can resolve that. So I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

I am sorry, but the noble Baroness has spoken to the amendment. I must now put the Question.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I was just asking for an indication from the Minister; I am with withdrawing my amendment.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment after the Question has been put.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

That is correct. It is now in the hands of the noble Baroness: does she wish to seek leave to withdraw?

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

I seek leave to withdraw.

Amendment 50 withdrawn.

Amendment 51

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

51: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Conditions for grant of asylum: cases of genocide
(1) A person seeking asylum in the United Kingdom who belongs to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group which meets the criteria, in the place from which that person originates, set out in Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide made in Paris on 9 December 1948, must be presumed to meet the conditions for asylum in the United Kingdom following an application to the Court from a non-governmental organisation (registered as a charity in the United Kingdom) representing such a person or group of persons belonging to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.(2) The adjudication of whether the group to which the person seeking asylum belongs meets the description specified in subsection (1) must be determined by a judge of the High Court of England and Wales after consideration of the available facts.(3) Applicants for asylum in the United Kingdom from groups designated under this section may submit their applications and have them assessed at British missions overseas.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations place a cap on the number of people granted asylum under subsection (1) in any given calendar year.”

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

20:48

Division 5

Ayes: 172

Noes: 120

21:00

Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 9.40 pm.

Ukraine

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Tuesday 1 March.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a Statement updating the House on the Government’s humanitarian response to the terrible, unjust war that Putin is waging in Ukraine. We are united across the House in horror at what is happening, and the whole country stands with the heroic people of Ukraine. I have come straight from a meeting with our dear friend and colleague the Ukrainian ambassador to London, and I have just heard at first hand about some of the pressures and tensions inside the country.

Putin must fail in his assault on Ukraine. Working closely with the Ukrainian Government and allies in the neighbouring region, the United Kingdom is standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine, sending military support and defensive military aid and training thousands of Ukrainian troops, as well as introducing one of the toughest sanctions regimes in the world. We are supporting NATO partners, pressing for more economic reform and energy independence in Ukraine, banning Aeroflot, and calling for an end to Russian involvement in the SWIFT banking system.

We will continue to think robustly and creatively about what more we can all do. As I said in the House yesterday, the Government will table amendments to the visa penalty measures in the Nationality and Borders Bill, so that we can slow down and effectively stop the processing of Russian visas or those of any state that poses a threat to our national security or the interests of our allies across the world. The Government of Ukraine have requested that the Russian Government be suspended from Interpol. The UK wholeheartedly endorses that position, and we are rallying other international partners to call for and support it as well.

Yesterday I announced the first phase of a bespoke humanitarian support package for the people of Ukraine, having listened carefully to the requests from the Ukrainian Government. We have already made significant and unprecedented changes to the immigration system. We have helped hundreds of British nationals and their family members resident in Ukraine leave the country, with Home Office staff working around the clock to assist them. The right honourable Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, Yvette Cooper, raised a specific case yesterday, and I am pleased to confirm that the person concerned has been able to travel to the UK.

Family members of British nationals resident in Ukraine who need a UK visa can apply through the temporary location in Lviv, or through visa application centres in Poland, Moldova, Romania and Hungary. We have created additional capacity in all locations apace, in anticipation of the invasion of Ukraine. That includes a new pop-up visa application centre in Rzeszow, Poland, whose total capacity is currently well over 3,000 appointments per week. Our contingency plans have been enacted and are expected to increase total capacity further to 6,000 appointments a week, starting this week. By contrast, demand across these locations is usually approximately 890 biometric appointments per week. There remains availability of appointments and walk-ins across all locations. Should more capacity be required, we will of course deliver it. Our rapid deployment teams are already in the region; the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office sent them in a few weeks ago to support this whole effort.

I have also removed the usual language requirements and salary thresholds for people to come to the UK and be with their families. Where family members of British nationals do not meet the usual eligibility criteria but do pass all security checks, we will give them permission to enter the UK outside the usual rules for 12 months. This means that British nationals, and any person settled in the UK, can bring over immediate Ukrainian family members. Through that policy alone, an additional 100,000 Ukrainians could be eligible to come to the UK and gain access to work and public services. There is no limit on the numbers eligible under this route. Anyone in Ukraine intending to apply under the family migration route should call the dedicated 24-hour Home Office line for assistance before applying. Ukrainian nationals already in the UK have been given the option to switch, free of charge, to a points-based immigration route or a family visa route. Visas for Ukrainian temporary workers in some sectors are being extended, so they can now stay until at least 31 December this year.

As I said yesterday, I have heard some Members call for visa waivers. Russian troops are seeking to infiltrate and merge with Ukrainian forces. Extremists are on the ground in the region, too. However, I want to emphasise the seriousness of the security situation on the ground. That is not something that can be discounted lightly. I am sure that if the Opposition want a security briefing from our colleagues, we will happily provide one, but I am very sceptical about how they treat and respect security advice.

As I was saying, extremists are on the ground in the region, too. Given that, and also Putin’s willingness to do violence on British soil—and in keeping with our approach, which we have retained consistently throughout all emergency evacuations, including that of Afghanistan —we cannot suspend any security or biometric checks on the people whom we welcome to our country. We have a collective duty to keep the British people safe, and this approach is based on the strongest security advice. These measures have been designed to enable swift implementation—that is the point: swift implementation —without the need for legislation or changes to the Immigration Rules. The Ukrainian people need help immediately, and we are putting it in place now.

I can also set out phase 2 of our bespoke humanitarian support package for the people of Ukraine, as outlined by the Prime Minister earlier today. First, we are establishing an expansive Ukrainian family reunion scheme so that British nationals and people settled in the UK can bring a wider group of family members to the UK. We are extending eligibility to parents, grandparents, adult offspring, siblings, and their immediate family members. Again, the scheme will be free. Those joining family members in the UK will be granted leave for an initial period of 12 months. They will be able to work and have access to public funds.

Secondly, we will establish a humanitarian sponsorship pathway, which will open up a route to the UK for Ukrainians who may not have family ties with the UK, but who are able to match with individuals, charities, businesses and community groups. Those who come under this scheme will also be granted leave for an initial period of 12 months, and will be able to work and have access to public services. The Home Office will work closely with all our international partners on the ground to ensure that displaced Ukrainians in need of a home are supported. My colleague the Secretary of State for Levelling Up will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that those who want to sponsor an individual or family can volunteer and be matched quickly with Ukrainians in need. There will be no numerical limits on this scheme, and we will welcome as many Ukrainians as wish to come and have match sponsors.

Making a success of the new humanitarian sponsorship pathway will require a national effort from the entire country, and our country will rise to that challenge. This is a generous, expansive and unprecedented package. It will mean that the British public and the Ukrainian diaspora can support displaced Ukrainians in the UK until they are able to return to a free and sovereign Ukraine. We are striking a blow for democracy and freedom against tyranny. Above all, we are doing right by the courageous people of Ukraine. We will help British nationals and their families get out of Ukraine safely. We will support our displaced Ukrainian friends, and we will respond robustly to Russian threats here in the UK. We will not back down. We will do what is right. I commend this Statement to the House.”

21:01

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister got a rough ride on Monday when he answered a PNQ on visa restrictions for Ukrainian refugees. The whole House was frustrated by the Government’s response. Since then—yesterday—we have had the Home Secretary’s Statement in the other place, and there was moving applause for the Ukrainian ambassador at Prime Minister’s Questions today.

Today, the Ukrainian people face horrors of a potential scale that we have not seen in Europe since the Second World War. The whole of Parliament wants the Government to ensure that we play our historic role as a welcoming country for refugees and play our part in providing support for the Ukrainian people in their hour of need. I want to repeat many of the questions that my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper asked yesterday to better understand the answers. In saying that, I freely acknowledge that this is a rapidly evolving situation.

First, in the past few days, there has been some confusion over which family members can join UK nationals and those settled in the UK. We welcome that the Government have listened and extended the types of family members who are able to join loved ones safely in the UK. I have read estimates of between 100,000 and 200,000 family members. Can the Minister comment on that? Can he also confirm that, whatever the number is, it is not capped?

Secondly, many people, mainly women and children, are fleeing today’s terror. They will want to stay close to home, in neighbouring states—a point repeatedly made by the Minister on Monday. What will be done to support these front-line states? We may not be in the EU any more but we are in the Council of Europe, and these countries are our friends, with the same values as us. We should do everything we can to support refugees in front-line states.

Thirdly, the Government have said that the family reunion scheme will be free, but there are reports that some people are being charged to access visas to join family here. Can the Minister guarantee that people can now access the family reunion scheme for free? Further, does the sponsoring family member have to be a British national or have indefinite leave to remain? What about Ukrainians who are here on work or study visas, or those who come here as lorry drivers or on visitor visas?

Fourthly, have the Government considered an emergency humanitarian or protection visa that could still include all the significant security and biometric checks the Home Secretary has talked about but could be done swiftly and go broader than family members?

Fifthly, the humanitarian sponsorship pathway announced in the Statement is a community sponsorship scheme. We welcome this, but the existing community sponsorship scheme takes a long time. What will the Secretary of State do to ensure that the scheme can work quickly? How many people do the Government hope to help in this way, and when can we expect the first Ukrainian refugees to arrive under this scheme? The Government’s Statement does not include a resettlement scheme. What plans are there to go further and provide a resettlement scheme in addition to the community sponsorship?

I understand that this is a fast-moving and desperate situation. I ask that the House gets regular updates; I am sure that it will. As I said in opening, the Minister got a hard time on Monday. I hope that in this short debate we can focus on the practical things the Government are going to do to ameliorate the situation of our friends and comrades in Ukraine in their hour of need.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we all condemn Russia for its unjustified aggression in Ukraine and stand with the Ukrainians in their heroic defence of their homeland, but not everyone can stay and fight. There will be many vulnerable Ukrainians who need at least short- to medium-term sanctuary—in particular, women, children and older people need to be removed to safety.

My understanding is that this Statement is now out of date, following the intervention of the Prime Minister overnight. The Statement talks about a new route, but can the Minister confirm whether all these people will still need a visa to come to the United Kingdom? Can he also confirm that under the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Bill—were it to be in force—they would all be committing a criminal offence with a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment if they came to the UK without a visa, and that because there is no direct route from Ukraine to the UK, they would be treated as second-class refugees? Does not the Ukrainian humanitarian crisis highlight exactly why many noble Lords oppose the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Bill?

Can the Minister also confirm that the elderly parents of a Ukrainian national settled in the UK can now be brought to the UK, but only after the Prime Minister overruled the Home Secretary, who wanted to restrict the new arrangements to close family members only? In the Statement, the Home Secretary talked about 100,000 Ukrainians eligible under government schemes. Since then, the Prime Minister has said that the number is 200,000. What is the number now?

The Home Secretary gave the excuse for not allowing visa-free entry that security and biometrics were a fundamental part of our visa approval process. She went on to say that Russian troops are infiltrating Ukraine and merging into Ukrainian forces and that intelligence reports state the presence of extremist groups and organisations that threaten the region but also the UK. Can the Minister confirm that the Russian army includes octogenarians and child soldiers?

We are talking about women, children and the elderly—the vulnerable who need the safety and security we, and their families here in the UK, can provide. What is the security risk that women, children and the elderly could potentially be Russian soldiers or members of extremist groups that threaten the UK? As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said earlier this evening, why can people’s security status not be established on arrival in the UK?

The Statement says that the Government are extending the visas for Ukrainian temporary workers “in some sectors” who can now stay until at least December 2022, primarily because people cannot return to Ukraine. In what sectors are Ukrainian temporary workers employed in the UK where they can safely return to Ukraine?

The Statement says that Britain continues to lead—how can that be true when Poland and other EU countries are allowing visa-free entry and the UK is not?

In the Commons on Monday, the Home Secretary tried to link measures, such as the temporary ban on the issuing of visas to nationals of a country that threatens international peace and security, to the Nationality and Borders Bill. She said:

“Those powers will be available as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. The sooner that happens, the sooner this House and all Members can collectively act.”.—[Official Report, 28/2/2022; col. 701.]


Are the Government really saying that they cannot stop issuing visas to Russian nationals in a time of crisis such as we are facing now without new primary legislation? I thought Brexit was about taking back control of our borders. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that they cannot, today, stop issuing visas to the citizens of a hostile foreign state? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby and Lord Paddick, for their questions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for reminding me of Monday. It was a little bit difficult, but as I am sure he is aware, I did not actually have the full information—or indeed any information. However, I will endeavour to do a little bit better now. However uncomfortable it was for me, we should certainly remember that it was a good deal more uncomfortable for those people in Ukraine fighting for their sovereignty, so that is worth bearing in mind at all times.

If I may, I would like to start by craving Noble Lords’ indulgence and making a couple of general points to address questions which I have not been asked but which are important and germane and came out of the House of Commons debate yesterday. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the response given to the Ukrainian ambassador as he arrived in the other place today. It was genuinely moving, and I think it is a sign that the Commons, and, indeed, your Lordships’ House, is united in support of the people of Ukraine and all those who are working tirelessly for it. I also echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Ahmad when he spoke about Ukraine the other day and thanked the Opposition Benches for their help and support through this process.

The question I would like to answer which I have not been asked, but which came up a lot in conversation in the other place, is what Members might like to be able to do if they get petitioned with individual cases, because I cannot talk about them for obvious reasons. Just to give an idea of some of the help that is available, individuals can refer to GOV.UK or contact our free helpline. I am going to give the number very carefully so that Members can refer to it in Hansard. The number is: 0808 1648810. Noble Lords can ask for advice on those cases. It is a free helpline and it works around the world. If, for any reason, noble Lords cannot get what they need from that helpline—and that should not be the case—we suggest referring via a constituency MP in the usual way. If, for any reason, that does not work, there is a Portcullis House referral system. Just in case any noble Lords have any individual cases that may need addressing, I thought it was worth pointing that out.

In order to answer the various questions that I have been asked, I am going to run through the scheme as announced. Before I do, I want to point out that this is a unique scheme that has not been done by this country before. We have established the Ukrainian family scheme, which will significantly expand the ability of British nationals and people settled in the UK to bring family members to the UK. As my noble friend Lady Williams has just said, that extends the eligibility to adult parents, grandparents, children over 18, siblings and all of their immediate family members. Under this scheme—which will be free—those joining family in the UK will be granted leave for an initial period of 12 months. They will be able to work and to access public funds. Given the range of family members who will be able to come through this route, we estimate—the numbers are inexact for obvious reasons, but this is the best estimate I have—that it might help around 140,000 people to come to the UK. I stress, however, that this is not a capped number, so, in a sense, it does not matter what number I give here, because it is not capped.

We will make emergency changes to Immigration Rules on 15 March to create this route, but we are introducing a concession to the existing rules to enable families to apply via a bespoke application process no later than Friday 4 March—this coming Friday. If people call the helpline before that, someone will get back in touch with them. We will also consider anyone who applied on the existing family route, or existing concessions, under the new scheme if they do not meet the rules. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me about fees: any fees that have already been paid will be refunded. There are no other barriers: all the usual requirements around language and salary, for example, have been removed.

That will mean that although we would encourage Ukrainians not to apply before Friday, we do have mechanisms for those in urgent need to apply now. Eligible family members who have already made applications under the existing family rules will be considered under the Ukrainian family scheme if they do not meet the family rules. As I have said, they will also have their application fee and any applicable immigration health surcharge payments refunded.

Secondly, we have committed to establishing a Ukrainian sponsorship humanitarian visa offer, which will open up a route to the UK for Ukrainians who do not have family ties with the UK, but who we will match with individuals, businesses, community organisations and local authorities who are willing and able to act as a sponsor. All those benefiting from this offer will also be granted leave for an initial period of 12 months and will be able to work and access public services.

The Home Office will be working closely with the UNHCR and others on the ground to ensure that displaced Ukrainians in need of a home who wish to come to the UK are aware of this offer and are able to apply. DLUHC will be leading on this offer. It will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that individuals and organisations who want to sponsor an individual or family can volunteer to do so, and they will be matched with Ukrainians in need. Again, there is no arbitrary limit on this scheme: we will welcome as many Ukrainians as wish to come and for whom we have sponsors. I anticipate that DLUHC will be working with local authorities and charities, but the department would welcome thoughts and suggestions on that particular route. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me if only family members can sponsor. British nationals or settled persons can sponsor, not those with temporary leave; but, as I said, we would encourage people to apply anyway.

Turning to the subject of visa waivers, in essence, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me why we will not go further and announce a visa waiver. Visas are an important security tool and are entirely consistent with all our other Immigration Rules. There is a risk that hostile actors or other individuals with links to serious and organised crime or corruption could exploit the arrangements to travel to the UK undetected if security checks are not in place. The Government do not believe that they should unnecessarily put the UK’s security at risk.

I understand what the noble Lord was saying about women, children and octogenarians in the Russian army, but I do not wish to go further and speculate as to what sorts of things the Russians might get up to. We have seen what they are capable of doing in peacetime. It is not peacetime any more, and I would not like to speculate what they might be capable of doing now.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked me about visa penalties. The Nationality and Borders Bill contains provisions which allow the UK to apply visa penalties to a country which is being unco-operative in relation to the return of its nationals. Those powers include slowing down the processing of applications, requiring applicants to pay more or, critically, suspending the granting of entry clearance completely. I am told that an amendment will be tabled tomorrow, along with a letter outlining and explaining exactly what is going on with this feature. It would probably be better to wait until tomorrow and see the letter; I have not seen it, so I do not know what is in it.

There were also questions about the variety of existing visas and what is available to Ukrainian nationals already here on existing points-based system routes. They can extend their leave in the UK. Ukrainian nationals on an existing visitor visa can, exceptionally, switch into a points-based system immigration route without having to leave the UK. Ukrainian nationals on an existing visa can apply under the family route for further leave without meeting the immigration status requirement, provided they meet the requirements for leave based on exceptional circumstances. Ukrainian nationals on an existing seasonal worker visa will have their leave in the UK extended to 31 December 2022.

Finally, Ukrainian nationals in temporary work, such as HGV drivers and so on, will have their leave in the UK extended to 31 December 2022 as well. I think the point the noble Lord made was about temporary visas generally; I think that is covered by that particular point. However, all visa routes remain under constant review. As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, this situation is incredibly fluid, so I expect there to be further changes as and when circumstances dictate.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referenced Yvette Cooper’s comments yesterday in the House of Commons when she talked about which family members and how many. I think I have answered that. I want to stress that it is not capped. However, she also made the point—and made it very well—that a lot of people do not wish to be too far away from their loved ones, who are probably fighting in Ukraine as we speak.

That leads on to the humanitarian support we are offering. It is quite considerable. The FCDO has a humanitarian support team in place. We are providing an additional £40 million of humanitarian support, which I think my noble friend Lady Williams referred to earlier. That will provide access to basic necessities and vital medical supplies both in Ukraine and the wider region. That is on top of the $100 million of ODA already pledged for energy security and reform.

I mentioned the humanitarian team from FCDO, but military logistics experts are also operating in the countries neighbouring Ukraine. Obviously, we call on Russia to enable humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians to flee the violence, and we have 1,000 troops on standby to support the humanitarian response in the region should they be needed. We also stand ready to further support Ukraine’s economy through £500 million in multilateral development bank guarantees.

I think I have dealt with most of the questions I have been asked. If I have not, I apologise and will hope to come back to them when I have had a chance to skim through my notes in a little more detail. For now, I hope that answers most of noble Lords’ questions.

21:22

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I personally very much welcome the work the Government have done in putting together a really strong sanctions package and persuading other countries to come in the direction we wish to go. But I asked two questions in the debate on Friday that were not replied to. I would be grateful if either I could be given a reply now or the noble Lord could provide it in writing.

My first question was: what are we doing to muster a broad international scheme to ensure that exports to—not from—Russia, particularly of dual-use items, are prevented? During the Cold War there was a scheme called CoCom, which the vast majority of the West subscribed to. Are the Government considering resuscitating that? Secondly, what are the Government doing about countering the tidal waves of disinformation that are coming out? That means not just telling RT that it cannot broadcast but being able to get facts across to the Russian people ourselves while undermining the regime’s extremely misleading presentations and narrative.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I cannot answer the question of whether we are planning a new version of CoCom, which I am not familiar with, but we have seen plenty of information delivered at the Dispatch Box in both Houses as to the sanctions applied to Russia, which I am very sure include dual-use items.

On the question of broadcast misinformation, disinformation and so on, the point was made in a meeting I was in earlier that the BBC World Service is one of the finest tools for delivering honest news. I know that message was received and it will be acted on.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, alongside the Ukrainian people, people who are not of Ukrainian descent will also be stranded. Could my noble friend tell me what is being done to help those people, so that they are not left in danger and isolated?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I can give two answers. First, if they qualify under the British citizen or the settled status visa programme, they are more than entitled to use that scheme in order to apply for their visas. If they are currently stranded in or near Ukraine, they can go to one of the visa application centres. Obviously, we have also announced the humanitarian visa, which I think will encompass them. As I say, and will keep saying, that scheme is uncapped.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the helpline advisers will be fully trained? A journalist on the Independent had a tweet a few hours ago saying they are getting lots of calls but they have no information to give out. As I understand it, he said that was true, in a sense—they will have the information by Friday and they will call people back. Perhaps some planning could have taken place for this situation, which we have known was going to happen for weeks, if not months.

What is the situation of EEA citizens who have settled status? Can they sponsor Ukrainian family members in the same way that UK citizens and Ukrainian nationals can?

Lastly, I really do not see the need for these new amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill. I do not understand why the Government cannot just refuse visas without some complicated new scheme under the Bill. Finally, I congratulate Eurostar on giving free tickets to London for Ukrainian refugees.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

On the first question, part of the problem with the helpline is that one of the things it is having to deliver is access to a new application form that had to be developed in four days. That is not quite ready. The noble Baroness shrugs her shoulders on that point, but I think it is important to bear in mind that we are doing everything we are doing in liaison with the people of Ukraine and the Ukrainian Government. My noble friend Lady Williams just made this point.

The Home Secretary is regularly in contact with the Ukrainian authorities and the ambassador, and we are very much following their lines. I refer noble Lords, if they are interested, to an article in the Times this morning, talking about the diplomatic difficulties in making excessive plans early. I accept the point that this is a fluid situation and that it needs to be done, but it is important to bear in mind that this is happening at record speed. I am told that forms of this sort that have to be developed digitally normally take months, not days. This is being done very quickly.

I answered that question at such length that I have completely forgotten your second question—and I just said “your”, so I apologise for that as well. It was to do with EEA citizens. I cannot answer that specifically, but I cannot imagine, given what I have said about Ukrainians with settled status and about British citizens, that that would not be the case. As I have said already, this is meant to be a generous scheme, not a bureaucratic scheme.

On the last point, I have referred to the letter that is coming with the amendment today. I hope I am not piling too much pressure on the letter, but I have not seen it and I am not going to pre-empt what is in it.

[Baroness Andrews (Lab)]

My Lords, we are very grateful for the Minister’s Statement. He was not able to answer all the questions from my noble friend on the Front Bench. He was asked about the assistance we are giving to countries that border Ukraine, particularly Poland, which is taking the brunt of refugees. What can we do to build capacity on the ground to support those refugees? Speed is obviously of the essence. I know the Statement says we have one pop-up assessment centre: clearly, that is not going to be enough, even for the numbers we are thinking of taking. Everything is being done for the first time—we appreciate that—but what else can we do to support the Poles to develop their own humanitarian response and also to make sure we are doing everything we can as early as we can for those desperate people?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I think I have answered about some of the humanitarian actions that the Government have already taken and enacted very swiftly. Obviously, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, the situation is incredibly fluid, and I have no doubt that the Government will react to circumstances on the ground as and when required, at the request of the countries involved. I think I am right in saying—if I am not, I will correct myself later—that very recently, some Royal Marines were redeployed to that part of the world. It is happening, and happening fast.

The visa application centres, to which I think the noble Baroness was referring, are in the following locations. We have them in Poland, in Warsaw. There is the new one in Rzeszów, which I think I referenced on Monday—possibly the only thing I referenced on Monday. We have ones in Moldova, Romania and Hungary. and one is still open in Ukraine, in Lviv. We had to close the one in Kyiv, for obvious reasons. Demand across them is actually not as high as we would have expected at the moment, but we are none the less increasing capacity. More biometric kits are being redeployed and capacity is increasing on an ongoing basis.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, so much is falling on the Poles and the Hungarians, particularly on Poland, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said. I make a suggestion for my noble friend to pass on to his ministerial colleagues: I do not expect an affirmative answer, but I do not want a dismissal. In the past, it has been found that it can sometimes be extremely helpful, in time of war, to have a resident Minister from this country stationed abroad. I put it to my noble friend that it would be symbolic, helpful and probably much appreciated by our former fellow members of the EU if we gave some thought to that now.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that suggestion, which I will take back; it strikes me as a very good one. Perhaps I may also clarify something I just said: in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, EEA settled citizens can.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

I imagine that the Minister, like me, has been in awe of the demonstrations of physical courage by so many of the citizens of Ukraine. I hope I can persuade him to accept that there have been some illustrations of political courage. I have particularly in mind the policy reverses of Germany: to supply defensive weapons to Ukraine, to increase defence expenditure by €100 billion and to suspend Nord Stream 2. Mr Putin can hardly be thought to have expected any of that.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that. I am not sure it was a question, but of course I agree with him: it was a courageous act on the part of the Germans, and well done them.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I very much appreciate what the Government are doing and the Statement that was given. One of the elements that is lacking from it, however, is any reference to religion. One cannot understand the politics of Russia or Ukraine without understanding the history of the past 1,200 years, what is intended to be part of the reunification of the original Rus—I speak as a Russian linguist and former Soviet specialist at GCHQ. If we do not understand the role of religion, we are in danger of short-term, reactive, tactical activities in relation to the current conflict, whereas the Russians, certainly, have been running a long-term strategy under Putin, in which he has been extremely successful thus far. What role is religion playing in the Government’s assessment of how to care for refugees, which we have talked about, and in establishing back channels with the Moscow patriarchate and the Ukrainian patriarchate?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that. He will not be particularly surprised to learn that I do not know the details on that subject. I will facilitate contact with the Foreign Office so that he can explain, using the depth of his expertise. I also point out that the setting up of the humanitarian visa scheme is being done by DLUHC, in consultation with a number of NGOs and other bodies. I strongly recommend that the right reverend Prelate gets in touch with DLUHC to pass on some of those suggestions, which strike me as incredibly sensible.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

The right reverend Prelate has brought this subject up. There are about 15,000 to 20,000 troops stopped 30 miles away from Kyiv. They are conscripts and, as the right reverend Prelate has said, they have been highly religious and devoted to their beliefs for hundreds of years, except for the time when Stalin was in power. They are back and very devout.

I have concerns for these conscripts. As noble Lords know, Kyiv is the most sacred icon for Russia and for many others outside of Russia. That was the place where, nearly 1,900 years ago, the very first Orthodox church was built in Ukraine. That was the beginning, if you will, of the people being converted to Christianity. That is something so special in their mind. You could go all over the world and people talk about it. Today, when you go there, the cathedral is right on top of it. If these young men are asked to destroy it completely with artillery, I think that many of them will refuse or desert. In the history of war, if you desert, you got shot. If you were—

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

Too long.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

I will ask my noble friend, a military historian with huge knowledge on the subject, whether this aspect has been considered. Can we understand that thinking?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his question, and indeed for the history lesson. I was not aware of some of the things that he has said, although I take note of them and think that they are very interesting. Lots of other historical moments are happening. The other day, we saw the missile strike on the Holocaust site, which was equally deplorable. Russians were cheerfully pulling the trigger on that, so I do not know where they will stop. I will take back the points he made.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to provisions in relation to Ukrainians. They are appropriate. Being denied the right to live should be a wake-up call to the Government to be generous to the maximum. The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme took three months to establish as a working system. What measures are being taken to ensure that those moving through Europe have all the information about the new Ukrainian family scheme, including timeframes, eligibility for close family members and processing requirements for applications? Once the policy detail has been established, can the Government confirm how many Ukrainian applications can be processed in the immediate weeks of March, so that we do not leave hungry Ukrainian families out in the cold?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Viscount for his question. I hope he would agree that the Government have been very generous. The full communications will be available on the GOV.UK website. As we are not expecting people who are potentially living in difficult situations to be able to look this up on the internet, communications will be handed out at the visa application centres. Access to all this information will also be available via the helpline which I have already tried to describe.

I turn now to what will happen once the policy details are all in place. The visa application centres are currently processing under capacity, but capacity is being ramped up. Therefore, I am not in a position to say how many people might be processed in due course, because I suspect that the number will keep rising depending on circumstances.

[Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome the tougher stance which the Government are taking on sanctions since last week. However, would it not make things swifter and more straightforward to make it a legal requirement for law firms, accountants, financial services firms, businesses and others to provide information they have on the finances, assets and business activities of people or companies which are sanctioned?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. As I am sure all noble Lords have seen, a letter was received yesterday from the Home Office and from the Business Secretary talking about the forthcoming Bill which will go through the House of Commons next week and will be in your Lordships’ House in a couple of weeks. The noble Lord makes some very sensible suggestions. I do not know what the legal niceties would be, but I will certainly take those suggestions back.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I will ask the Minister to try again with the question asked by his noble friend Lady Verma which was about people who are leaving Ukraine but are not Ukrainian nationals. In particular, the BBC was showing pictures of Afghan refugees who had been in Ukraine. As I understand it, they would not fall under the humanitarian sponsorship pathway because the statement says that this pathway is for Ukrainians. For those people who do not have Ukrainian citizenship but are fleeing, will the Government make any offer to them—and, particularly, to anyone who is from Afghanistan?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Afghans obviously have access to the Afghan resettlement scheme but—I reiterate the point—we have started work on the humanitarian visa scheme. There are lots of safe and legal routes open to Afghans who may find themselves in Ukraine.

[Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)]

My Lords, no one should deny that the United Kingdom Government have been leading many Governments across the world in response to the crisis in Ukraine with a strong package of sanctions, et cetera. However, as the situation develops, further measures will be necessary. Can the Minister clarify how long those choosing to come to the United Kingdom can stay under these regulations, and will that period be extended?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

At the moment it is at least 12 months but we will not be sending anybody back, obviously, if that time expires and it would be unsafe to do so. I imagine that will be under review.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that sporting sanctions are a vital ingredient in the overall package? Bearing this in mind, does he share my concern and dismay about the decision of the Paralympic committee to allow Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete next week, albeit as individuals and not flying their flag?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I did not know it had done that. The actions of the sporting authorities around the world have been admirable thus far. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to comment on particular instances where that has not been the case.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister draw to the attention of his noble friends in the Foreign Office the report this morning from the World Food Programme suggesting that 29% of all the grain and wheat sold to countries in the Maghreb and Middle East—the poorest of the poor—comes from either Russia or Ukraine, and that this is likely to be severely disrupted? There is also its figure that 400,000 people have already left and that it is now making preparations for some 3 million refugees in neighbouring countries. What more can we do to support the World Food Programme and the International Committee of the Red Cross?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That question obviously goes back to something that my noble friend Lord Benyon was discussing earlier on food security. Clearly, it is an issue not just for any particular part of the world but for us all. I have tried to go through some of the details on the humanitarian responses but there is another thing I should have mentioned earlier—I picked it up when I was googling before I came in here. I noticed that this morning, or during PMQs, the Prime Minister also announced that every pound donated to the Disasters Emergency Committee’s Ukraine appeal by the public will be matched by the Government, starting with £20 million. I also reference the fact that we have given an additional £40 million of humanitarian support. I appreciate that that does not fully answer the noble Lord’s question but it is a go at it.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Report (2nd Day) (Continued)

21:43

Amendment 52

Moved by

[Lord Paddick]

52: After Clause 37, insert the following new Clause—
“Refugees and people smuggling
(1) Within three months of this Act being passed, and every three months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament regarding discussions with the governments and authorities of other countries, including those bordering the English Channel and the North Sea, concerning the steps taken to— (a) increase security cooperation between the United Kingdom and one or more third States to prevent criminal activity in assisting or purporting to assist refugees in travelling to the United Kingdom,(b) increase domestic and international rates of prosecution for those engaged in assisting or purporting to assist refugees in travelling to the United Kingdom,(c) prevent or deter a person from—(i) charging refugees for assistance or purported assistance in travelling to or entering the United Kingdom;(ii) endangering the safety of refugees travelling to the United Kingdom.(2) The statement must focus on steps other than the provisions of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to update Parliament on the actions that are being taken to tackle exploitation of refugees by people smugglers.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, it is me again. Amendment 52 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. As he said on Monday night, the Bill almost exclusively targets victims: victims of war, oppression and modern slavery, and victims of people traffickers. We need to focus the Government on those who are exploiting suffering while profiting from the failure of the Government to provide safe and legal routes. In fact, the more difficult the Government make it for genuine refugees to get to the UK, the more that people will have to rely on people smugglers and the more profit that people smugglers will make.

Amendment 52 would require the Government to keep Parliament informed every three months on the progress they are making to increase security co-operation to prevent people smuggling, increase prosecutions of people smugglers both in the UK and overseas, and the steps they are taking to prevent or deter people from charging refugees to help or purporting to help them to get to the UK and endangering their safety. No doubt the Government will say they do not want to give details of the actions they are taking, as this may give the people smugglers an advantage, but we need to hold the Government to account to keep the pressure on them to do all they can to stop this evil exploitation of the vulnerable.

Amendment 61, which we also support, would make it an offence for people smugglers to advertise their services. Also in this group are measures to protect rescuers. Amendment 59 would ensure that those genuinely helping an asylum seeker, such as someone sailing a yacht in the channel who comes across a sinking dinghy full of asylum seekers, cannot be prosecuted by maintaining the status quo where such a prosecution could take place only if the person was helping asylum seekers for gain.

The Bill seeks to limit sea rescue to those co-ordinated by HM Coastguard or the equivalent, but they may not always be involved, especially in what could be the vital initial stages of a rescue. Amendment 60 would extend this immunity from prosecution to situations where the rescuer reasonably believed that the coastguard would have co-ordinated the rescue if it had known about it. The Bill should focus on people smugglers, and not place good Samaritans at risk of prosecution.

Finally, Amendments 62 and 63 try to ensure that lives are not put at risk from those involved in law enforcement pushing back refugee boats. My noble friend Lady Jolly will say more on that. The Government and the Bill should target the people smugglers while doing everything they can to protect the lives of the vulnerable. I beg to move Amendment 52.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I also support Amendment 52, which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has just moved. As I said in Committee, it is a particularly important amendment. It is one where the Government will agree with the principle if not the practicalities of actually doing it. We all want to tackle the traffickers and the people smugglers but the Bill lacks any reference to that, a lot of the time. It is almost that it is a given. There is a lot of emphasis on changes to the law with respect to refugees and asylum seekers but not much in respect of traffickers. I think that is what Amendment 52 seeks to do.

The focus also is on security co-operation around the channel, increasing international and domestic prosecutions of people smugglers and interrupting the smugglers’ business model by preventing their crimes. On security and international co-operation, again the Government will say that they are seeking to do that but clearly, if we are to deal with the problem of channel migration and the crossings, there will have to be closer co-operation between France and the UK and between others in Europe and the UK. Amendment 52 seeks to push to the Government to say more about this.

Requiring the Home Secretary to come with updates every three months on what is actually being done to prevent these dangerous crossings and tackle the perpetrators would be of interest to us all. Something clearly needs to be done because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Green, mentioned earlier, the situation, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, has gone from “a few” to “quite a few” to “a significant number” of people making the crossing. Whatever the Government are doing, it is clearly not working.

I have retabled Amendment 61. I am not going to push it to a vote, but the Government said a lot about it, saying, “Of course we agree with it, of course there shouldn’t be a situation where people traffickers and smugglers can actually advertise on social media to attract people to come to them in order to traffic them across the channel or wherever”. It is clearly ridiculous. I want to push the Government again to say what more they are thinking of doing to tackle that issue, which is clearly unacceptable to us all. Something needs to be done about it.

The Government have got themselves into something of a mess on the issue of “for gain”. We are having to debate whether a vessel that goes to save lives at sea needs a defence because, officially, it would be committing an offence. The words “for gain” target the offence on people smugglers and criminal gangs who do this on a regular and dangerous model, not on the captain of a ship who goes to the assistance of people at risk of drowning. We believe that “for gain” should remain part of the offence. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how that has been clarified to protect anybody at sea who seeks to prevent life being endangered at sea. Something should be done about that and there needs to be clarification from the Government to provide certainty.

Amendment 62 seeks to ensure that nothing can be done in a way in which lives at sea are endangered. That is why we have tabled that amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for her work and support on that. Schedule 6 is where clarification is needed, because quite extensive powers have been given, including the power to stop, board, divert and detain. All of us would like more clarification on how that will take place. What does diversion mean and how is it going to happen?

In her response—I tried to ask this in Committee—can the Minister explain the difference between the MoD and the Home Office on this? The Home Secretary said that pushback was still government policy, although she did not call it that, but James Heappey MP as Defence Minister said it was not government policy and that the MoD would not do it. We all need to know: if we are giving these powers, who is in control? The MoD is supposed to have operational control, as I understand it, but it is obviously not going to ram or push anyone around with a huge naval ship. Presumably smaller coastguard vessels will be used to do that. Can the MoD order a person to do so? How is that going to work and who do they report to—the MoD or the Home Office? Which has the ultimate sanction?

So what we are seeking to do with Amendment 62, although we oppose that part of the Bill in total, is put something in the Bill that simply says that you cannot act against or divert a vessel in a way that would endanger life. Putting that into the Bill is both necessary and sensible. With that, I support Amendment 52 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and myself.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I start with Amendment 52, from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the issue of people smuggling. I am glad to be able to talk about this topic, because it is at the heart of the many problems in this area.

The UK takes smuggling and irregular migration seriously and is absolutely committed to tackling organised immigration crime in all its forms. We work closely with near-neighbour countries such as France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and key international partners beyond Europe, to address this exploitative crime and tackle smuggling networks. To tackle the threat, we have in place a multi-agency organised immigration crime task force that brings together law enforcement, border guards, immigration officials and prosecutors, to tackle organised crime groups involved in people smuggling. The task force is currently working with partners in some 17 source and transit countries.

Additionally, there are already agreements in place in order to tackle smuggling and irregular migration. For example, in November last year the Prime Minister signed an agreement with Belgium reaffirming the two countries’ close partnership and commitment to tackling shared threats such as serious and organised crime, including human smuggling. The two countries are committed to strengthening the legal framework for co-operation on our law enforcement agenda with a co-operation agreement and a focus on information exchange.

We are committed to working with France to maintain the security of our shared border, and to tackle illegal migration, and this relationship is long-standing, supported by the Sandhurst Treaty. Most recently, last year a bilateral agreement was reached between the UK and France. The UK pledged to make a further financial investment of approximately £54 million in 2021-22 to tackle illegal migration in small boats, and last year’s investment saw the French doubling the number of officers patrolling the beaches.

In and beyond Europe, we are working to exchange existing capability and co-operation internationally to disrupt organised criminal gangs and dangerous people smuggling routes. The joint political declaration between the EU and the UK, agreed in December 2020, noted the importance of good management of migratory flows, and the UK’s intention to engage in bilateral discussions with the most concerned member states to discuss suitable practical arrangements, including on asylum and illegal migration.

We maintain frequent contact with law enforcement partners both in the UK and abroad as part of our investigations into people smugglers, and these are often highly sensitive and complex. It would not be appropriate to provide commentary on cases, or place information in the public domain that might compromise operations or alert the would-be perpetrators to initiatives designed to thwart their criminal enterprises. I am sure that noble Lords understand that.

Addressing the organised crime groups that facilitate illegal migration remains a UK priority. In July 2020, the Home Secretary and the French Minister of the Interior signed an agreement to create a joint intelligence cell with the aim of cracking down on people-smuggling gangs. Last year, over 23,000 crossing attempts were prevented by French law enforcement and, since the UK-France JIC has been established, we have with France dismantled 19 small-boat organised criminal groups and secured over 400 arrests—quite often the things that people do not hear about.

I would like to stress again that the UK already has a number of safe and legal routes in place, and those in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, rather than paying those smugglers for dangerous journeys with risk to life. All countries have a moral responsibility to tackle the issue of illegal migration and it is fundamental that our international partners engage with us to enhance our current co-operation. We continue to highlight the importance of having effective returns agreements to deter people from making unsafe crossings.

The agreements currently in place with near neighbours reflect this, and the amendment will not help the Government’s continued efforts to tackle these crimes. In fact, it might hinder or stall the fruitful and open dialogue on these issues between the UK and its international partners, many of whom would not agree to their discussions and domestic activity aimed at reducing people smuggling being published to a domestic audience.

In summary, I cannot support the amendment, because it is not appropriate to provide a running commentary on the actions that are being taken to tackle people smugglers, and I am sure that the noble Lord knows that. Much of it is sensitive activity, operational and based on intelligence sharing, with the aim of protecting vulnerable people.

Turning now to Amendment 59, our purpose in removing mandatory proof of gain from this offence is to more readily target people smugglers, where organised crime gangs will conceal their tracks and make it as difficult as possible to prove that they are getting financial gain to the standard required for a successful prosecution.

Let me provide an example. A suspected facilitator was detected at Heathrow Airport with passports concealed on his person and in his baggage. A short time later, an undocumented female of the same nationality and coming off the same flight claimed asylum. Her appearance matched that of the image on one of the concealed passports. The suspected facilitator had £1,400 on his person, which was seized under PoCA 2002. A search of his home address resulted in many additional travel documents being found, along with approximately £3,500. The facilitator refused to answer questions. Despite the strong circumstantial evidence, it could not be established that the money was directly linked to the female asylum seeker’s facilitation and so, without being able to prove “for gain”, the prosecution could not proceed.

22:00

I understand fully the noble Lord’s fear that the wrong people may be drawn into the judicial process. To avoid this, there is a protection for a person working for organisations whose aim is to assist asylum seekers and which do not charge for their services, as well as for persons providing assistance to individuals in danger or distress at sea whose actions are on behalf of or co-ordinated by HM Coastguard. Defences are provided for seafarers where their assistance is not co-ordinated by the coastguard and for masters of vessels who bring stowaways to the UK. Organisations and individuals who rescue those in danger or distress in good faith will not be convicted for people-smuggling offences.

The way the defence works is that the seafarers simply need to state the facts of the rescue. Unless investigators have specific reasons to doubt a particular case, it will be assumed in such circumstances that they are telling the truth. Unless this is the case, they will not even be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service for it to consider charging the person with the offence. It will not be sufficient for the investigators to be sceptical; they will need to be able to disprove the facts put forward with specific evidence that is admissible and meets the “beyond reasonable doubt” test, ensuring a high degree of protection for the seafarer. I know that we went through this last time in Committee; I hope that tonight’s explanation clarifies what we discussed then.

Consideration of whether it is right to seek prosecution in such cases requires a comprehensive and objective assessment of all relevant circumstances, including evidence that the individual acted for gain. However, it is right that other circumstances be also considered. It is vital that prosecution be used as a deterrent where circumstances strongly suggest that the stated reasons for an individual’s actions are incredible and/or perverse, to the extent that no reasonable person could believe that they were acting in good faith. In common with any proposal to pursue prosecution, the weight of that evidence will be carefully considered by both the investigating officers and then, if referred, by the relevant prosecution authorities.

I turn to Amendment 60 in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I fully understand the desire to protect seafarers who may need to act independently of Her Majesty’s Coastguard. The problem we have is that the amendment proposed by my noble friend would play into the hands of ruthless people-smuggling gangs, who can be expected to adapt their methods to allow them to use a purported rescue as a way to escape prosecution. I am sure that that is not what my noble friend wants. They could supply unseaworthy boats or boats with insufficient fuel that would allow migrants to make their way only a couple of miles off the French coast before running into difficulties—probably for an extra fee. As I have said repeatedly in this House, our intention is to stop people smugglers and not to target for prosecution honest people acting to rescue migrants in distress. However, we need to allow our investigators the opportunity to pursue these gangs, who will exploit any loophole in the law they can find.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for saying that Amendment 61 is a probing amendment. We wholeheartedly agree with the intention behind it. We do not condone the behaviour that it seeks to address—that is, the advertisement of assistance for unlawful immigration to the UK on social media platforms. I do not think that this provision is necessary. There are laws in place which may already criminalise the behaviour that the offence of advertising assistance for unlawful immigration to the UK seeks to capture. Section 25 of the 1971 Act deals with facilitation of a breach of immigration law, which may include conduct such as advertising. Section 25(4) already provides that the offence applies to things done, whether inside or outside the United Kingdom.

In addition to this provision, we also have the benefit of Section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. It is already an offence to intentionally encourage or assist another person to commit an offence, including pursuant to Section 25 of the 1971 Act. To determine whether an individual has committed an offence under any of these provisions, one must thoroughly review and consider the facts of each case, including the exact wording and content of the advert in question. The overlap with existing statutory provisions would need to be carefully considered to see what value, if any, an offence would add. Obviously, to bring a prosecution in this area is particularly complex, compounded perhaps by the extra-jurisdictional nature of the problem, coupled with the associated practical and legal challenges.

Turning our focus away from legislative measures and towards other measures to combat illegal migration, I have already set out the activities we are undertaking to tackle organised immigration crime with our European partners. As I have said before, it would not be appropriate to provide commentary on cases or to place information in the public domain. It is also worth noting that the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is leading on the Online Safety Bill. This aims to tackle harm facilitated through user-generated content and via search results. DCMS is also seeking to introduce the online advertising programme, which aims to reduce harms for consumers, businesses and society as a whole. Crucially, it will review illegal and legal but harmful content, as well as the placement of advertising online across all actors involved.

We do not disagree with the intention behind the amendment at all. The resistance is based on its effectiveness in bringing a solution to what is a quite complex problem. I hope that, for the reasons I have given, the noble Lord can withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62 seeks to ensure that the maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea. Safety of life at sea will of course always remain a priority for any interceptions of small boats crossing the channel to facilitate illegal migration, and their use will always comply with international obligations, including in the context of maritime safety. This extends to all potential encounters in respect of using the maritime powers when dealing with vessels carrying irregular migrants towards the UK. Officers exercising these powers are trained in the safe deployment of the tactics and their obligations in respect of human rights within the European Convention on Human Rights. In order to be appointed as an immigration officer, officials must successfully complete and pass a foundation course, which includes understanding the European Convention on Human Rights as it relates to the Human Rights Act and, as a result, their obligations in the context of exercising these powers.

Amendment 63 seeks to ensure that the maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner inconsistent with the UK’s international legal obligations. As has been reiterated regularly, we remain committed to our international obligations and in our view, it is not necessary for us to restate those obligations with domestic law. Safety of life at sea will always remain the priority for any interceptions of small boats crossing the channel to facilitate illegal migration, and their use will always comply with international obligations.

This extends to all potential encounters in respect of using the maritime powers when dealing with vessels carrying irregular migrants towards the UK. Officers exercising these powers are trained in the safe deployment of the tactics and their obligations in respect of human rights within the European Convention on Human Rights when exercising their powers. Indeed, as I have said, to be appointed as an immigration officer, individuals have to pass certain obligations through a foundation course.

It should be further noted that the measures introduced by the Bill are designed to prevent unsafe routes to asylum and deter irregular migrants and people smugglers from using the dangerous cross-channel maritime routes, which are some of the busiest shipping routes in the world.

On the final question that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about the MoD and the Home Office, my understanding is that they are working together.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I say two things? First, I thank her for her reply about the MoD and the Home Office working together; we look forward to seeing how that works out. Secondly, she gave a very helpful answer on Amendment 61, but can she ensure that all the laws she laid out are enforced?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Yes. There is no point in making them otherwise.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Is the Minister sure that it is undesirable to include Amendments 62 and 63? Her arguments were all about whether it was necessary or not. The French say that if something goes without saying, it is always better said. It seems to me that Amendments 62 and 63, in the Minister’s view, are unnecessary. She is probably right, because I cannot see the Border Force or the Royal Navy behaving in a rash way. But would it not be better—would it not be desirable—to have it on the statute book that we will respect maritime law and will not risk lives at sea?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I have just explained why not.

Can I say something at this point? The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the Whip have pointed this out. Generally, after the Minister has spoken, the person who moved the amendment can ask questions of elucidation, but it is not generally the case that people who have not spoken in the debate then stand up and start adding to it. I know the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is going to be cross with me yet again, but this has been quite a long and arduous process, and it would be helpful for the House if the Companion were to be followed.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, to follow up on that point, my understanding is that anybody is entitled to ask a question of clarification on something that the Minister has said but not to engage in debate, which is allowed in Committee but not on Report.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his support and the Minister for her comprehensive response on these amendments. As I anticipated, the Government want to hide behind tipping off people smugglers as to what the Government are doing to tackle the problem. But how do we hold the Government to account if we do not know what is happening, as far as Amendment 59 is concerned, on the issue of “for gain”?

I understand the example the Minister gave of the chap who had money in his wallet, and so forth. One understands that prosecutions are not always possible, and at least the money was recovered. But there is a defence once charged in the Bill; there is not immunity from prosecution. So, somebody who comes across a sinking dinghy in the channel and rescues the asylum seekers could be subject to a prolonged investigation. The Minister talked about a full examination of the circumstances. It does not prevent the person being arrested, potentially, and being held either on police bail or under investigation for a long period to examine the circumstances. The defence in the Bill is only once charged.

22:15

So our real concern here is that these rescuers will hesitate to rescue these people unless and until they get coastguard involvement, for example. During that period of hesitation, lives could be lost. It will be for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to decide whether to divide the House on his amendment if, when we get to that point, he finds, as I do, the Minister’s explanation unsatisfactory.

On Amendment 62, I am very concerned. The noble Baroness says, “Don’t worry, all these Border Force people have been trained in the European Convention on Human Rights and they wouldn’t do anything to endanger life”. Yet the Bill provides Border Force officers with immunity from both criminal and civil litigation. Why would that be necessary if they are not going to do anything to endanger life? On the other hand, if the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is right and it is obvious that they will not do that, why object to the inclusion of that amendment?

However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

Amendment 53 not moved.

Amendment 54 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

Amendment 54A not moved.

Clause 39: Illegal entry and similar offences

Amendment 55

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

55: Clause 39, page 40, leave out lines 5 to 9
Member’s explanatory statement
This would prevent ‘arrival’ in the UK being an offence, rather than ‘entry’ into the UK.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

If Amendment 55 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 56 by reason of pre-emption.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief, because we had a long debate on this issue in Committee. It is, however, an issue that goes to the heart of the Bill—changing the definition of the offence to one of arrival rather than entry. I am, therefore, very pleased to move Amendment 55 and to speak to Amendment 58 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett. This is a fundamental change to immigration law that many of us are worried will criminalise asylum, full stop. One can only imagine what effect a similar law would have in Poland now, with people fleeing across the border. No doubt the Minister will say that it does not apply in those circumstances, and so on. The fact is, however, that the Bill changes the offence from entering to arriving, which raises serious issues and has serious consequences for us all.

For example, aside from those seeking asylum, would this provision apply to a person who arrives in the UK with the wrong paperwork? They have arrived and they have broken the rules: would that be a criminal offence under the Bill? The Home Secretary has presided over this situation for a number of days but has just recently announced that people can safely bring elderly relatives and parents from Ukraine into this country. On the basis of this clause, would those elderly parents be considered criminals if they arrived here without the right paperwork? The Government’s proposed legislative changes have real consequences for real people, as highlighted by the recent horrific events in Ukraine.

This clause should be removed from the Bill on both principled and practical grounds. I have guidance that the CPS has announced, in consultation with the National Crime Agency, the Home Office and the police, which says that those seeking asylum should not be prosecuted under existing offences of entering the UK illegally. That is in recognition of the fact that it is not in the public interest, and that asylum seekers

“often have no choice in how they travel and face exploitation by organised crime groups”.

That is in a press statement from the CPS. The Government are asking us to widen the offence to include arrival when the CPS and Border Force do not believe that the existing offence should even be used. Similarly, the Government’s answer has been that the powers will be used in only exceptional and limited circumstances, such as where a person has breached a deportation order—in which case, we should pass a power for those circumstances.

It is not right to ask the House to pass these powers —on the basis that the Government’s own agencies say that they will not use them—or to criminalise a person who arrives in the UK to ask for asylum from war and persecution. It is late, but this change in the offence will have serious consequences for the way our asylum and refugee system works. I beg to move.

[Lord Green of Deddington (CB)]

My Lords, this is more important than it looks. Frankly, it is rather absurd that people can turn up in their tens of thousands on our beaches and there will have been no offence. That is not to say that they should be charged, but there must surely be some legal impediment to people just turning up.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill does two things. It criminalises and treats genuine refugees as second class if they arrive via a so-called safe third country. Also, this clause potentially criminalises everyone who arrives in the UK to claim asylum even when they have flown directly to the UK. It effectively criminalises all asylum seekers arriving in the UK unless they have been resettled through a government scheme—resettlement schemes that range from few and far between to non-existent.

From what the Minister said in Committee, I understand that the idea of the clause was to ensure that migrants crossing the channel in small boats who were rescued and brought to the UK could still be prosecuted, even though they had arrived legally. She said that the new offence would cover all claimants

“who arrive without the necessary entry clearance.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1512.]

Someone who secures a visitor visa, for example, flies non-stop to the UK and claims asylum at the UK border would be guilty of an offence because their entry clearance was only to visit, not to claim asylum and stay permanently.

The Minister tried to reassure the House that this was not the Government’s intention, that the offence was intended to be prosecuted in only the most egregious cases and that the Government would be talking to the CPS. There are two issues with this. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said in Committee, this is the very definition of an overbroad criminal offence that relies on the offence being prosecuted in only a subset of cases. The second issue is the potential for government interference with the independent Crown Prosecution Service. The next thing will be the Government telling the CPS to prosecute some political activists and not others. This is a very dangerous road to go down.

Amendment 55, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Blunkett, to which I have added my name, would remove the offence of arriving in the UK without valid entry clearance from the Bill. We will vote with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, when he divides the House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for speaking to these amendments. I have listened carefully to the arguments raised by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, and I appreciate the reasoning behind the amendments in their names, but I remain convinced that we must have offences which apply to arrival in the UK in addition to those of entry.

I cannot overstate that the differences between the terms “entry” and “arrival” are fundamental to how offences are identified and prosecuted. The definition in Section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971 concerning entry is based on assumptions that no longer address the methods that have emerged for migrants to evade our border controls.

It might help if I explained the effect of the amendment and the consequence of not getting it right. I remind the House that the Court of Appeal has held that an asylum seeker who merely attempts to arrive at the frontiers of the United Kingdom to make a claim is not entering or attempting to enter the country unlawfully in accordance with the definition of “entry” in Section 11. This means that individuals who step foot in the UK because their small boat was rescued by Border Force do not “enter” the UK in the technical sense. They simply “arrive”. Where there is no unlawful entry or attempt at entry, the unscrupulous people smugglers sending people across the channel in unseaworthy vessels that require rescue cannot be held to account for facilitating a breach of immigration law.

Amending these offences to refer to “enters” rather than “arrives in” renders them unworkable. It is wrong that an individual and those facilitating their journey should be able to evade sanction by allowing themselves to be intercepted and brought to shore. It encourages individuals to unnecessarily endanger themselves and others by travelling in small craft wholly unsuitable for the crossing.

If there is no offence of illegal arrival and if, as proposed in Amendment 58, this is not added as a breach of immigration law for the facilitation offence, then we will have practically eroded our ability to prosecute any people smugglers who are involved in risking migrants’ lives by putting them into small inadequate boats.

It is right that we should ensure that the tools exist to deter and prevent these actions for the good of all. We must provide the CPS with the ability to prosecute appropriate cases when in the public interest, so Clause 39 must refer to both those who enter the UK and those who arrive in the UK. I appreciate the concerns raised but am convinced that the proposed amendments, if accepted, would give only comfort to those who exploit and persuade people to make the perilous and unnecessary journey across the English Channel.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a point about interference with the CPS. That is not the case. An MOU between immigration and the CPS has been updated and will be published. With those words, I hope that noble Lords will be happy not to press their amendments.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her reply. It was interesting in that reply, with respect to Amendment 55, that the whole raison d’être for the change to established immigration and asylum practice in this country is that the Government have lost control of migration across the channel. Panic has broken out, measure after measure has been tried, yet the numbers keep going up, and the public pressure to do something about it keeps going up. The Prime Minister has complained to the Home Secretary about it, so they have come up with a new measure which drives a coach and horses through the established procedures we have, has far wider implications than the channel, and affects every potential asylum seeker who enters the UK at the moment. That is why it is completely unsatisfactory to change things on the basis of what is happening, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.

22:30

Division 6

Ayes: 101

Noes: 96

22:41

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)]

As Amendment 55 has been agreed, I cannot call Amendment 56 by reason of pre-emption.

Amendments 57 and 58 not moved.

Amendment 58A

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

58A: After Clause 39, insert the following new Clause—
“Secure reporting for victims of crime
(1) The Secretary of State must, in regulations, make provisions for the prohibition of automatic sharing of personal data of a victim or witness of crime for immigration purposes.(2) In section 20 of the Immigration Act 1999, after subsection (2B) insert—“(2C) This section does not apply to information held about a person as a result of the person reporting criminal behaviour which they are a victim of or a witness to.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would prevent immigration data being shared about a victim or witness of crime who reports an offence. This is to ensure victims are able to approach the authorities for assistance without fear of immigration repercussions as a result of that contact or resultant data sharing with immigration enforcement.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 58A, in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would require the Secretary of State to prohibit the automatic sharing of the personal data of a victim of or witness to crime for immigration purposes.

This is a familiar issue to the House. It was a key issue raised in the Domestic Abuse Bill, when your Lordships voted to provide safe reporting for migrant victims of domestic abuse. In this Bill, this issue has been raised in particular due to the offence of arriving into the UK proposed in Clause 39.

The question I asked in Committee was: if a person is trafficked into the UK, is it the first duty of the police to recognise them as a victim of trafficking or as a criminal under Clause 39? I welcome that your Lordships’ House has just voted to remove the offence in question under Clause 39, but the issue of safe reporting continues to be of great concern.

A lack of safe reporting is damaging for victims, public safety and law enforcement because it prevents us tracking down and prosecuting dangerous people. This is not just the belief of Members of this House, it was the conclusion of the 2018 super-complaint. For victims of modern slavery, a mistrust of authority is a huge problem in encouraging people to come forward and identify themselves as a victim. What is practically being done to build that trust?

Rather than full safe reporting, the Government have opted for an immigration enforcement victims protocol, which they state will prevent enforcement action against victims while criminal investigations and proceedings are ongoing, and while the victim is being supported.

Organisations working on the ground with victims have raised that the protocol will not make victims feel safe to report offences, so it fails that first hurdle. Can the Minister address these concerns? In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked the Government to check whether it remains the case that one in two victims does not report crimes to the police for fear of disbelief and deportation. Does the Minister agree with that? What assessment have the Government made of the scale of the problem?

Safe reporting is a very real problem, which the amendment in my name seeks to address. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of London]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 58A. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for introducing this new amendment. In Committee, I tabled an amendment looking to create a data firewall for survivors of domestic abuse. This amendment, however, is helpful in that it is broader in its scope and gets to the critical underlying principle: namely, that victims and witnesses of crime should not need to fear coming forward on account of their migration status. I and my colleagues on this Bench, including the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Gloucester and Bristol, have highlighted these concerns, notably during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill.

22:45

The Government’s policies have been successful in at least one respect: they have created a real sense of fear and dread among migrants of approaching the authorities. The fear is of heavy-handed immigration enforcement. It includes detention, deportation, and being split from their family members. Many speak of this, so it seems that it is well founded. My concern is that it is not likely to be reduced by the Bill as it stands. These victims, who could receive support, or could actually help law enforcement in the fight against violence against women and girls, against domestic abuse, against FGM, against human trafficking or against a host of other evils, do not present themselves to the authorities. They are not prepared to be witnesses because they are fearful.

This is a real issue identified regularly by front-line agencies and is clearly a serious barrier to supporting victims and countering crime. This is the consequence of our own policy-making, and I am sure there must be a way to resolve it. This amendment provides one solution, which is why I support it. I hope that if the Minister rejects this amendment she will at least undertake to come back with an alternative route forward so that we are not forced to go through this again in future Bills.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we support this amendment—I have added my name to it. The only question I have in addition to what the Minister has been asked so far is whether it is right that somebody who has been raped and who comes forward to the police as a victim, although she may not be subject to immigration control while a prosecution is ongoing, as soon the case is finished, she could be deported from the country because the police, at the end of the case, will share that victim’s immigration status? Can the noble Baroness not understand that victims are not going to come forward and report dangerous criminals who have raped them if that is the threat?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind this amendment, which is to ensure that migrant victims of crime come forward to report that crime to the police and are not deterred from doing so because of concerns that immigration enforcement action might be taken against them. Our overriding priority is to protect the public and all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. Guidance issued by the NPCC, updated in 2020, makes it clear that victims of crime should be treated as victims first and foremost.

The NPCC guidance provides that police officers will not routinely search police databases for the purpose of establishing the immigration status of a victim or witness, or routinely seek proof of their entitlement to reside in the UK. Also, police officers must have grounds to suspect that a person does not have legal immigration status and must give careful consideration, on a case-by-case basis, to what information to share with the Home Office and when. The reasons for sharing information must be recorded and the victim advised what has been shared and why.

There can be benefits to sharing information as it can help to prevent perpetrators of crime from coercing and controlling their victims because of their insecure immigration status. Providing the victims with accurate information about their immigration status and bringing them into the immigration system can only benefit them. This amendment would prevent that.

It might help noble Lords if I gave one example of the negative effect of the amendment. The referral of information about a migrant victim or witness enables the Home Office to provide information on Home Office systems to assist the police and other authorities to establish vulnerabilities and safeguarding needs and to assess whether the migrant might be eligible to qualify for leave under the Immigration Rules or bespoke routes. Securing immigration status may allow eligible migrants access to a range of benefits, including health and housing provisions. There are several bespoke routes available to migrant victims and witnesses of crime which enable eligible individuals to regularise their status.

Under this amendment, the Home Office could not lawfully process any applications or requests for relief from enforcement action where details of the crime reported are relevant to those applications or requests, because the applicant’s personal data cannot be used for an immigration control purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about rape, and examples would include applications or requests made for the destitute domestic violence concession, the foreign witness policy or the immigration enforcement migrant victim protocol, which is due to be introduced later this year.

I know that is not what the sponsors of the amendment had in mind, but, were it to be added to the Bill, that would be one of the effects. More broadly, noble Lords will understand that the Government are duty bound to maintain an effective immigration system to protect our public services and safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status.

I have previously said that we need to focus on ensuring that victims with insecure immigration status can access the support they need, and that is the priority. Despite the best intentions, this amendment does not achieve the outcome it seeks. The question of leave to remain is inextricably linked to the conditions attached to that leave, so it is impossible to waive the no recourse to public funds condition in isolation from consideration being given to a person’s immigration status. What is more, it has been a long-standing feature of the immigration framework operated by successive Governments that only those with settled status should have access to public funds.

The public rightly expects that individuals in this country should be subject to our laws, and it is right that those with irregular immigration status are identified and that they should be supported to come under our immigration system and, where possible, to regularise their stay. We regularly help migrant victims by signposting them to legal advice to help regularise their stay.

This is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. If adopted, it would prevent victims obtaining the support they need, whether under the DDVC or other routes such as seeking asylum. I hope, on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about listening, that the noble Lords have listened and reflected carefully on the unintended consequences of their amendment and will agree to withdraw it.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Having listened carefully to the Minister, particularly about it being the wrong amendment at the wrong time, I will withdraw the amendment. But just let me very quickly say that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the amendment, and whatever the rights of the wrongs of what the Minister has just said, there is a very real problem out there of people who are victims of crime who are terrified of going to the police or the authorities because of fear of their immigration status. Whether that is right or wrong, that is the reality of the situation. I know the noble Baroness knows that. There is a problem that needs fixing. If the amendment is not the right way of doing it, we need to find another way of building that trust so that we do not have victims who are frightened to come forward to the authorities. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58A withdrawn.

Clause 40: Assisting unlawful immigration or asylum seeker

Amendment 59

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

59: Clause 40, page 41, line 40, leave out subsection (3)
Member’s explanatory statement
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to maintain the current position that the offence of helping an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom can only be committed if it is carried out “for gain”.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I beg to test the opinion of the House.

22:55

Division 7

Ayes: 86

Noes: 84

23:08

Amendment 60 not moved.

Amendment 61 not moved.

Schedule 6: Maritime enforcement

Amendment 62

Moved by

[Lord Coaker]

62: Schedule 6, page 104, line 13, at end insert—
“(1A) The powers set out in this Part of this Schedule must not be used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure the maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I beg to move.

23:09

Division 8

Ayes: 83

Noes: 76

23:21

Amendment 63 not moved.

Consideration on Report adjourned.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with reasons.

House adjourned at 11.22 pm.