House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
The Government have committed £2.5 billion to vehicle grants and infrastructure to support the transition to electric vehicles.
Sarah Green
The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association, based in Amersham in my constituency, has pointed out that the cost of charging is still prohibitive for many companies. If a company with a fleet of vehicles wants to install charging points onsite, it probably also needs to install a substation, at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds, which is prohibitive. The BVRLA is therefore calling for a depot grant to help with those set-up costs. Will the Secretary of State consider introducing a depot grant to help companies with fleets to convert them to electric vehicles?
Grant Shapps
We are always looking at what more we can do. We put in £1.9 billion in the 2020 spending review, and we have enhanced that with an extra £620 million for the transition. I will always look at what else can be done. Electric vehicles—I can attest to this because I have driven one for several years—are dramatically cheaper than equivalent fuel vehicles, albeit that the infrastructure needs to be got right to make sure that they are chargeable.
Bill Esterson
The UK needs 480,000 EV charging points if we are to transition to electric vehicles. So far there are 28,000 publicly available charging points, and only 1,000 on-street charging points outside London. Last year, just 7,600 new charging points were installed. At this rate, we will have to wait until 2080 for everyone to be able to use an electric car. These figures are from the National Infrastructure Commission. How does the Secretary of State expect motorists to be able to play their part in the move to net zero if the Government are not delivering the charging infrastructure?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman presents a partial picture because he forgets that there are 300,000 chargers installed at people’s homes, with Government support. In addition, the figures that he quoted are now out of date. There are 29,500 public installations, 4,500 of which are rapid chargers—a 37% increase in 2021 alone. We will be ready for everybody to go electric.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It has been more than two years since the Prime Minister promised 4,000 new zero-emission buses—representing only about a tenth of the English bus fleet—by the start of 2025. It took them a while, and it has been a year since the launch of the zero-emission bus regional areas scheme designed to deliver on that promise, but the Government said it would only deliver funding for up to 500 zero-emission buses in England. One year on, how many buses have been ordered through the standard ZEBRA process?
Gavin Newlands
I very much appreciate that answer, but it is completely different to the one I received to a parliamentary question on Monday, which was that the Government have ordered zero buses through the standard ZEBRA process since it launched but that they expect to do so later this year. I hope the Secretary of State might correct the record. The truth is that six months after the Prime Minister made his 4,000 bus pledge, the Scottish Government got on with delivering, with their SULEB—Scottish ultra-low emission bus—schemes delivering 272 buses, while just a fortnight ago Transport Minister Jenny Gilruth announced the first phase of the zero-emission bus challenge fund of £62 million for a further 276 buses. The nearly 550 buses delivered or ordered in Scotland are the equivalent of 5,500 in England. The UK Government are fiddling while the planet burns. When will the 4,000 buses be delivered?
Grant Shapps
As we said in our manifesto, we will deliver the 4,000 buses during this Parliament, and we are on track to do so. I have just given the hon. Gentleman the up-to-date information on the number already funded. The SNP spokesman makes a big fuss of this, but—I do not think he mentioned this—the Scottish Government missed their own legal emission targets under the Transport (Scotland) Act 2019. They were supposed to reduce the emissions but they missed the targets.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
We are carefully considering the recommendations from Sir Peter Hendy’s “Union Connectivity Review” and we will respond in due course.
Virginia Crosbie
I welcome Avanti West Coast’s £170,000 investment and the creation of a dedicated driver depot in Holyhead, but direct rail services between London and Holyhead, the UK’s second busiest ro-ro port and the main route connecting the UK and the EU, will reduce from nine per day prior to the pandemic to just two. What steps is the Minister taking to help providers return rail services across the UK to their pre-pandemic levels to support connectivity across the UK?
Robert Courts
I commend my hon. Friend on being a true champion for Ynys Môn. We continue to work closely with her and operators on the development of attractive timetables that are reliable, deliver excellent performance and are good value for money. Thanks to her campaign and that work, the two trains per day from London to Holyhead will increase to four in May, and we are looking to bring back more.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
There are conflicting views on East West Rail as a project to improve connectivity, but the one thing we all agree on in Bedford is that the delayed consultation response, the potential demolition of homes and concerns about the environment are taking a toll on residents. We need clarity, so will the Minister tell us whether the DFT is backtracking on the project? Will he instruct East West Rail to urgently publish its proposals?
Robert Courts
I will ask the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) to respond in detail to the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised as soon as possible.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Will the Minister update the House on where we are with improving connectivity between the south coast and the M4? Is the study in his Department on track to report in September? Will it include an upgrade to the A350 as it rumbles through Westbury and Yarnbrook in my constituency? Can he give any commitment at all to a relief road that will, after so many years, bring some relief to my constituents in the town of Westbury?
Robert Courts
My right hon. Friend has raised the question of Westbury and the difficulties his constituents are facing. I have heard that very clearly, and I will ensure that he gets a detailed response from the roads Minister, Baroness Vere, on the progress.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Ministers will be aware that the Select Committee on Transport recently visited Leeds and Bradford as part of our inquiry into the integrated rail plan. Has the current Transport Secretary seen the former Transport Secretary Lord McLaughlin’s comments that the Government’s revised integrated rail plan goes against the best interests of people in the north of England? Is that why he has reduced Transport for the North’s budget by 37%?
Robert Courts
The Secretary of State has met Lord McLaughlin recently, and he will no doubt have reiterated the point that I reiterate to the hon. Gentleman and everyone who asks about the integrated rail plan, which is that this is £96 billion of investment—the greatest from any Government in recent history.
Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)
The Hendy review recommended the creation of a UK-wide strategic transport network. It also identified a gap in north Wales. However, when Transport for Wales bid for funds to develop the business case for investment to fill that gap, it was declined. Will the Minister meet me to discuss and perhaps reconsider that?
Robert Courts
We are committed to strengthening transport bonds throughout our Union. I note that the Welsh Government published a report recently saying that they did not support key improvements to the A55 in north Wales, nor the building of new roads, but I know that the roads Minister will be keen to meet my hon. Friend as soon as possible to discuss his individual concerns.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Connecting communities to the rest of the UK is crucial, but not at the expense of cutting off communities from their own locality. I urge the Minister to look again at plans in the High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill that will see the Metrolink from Piccadilly to Ashton-under-Lyne, which runs through my constituency, severed and mothballed during the construction phase, to be replaced by buses. It is unacceptable; can we look at that again?
Robert Courts
The Department is very keen to work with local communities to ensure that the plan works. I know that the HS2 Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) will be keen to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss precisely that issue.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Sometimes the Government get criticised over rail, but in my constituency, we have had electrification, more trains and more capacity going to Wellingborough, and we are now getting it going north to the great cities, and we have our station being redeveloped. It is in the middle of the country, and we have Station Island there. Is this an example of what the Government are going to do elsewhere?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. Under the previous Labour Government, 63 miles were electrified, whereas we, up to the end of the relative period, have electrified 1,221 miles.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Happy St Patrick’s day to everyone, but especially the thriving Irish community in my Slough constituency. Industry data that I have seen shows that while passengers are battling to get on overcrowded trains, 21,000 fewer services are running today than there were pre-pandemic. With more people returning to rail, and to ensure that we do not have a car-led recovery, will the Minister now commit to restoring the services that have been cut? If not, why not?
Robert Courts
Following the Williams-Shapps review, we have announced the creation of Great British Railways, which will create a truly passenger-focused service for the UK. I have already mentioned the £96 billion that has gone into the integrated rail plan, as well as the restoring your railway programme. The Government are focusing on getting passengers on to rail wherever possible.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
My Department continues to work with trade representatives and operators to understand and mitigate the extent, impacts and reasons behind driver shortages.
Navendu Mishra
Happy St Patrick’s Day, Mr Speaker. During the pandemic, bus drivers kept vital lifeline services going at huge risk to their health. Many now face reduced pay and conditions and disgraceful fire and rehire tactics employed by disreputable bosses, so they are understandably leaving the industry in droves. What steps are the Government taking to improve the pay and conditions of bus drivers, to encourage people to take up jobs in the sector, and to solve the current shortage?
Andrew Stephenson
I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to bus drivers, who worked throughout the pandemic. The Government supported the work of local bus services with £1.7 billion of funding throughout the period. We do not intervene, however, on the levels of remuneration in private businesses, with the exception of setting rates for the national minimum wage and the national living wage.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Happy St Patrick’s Day, Mr Speaker. During the height of the covid pandemic, bus drivers worked tirelessly, often at considerable risk to their health, to keep our vital services functioning by helping NHS staff and other essential workers reach their destination. This week, a Unite the union survey said that we now face bus driver shortages in 99% of garages, which clearly severely hampers services across the country. The same survey said that an average of 90% of respondents believe that the mass exodus is a direct result of low pay and poor working conditions. Those heroes of the transport industry clearly deserve something better, so is it not high time for operators to reward the efforts of our vital transport networks and the people who work on them, and give those bus drivers the pay rise and improvements in working conditions that they thoroughly deserve?
Andrew Stephenson
Similarly to several hon. Members, my grandfather was a bus driver so I always stand in solidarity with bus drivers across the country. The Government have supported buses with record amounts, not just with the money that we are putting in during the pandemic but with a doubling of bus funding compared with the previous spending review. We recently announced a further six months of the covid-19 support package for the buses and light rail sectors, worth a minimum of £150 million.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)
We have extended the access for all programme until 2024 with almost £400 million to improve accessibility. The programme has already delivered lifts and other access improvements at more than 1,500 stations, with more to come in the next few years.
Afzal Khan
Disability access on the rail network is a major issue across the country. In my constituency, campaigners in Levenshulme have been calling for step-free access for years. We are making good progress, largely down to the determination of the community groups and local representatives who have brought the issue to the fore. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that all stations have step-free access as standard, particularly Levenshulme, which is the busiest station with step-only access in Manchester outside the city centre?
Wendy Morton
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for raising your own station too. Levenshulme was nominated in the access for all main programme, but it was unsuccessful. The hon. Gentleman had a conversation with me about that. Let us be absolutely clear, however, that more than 75% of journeys are through step-free stations, compared with fewer than 50% in 2005. We are in the process of setting the funding envelopes for the next rail control period, which is 2024 to 2029. When further funding is available, any station without an accessible route into the station and to all platforms will be a potential candidate. It is an important topic. I recently visited Eridge station to see a project that had been completed there and as we know, it really makes a difference.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Transport for the North’s core funding for financial year 2022-23 totals £6.5 million, a rise of £500,000 on the previous year. This funding is in addition to the Government’s historic £96 billion integrated rail plan.
Dame Diana Johnson
Shall we try again on this? On 18 November, the same day that Ministers ignored TfN’s recommendations in the disappointing integrated rail plan, Whitehall also removed powers from TfN and levelled down its funding by 37%; the main devolved power Ministers have left with TfN is over making staff redundant. Does the Minister agree with the TfN chair, Lord Patrick McLoughlin, a former Secretary of State for Transport, in his letter of 3 March, in which he warned that funding cuts to TfN will mean
“down-sizing of the organisation which in turn will result in redundancies”?
Andrew Stephenson
The right hon. Lady continues to focus on process while we continue to focus on delivery. It is not for the Government to comment on the business planning of a devolved transport body. TfN definitely has enough money to complete its statutory funding commitments, and it has far more money than any other sub-national transport body. On the staff affected by TfN’s move to become the Northern Powerhouse Rail co-sponsor, the Department has commenced discussions on the TUPE process and as such I am unable to comment further at this time.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
Our national bus strategy has asked local transport authorities to consider the impact of roadside infrastructure on passenger safety and security.
Luke Pollard
After the tragedies in Plymouth, people, especially women and girls, must feel safe while waiting for a bus, so does the Minister agree that before Conservative-run Plymouth City Council cuts 211 bus shelters—a third of all Plymouth’s bus shelters—it must stop and seriously consider the impact that will have on the safety of people waiting for a bus?
Trudy Harrison
We take safety, particularly of women and girls, very seriously and I realise the difficulties that have been faced in Plymouth. The hon. Gentleman will know that we recently commissioned our safety champions to work with stakeholders and they have now provided 13 recommendations which will specifically look at how we can protect women and girls on the transport network. I would welcome further consideration on the importance of bus shelters in use and also the illumination of those shelters as an important factor in protecting women and girls.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Bus safety is important, but so is train safety. Has the Department had any more thoughts about placing a simple sticker on the back of each train seat advertising the British Transport police text number so that passengers can summon help if required and also asking people to refrain from using bad language? I think the Minister will agree that this also fits nicely with the criteria for the Great British Railways headquarters competition in that Doncaster’s champion MP not only did his apprenticeship on the railway but also helped to secure a more pleasant trip for all future rail passengers.
Trudy Harrison
I am most impressed by my hon. Friend’s doughty campaigning in wanting to headquarter Great British Railways in Doncaster. Of course I agree that antisocial behaviour on public transport is a blight; however, I suspect that there might be unintended consequences from some on-train requests, such as encouraging more swearing and passenger confrontations, but I agree that we should look at doing more in this area and a solution using positive messaging to promote considerate behaviour could be an option.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister remember that two years ago a car ploughed into a bus stop in my Huddersfield constituency, killing a young girl and badly injuring two other people? That driver has never been found guilty of anything. He put forward a plea of automatism—that he was not actually in charge—and a clever lawyer got him off. What sort of justice is that?
Trudy Harrison
I am sorry to be reminded of that case. We are currently looking at how the justice system works for all drivers and I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with an update on that piece of work.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)
The pandemic is changing travel habits and we are starting to see some substantial changes in passenger demand for rail travel. As covid recedes, we must ensure that services are adjusted to meet changes in passenger demand. We are working with operators to consider what further changes might be possible at these stations.
Tom Randall
There is a widespread view in Gedling that rail services could be improved. For example, Carlton recently lost its direct service to Matlock and many trains pass through Burton Joyce without stopping. I continue to have discussions with East Midlands Railway about how it might reach the maximum amount of services in its agreement with the Department. I would welcome the opportunity to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how Gedling’s stations might fulfil their potential.
Wendy Morton
I appreciate my hon. Friend raising the matter and can see what a hard-working campaigner he is for his constituents. I assure him that we are working with the operator to consider what further changes might be possible, subject to passenger demand and the cascading of trains into East Midlands Railway. I am happy to meet him to discuss this in more detail.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I am working with my Cabinet colleagues to consider support for motorists during these challenging times.
Alex Davies-Jones
I place on record my celebrations for everybody celebrating St Patrick’s day, and a happy Purim.
With fuel costs skyrocketing and the average family facing an annual increase of £386 in petrol costs, my constituents are being forced to choose between getting to work and heating their homes. Does the Secretary of State agree that now would be the worst possible time to introduce a tax hike of £255 on working people who are already seeing their pay swallowed up by the costs of simply living?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady asks specifically about the additional costs of motoring during these difficult times with what we have seen happen to the crude oil price. I gently remind her that she voted against a measure in the Budget to freeze fuel duty for a 12th consecutive year.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for the 12-year freeze in fuel duty—that is extremely welcome—but given the increases in pump prices and the costs for average constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, we need to do more at the forthcoming Budget. The Treasury is getting more revenue from VAT, so we need to find ways to reduce that duty burden so that people in my constituency can fill up and continue to go to work. Will the Secretary of State speak to the Chancellor about that?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the pressures that exist. As I mentioned, we froze fuel duty for the 12th consecutive year, which means that it costs about £15 less to fill up a family car than it would have done otherwise. He is right to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who is perhaps the most expensive Member of this House, having cost the Treasury tens of billions of pounds over the years for this worthwhile saving.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Alan Davie, Ian Roberts, Geddes and Laird are the hauliers who keep the economy of Angus moving, and by the Road Haulage Association’s estimate they are facing an 18% increase in operating costs purely on fuel. What discussions will the Secretary of State have with the Chancellor to get something sorted to keep our economy moving?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Member is right to point out the fantastic work done by haulage companies and all their workers. Over the next five years, the 2022-23 freeze will represent £8 billion off the fuel bill for motorists in this country, including the haulier sector, which I recently backed with 32 separate measures to ensure that it can continue to operate during what have been difficult times post covid.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
It is a very happy St Patrick’s day in Ireland because fuel duty has been cut in the past week. I thank my right hon. Friend for what the Government have done on the fuel duty freeze, but the fact is that motorists are paying £1.60 or more for their petrol and diesel and we are heading for a de facto lockdown where parents cannot afford to take their kids to school and workers cannot afford to commute by car and have to stay at home. Will my right hon. Friend make appeals to the Treasury to cut fuel duty in the spending round next week?
Grant Shapps
I had not noticed that Parliament’s most expensive MP was in his place in the Chamber. My right hon. Friend’s work has been absolutely remarkable over the years: actually, after 12 years of the fuel freeze, the average family has saved something like £2,000 as a direct result of his excellent campaigning. I will of course have further conversations with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it will be for him to decide on the next measures.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The price of diesel is now so high that a typical van driver will be paying £800 more than they were a year ago. Meanwhile, wholesale oil prices have fallen by 28% in just one week. Those are prices millions of working people and families simply cannot afford, so why is the Transport Secretary still defending the record profits of oil and gas giants as they swallow up the pay of hard-working British people? Why does he not insist that any fall in the price of oil is passed on to the price of petrol and diesel at the pump?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about ensuring that any fall is passed on quickly. For example, I notice that Brent crude is down to $100 a barrel at the moment—it had been as high, I think, as $130 a week or two ago—and I want to see that passed on. But I am very curious as to why, given her deep concern about the cost of diesel, she voted against our move to freeze petrol and diesel prices this year.
Louise Haigh
The Transport Secretary thinks he is on to a very clever point given that Labour votes against Tory Budgets, but I remind him that the last time the Tories tried to put up fuel duty, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), now the shadow Chancellor, forced a vote in Parliament to delay the increase. People need help in the here and now as they struggle to make decisions over which basic essentials to cut. This has to be a wake-up call for the Government. The crisis shows exactly why this country must never again be left dependent on the oil and gas of foreign despots.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) mentioned the statistic of 1,000 electric vehicle charging units outside London—a stat that the Transport Secretary did not correct—which reveals the gross inequity of access in this country to EV charging units. The National Infrastructure Commission was also damning in its appraisal that the Government have no plan to deliver infrastructure. When will he publish the strategy on EV infrastructure that the industry is calling for, to help turbocharge the transition to cleaner transport?
Grant Shapps
I have to say again that words are one thing—I understand the hon. Lady is doing her job—but action is another. When individuals vote against measures that will freeze fuel prices for British consumers and motorists, they can hardly then stand there and say, “Why aren’t the Government doing something?” The Opposition could help: they could vote for it. On EV charging, I do not know where the stat of 1,000 chargers outside London comes from. It is completely untrue. There are nearly 30,000 chargers across the country, of which over 5,500 are rapid. According to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, we now have the fastest chargers in the west. I hope the hon. Lady will welcome that.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)
As we create Great British Railways, we will work with the private sector to deliver for customers and taxpayers and restore competition through passenger services contracts as soon as possible.
Damian Collins
As international rail travel opens up post the covid pandemic, Eurostar still has an effective monopoly on services through Eurotunnel. What can the Government do to encourage other companies, in particular rail companies from Germany and Spain, that have expressed an interest in running alternative services through the tunnel?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I was fortunate enough recently to visit both Eurostar and Eurotunnel. What I can say is that the UK Government would support the growth of international rail services given the significant benefits they could provide for the UK. We stand ready to engage with partners to facilitate new routes where there is a commercial proposition to do so.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
In York, it is about not just competition but collaboration. We have 100 rail companies leading in rail operations and in high-end rail engineering. We find that collaborative approach not only benefits the industry but takes the future of our railways forward. What is the Minister doing to invest in rail clusters, similar to the clusters in which her colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy are investing in other areas of the economy?
Wendy Morton
What I can say to the hon. Lady is how important innovation is within the industry. With the new relationship between Great British Railways, the train operators and the innovators there are new opportunities to trial and roll out innovations more rapidly. Central to that will be the better management and exploitation of data, and GBR will be in an excellent place to do that.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
We have gone from a situation where competition and franchising delivered £200 million in profits to the Treasury to the situation we have now, where the Government are funding rail to the tune of £15 billion. Some review of costs is of course inevitable. The Rail Minister spoke this week about workplace reform, so will she set out in more detail what those reforms will look like? Will the Government ultimately have the resolve to see this through?
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. The Williams-Shapps plan for rail, which we published last year, set out the biggest change to the railway in three decades. We are committed to bringing forward that sector-wide reform. The country owes a great deal of gratitude to all railway workers for their vital work throughout the pandemic in keeping the UK moving, but it is important to recognise that the pandemic ushered in a financial crisis across the sector leading to interventions by Government to sustain the industry. Moving forward, the railway must be financially and operationally sustainable for the future so that it delivers the service that passengers want.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Our levelling-up agenda includes investing £1.2 billion to deliver better and cheaper bus services across England, as set out in our bus strategy, which is part of more than £3 billion of new spending on buses.
Chi Onwurah
The levelling-up White Paper promises to bring local public transport connectivity closer to London standards by 2030—so not as good as London, just less worse and not for another eight years. Newcastle needs affordable and accessible bus services now, not the cuts we are seeing. Transport North East’s bus service improvement plan sets out the improvements we need. Will the Minister fund it?
Andrew Stephenson
We hope to make more announcements on the latest round of funding very soon. Officials from the Department are working with representatives from the city regions, including Nexus and Transport North East, to establish options for integrated multimodal ticketing. We have of course already announced £5.7 billion for transport networks in the eight city regions, and the north-east, the North East Combined Authority and the North of Tyne Combined Authority will receive their share of the funding once appropriate governance is in place.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
We will not review the airports national policy statement at this time, but will consider the case again once the jet zero strategy has been finalised and there is more certainty about the longer-term impact of covid on aviation.
David Simmonds
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on airport communities, I know that many colleagues would like to know whether, in the light of the jet zero strategy, we now have the opportunity to spread the benefits of cleaner air travel to a larger selection of airports across the United Kingdom.
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend is quite right that the jet zero strategy provides the opportunity to spread cleaner, greener air travel across all parts of the UK. For example, the UK sustainable aviation fuel industry could create up to 11,000 green jobs while helping to level up with production facilities across the UK. We will be looking at regional aviation in our forthcoming aviation strategy.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I say in response to the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) that the Secretary of State committed to review the airports national policy statement last July. It has to be done urgently. Since it was adopted four years ago, our net zero commitment has become law, we have adopted a carbon budget and we have held the chair of COP26. What we know about the jet zero strategy and the implications and difficulty of delivering sustainable aviation fuels means that the review must surely come sooner rather than later to incentivise change.
Robert Courts
The point that the hon. Member misses is that we have also had the jet zero consultation. A number of presentations have come in on that and we need to consider them carefully. There is a lot of interesting work going on and we will respond on that in due course, which will give us the context to consider jet zero and the impact of covid. We will then look at the ANPS again.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
Our transport decarbonisation plan sets out how we will decarbonise the transport sector by 2050. Electrification will play an important role in decarbonising all modes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), the Rail Minister, has already said, over 1,221 track miles of electrification have been delivered in Great Britain since 2010, compared with 63 in the 14 years of the previous Administration, and we continue to expand the electrified rail network. For example, the integrated rail plan announcement confirmed that we will complete the electrification of the midland main line and deliver full electrification and upgrade of the trans-Pennine main line.
Daniel Kawczynski
I thank the Minister for her answer. We are in negotiations with Midlands Connect and her Department about upgrades and new investments on the Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton line, which is a very important line in the west midlands. Will she give me a commitment that she will look at that with a view to electrifying the Shrewsbury to Wolverhampton line as soon as possible?
Trudy Harrison
I can certainly give that commitment. I know that my hon. Friend has met with the Rail Minister and will do so again. As he knows, Midlands Connect is developing a business case for journey time improvements on the line connecting Shrewsbury, Wolverhampton and Birmingham. This will assess the enhancements required, the timescales for delivery and the costs and benefits of the scheme.
Chris Stephens
Given the huge impact increasing transport costs are having on the cost of basic foodstuffs and day-to-day living expenses, does the Minister accept the Road Haulage Association’s estimate of an 18% increase in its members’ running costs? Is that another cost that will fall disproportionately on the poor? What action is the Department taking to ensure the poor are not expected to pay the price for a Government looking to escape the net zero tariff?
Trudy Harrison
The decarbonisation of transport will bring benefits to our economy, our society and the environment. That is well and truly set out in our transport decarbonisation plan.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
The findings of the technical review for the A14 junction 10A have been completed by National Highways and form the high-level strategic outline business case for the scheme (SOBC). National Highways have confirmed they will be happy to share the technical review with my hon. Friend and meet him to discuss these in due course.
Mr Hollobone
Residents in Kettering, Barton Seagrave and Burton Latimer desperately need junction 10A to be included in road investment strategy 3 from 2025 because with 5,500 new homes being built on the Hanwood Park development to the east of Kettering, Kettering will grind to a halt if this junction is not put in place. Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to secure a meeting for me with the Roads Minister so that we can progress this scheme?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend continues to be the strongest possible champion for this scheme and for his constituents. I know he met the Roads Minister to discuss this recently, but I know my noble Friend the Baroness Vere will be more than happy to meet him again. Discussions about this scheme remain ongoing.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The road investment strategy will now have to take into account remedial work on smart motorways. Just last week it was revealed that for almost a week prior to a tragic collision on the M4, vehicle detection technology, there to protect stranded motorists, had been broken. What is more, overnight it has been reported that one in six stopped vehicle detection cameras on the M25 are currently out of action. These serious flaws in safety-critical technology on smart motorways are continuing to put lives at risk. I beg the Minister to urgently address these serious flaws and, in the meantime, to reinstate the hard shoulder before more lives are needlessly lost.
Andrew Stephenson
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, with which I have a lot of sympathy. We are committed to making sure that smart motorways are among the safest roads in the country. We want drivers not just to be safe, but, crucially, to feel safe and confident when driving on those roads. That is why we have listened to concerns and are taking forward the Transport Committee’s recommendations. We need to continue to work to ensure that smart motorways are as safe as possible for all road users.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
The Government support the proportionate regulation of the sector and will shortly be consulting on guidance to licensing authorities on how they might best achieve that, while maintaining high standards in safety, accessibility and workers’ rights.
Daniel Zeichner
During the pandemic, the support available for taxi and private hire drivers around the country was patchy, and many experienced people have been lost to the sector. What assessment has been made of the situation and, in hindsight, what could have been done differently?
Robert Courts
I pay tribute to the sector for how it dealt with exceptionally challenging times during the pandemic; the hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to that. These have been unparalleled and difficult times across the entirety of the economy. The key thing is that now we have one of the most open societies in the world because of the success of the vaccine roll-out. I am confident that the sector and the wider economy will bounce back.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
I would like to update the House on the actions that we have taken to clamp down on Russian interests in the UK. As hon. Members have already seen, we have detained private jets that we believe are owned by, or connected to, Putin’s cronies. I can now confirm that we are investigating a small number of yachts moored in this country, which we also suspect are linked to Russian oligarchs. I have taken steps to ensure that they are unable to depart, and investigations are ongoing. I can reveal that 10 Russian-linked ships have been turned away or redirected on their course, and eight ships or their companies have severed their Russian ties.
I also inform the House of conversations that I have been having with my opposite number, the Ukrainian Transport and Infrastructure Secretary, who has asked me to thank the whole House for the cross-party support that has been provided. He said that the UK’s approach has been pioneering towards his country and that where the UK goes, others follow.
Mr Sharma
Let me declare my interest as a former employee of London Transport as a bus conductor and booking clerk. Transport for London has warned that it will be forced to cut one in five buses and 10% of tube services if it does not receive a long-term funding deal from the Government. It has been two years since the pandemic began and the Secretary of State has failed to come forward with this funding, despite offering 18 months of bail-outs to private rail companies. When will he finally stop playing political games with Londoners and provide TfL with a long-term funding agreement?
Grant Shapps
That would be £5 billion-worth of political games—because that is the amount that we have given to TfL to keep its services running. That has been an incredibly fair settlement. The hon. Gentleman talks about a longer-term settlement, but surely he would agree with us that we should see what is going to happen with the pandemic; as it completes, we are able to talk about other things, including capital grants. However, I think £5 billion should be recognised by the hon. Gentleman.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
The A50-A500 corridor is absolutely critical to the economy of Staffordshire and improvements to those roads are vital for the levelling-up agenda in north Staffordshire. May I ask the Secretary of State to welcome the recent publication from Midlands Connect proposing a number of improvements on that route? Of specific interest to my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme are the plans and conversations he has had about improving junction 15 on the M6.
Grant Shapps
I commend my hon. Friend for the work he has been doing in that regard. We are very keen to ensure improvements and we will make sure that we continue to work with National Highways to try to provide those.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
As you well know, Mr Speaker, I am a lifelong member of the Fianna Phadraig Irish pipe band in Wythenshawe; it is my great honour to stand at this Dispatch Box and wish one and all a very happy St Patrick’s day. I am looking forward to getting home this afternoon and joining my comrades to entertain the masses of Manchester.
Worrying news has just broken that P&O Ferries has been called to port as DP World, its owner, seeks the long-term viability of the ferry company. Major disruption is expected. Can the Secretary of State update the House about any discussions that he has had with DP World or P&O Ferries about any potential redundancies, and the fact that we do not want any crews who are made redundant to be replaced by foreign cheap labour?
Grant Shapps
It was remiss of me not to acknowledge St Patrick’s Day and Purim. Both are fun and enjoyable festivals, and I know that Members on both sides of the House and people throughout the country will be enjoying them.
On a much sadder note, I am concerned about the news that is breaking on P&O Ferries. I understand that it has temporarily paused its operations, which is causing disruption in the short straits between Calais and Dover, and at some other ports. I am working with the Kent resilience forum, and I have just instructed its members to become intricately involved, along with other partnerships. I will be taking further steps later today, which will include ensuring that my officials engage in urgent discussions with P&O about the situation, which is of particular concern to its workers.
Mr Speaker
If it is that serious and an emergency statement is required, the Chair will always be willing to listen.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
I am pleased to hear about the good work that is being done by Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. We want to spread that across the country. Since 2020 we have committed £2.5 billion to support the transition to zero emission vehicles, offsetting their higher up-front costs and accelerating the roll-out of transport infrastructure. I should be delighted to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss more ways in which we can support her council.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Trudy Harrison
I will take the time to look into the matter further, and will endeavour to write to the hon. Member.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Wendy Morton)
My hon. Friend tempts me, but, as he will know, the competition closed yesterday. We have seen some fantastic bids from local authorities represented by Members on both sides of the House. There is real enthusiasm, and not just in my hon. Friend’s constituency. The shortlist will be announced in due course.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Trudy Harrison
I am delighted to hear of the right hon. Member’s enthusiasm for hydrogen, which I share. We are committed to rolling out a decarbonised transport economy, and I can assure him that there is equal enthusiasm in the Department. As for the scheme to which he refers, I will look into it, chivvy it on, and get back to him.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Wendy Morton
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I know he has been and continues to be a great campaigner for his constituency. I can assure him that the Kettering station canopy works are due to be completed in April and that a new national rail contract is being negotiated that will consider future investment plans.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Over the past few weeks, contractors for HS2 Ltd have brought yet more disruption and, frankly, despair to my constituents, especially in Stoke Mandeville and Wendover. They have misled property owners, they have gone back on reassurances and they have started work for which they have no permission, which has had to be halted. Will the Minister for HS2 please remind HS2 Ltd that its pledge to be a good neighbour is not just a slogan, and that it demands action?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
My hon. Friend continues to be a real champion for his constituency, as I saw at first hand when he took me on a tour of problem sites across Aylesbury. I note what he says and I will be more than happy to relay his message to HS2 Ltd. I also remind him and other colleagues across the House that, following my six-monthly progress report on HS2 yesterday, there will be a meeting at 2 pm today with the CEO of HS2 Ltd, Mark Thurston, and myself, which he will be welcome to attend.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
In the nearly five years I have been an MP, four cyclists have died on Oxfordshire’s roads: Ling this month; Ellen last month; Samantha in 2020; and John in 2019. Speaking after Ling’s death, her husband James said that one day he hoped to take his children to the roundabout where she died and to tell them:
“Look, no one else dies here because of Mummy.”
The county council has rightly made cycle safety a top priority but it desperately needs Government help, particularly financially. Will the Minister consider meeting me to discuss how we can keep Oxfordshire cyclists safe and how we can avoid any more senseless deaths?
Trudy Harrison
I am terribly sorry to hear of the sad passing of the hon. Lady’s constituents. We agree that infrastructure needs to be properly funded and of the highest quality. That is why the Government have promised an unprecedented £2 billion of investment in active travel over this Parliament. I would be very willing to meet her to talk about the work of Active Travel England and the ways in which our interim chief executive Chris Boardman is rolling out transport infrastructure.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Rising petrol costs are one of the many reasons that Andy Burnham’s original GM clean air zone plan is unworkable and should be scrapped. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with colleagues from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that Mr Burnham’s desire to create the world’s largest clean air charging zone does not place unsustainable financial burdens on Greater Manchester businesses and residents who are reliant on certain types of motor transport and particularly vulnerable to increased petrol prices?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, needs to go back to the drawing board on this.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Will the Minister join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) in congratulating the Unite workers on refusing to unload Russian oil at Stanlow in Cheshire? What further measures is the Secretary of State applying to sanction Russian oil and gas?
Grant Shapps
Yes, I do join the hon. Member in congratulating them. That came after I wrote to all the ports and asked them not to allow in Russian ships and Russian-connected ships. I should point out that this is the only country in the world to have a Russian-connected ban at our ports, and we look forward to other countries joining our lead, just as Minister Kubakov explained.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on refusing the Mayor of London’s decision to remove the car park at Cockfosters station. Can it be a precedent, so that we can encourage motorists to park at stations and then use the London underground network to get into the centre of London? Will my right hon. Friend use that as a means to stop car parks being removed at termini throughout London?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend will have seen my action with regard to Cockfosters station. The plan would have removed all but 12 car parking spaces, and while I am keen to get people using active travel and all forms of travel, the idea that only 12 cars a day would turn up was ludicrous. It would just have meant other cars parking on the streets and inconveniencing residents. I encourage the Mayor of London to come forward with better plans than that.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The most recent NatCen baseline report on the Government’s inclusive transport strategy shows we are still a long way from having a fully accessible and inclusive transport and active travel system. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the progress of his ITS commitments? In doing so, will he say why the deadline to report accessibility failures has been missed, why the consultation on bus stops has been paused and when the stakeholder group will next meet, as it has not met for over a year? Finally, how many staff are working full time on delivering these strategic commitments?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Lady asks a series of very good questions. We are working very hard on things like access for all on rail. She asks a number of bus-related questions, and we have put money into making sure that buses are more accessible through both signage and different types of communication facilities for people with disabilities. As she asks a series of questions, I will write to her with a detailed response to each of them. I hope she will find that useful.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
In answer to Question 3, I think the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), said he is meeting the trade union representatives of the bus driver industry. Can he confirm that he is meeting the trade union representatives regularly? Has his Department assessed the levels of bus driver pay and the impact of the same on recruitment and retention?
Andrew Stephenson
In answer to Question 3, I said that the roads Minister, Baroness Vere, is regularly meeting trade representatives, not trade union representatives. As the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) will know, the bus operators are predominantly private sector companies. It is not for the Government to dictate wages in the private sector, apart from setting the national minimum wage and the national living wage, which, I am proud to say, was introduced by this Government.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
The French Government have recently decided that car adverts in France must now encourage consumers to use more environmentally friendly modes of transport such as walking, cycling, car pooling and public transport as alternatives to driving. Will the United Kingdom Government consider that one small step to decarbonise transport and encourage active travel and living?
Trudy Harrison
Our transport decarbonisation plan is world leading. The Prime Minister has said that we would like all short journeys in towns and cities to be walked or cycled by 2030. That is why we set up Active Travel England, led by Chris Boardman. I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to explain that in more detail.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
The Scottish Government are investing 10% of their total transport capital budget in active travel options such as high-quality walking and accessible cycling infrastructure to support people to choose active and sustainable travel. Why has the UK Government’s active travel budget failed to match those funding ambitions?
Trudy Harrison
We are investing £2 billion in “Gear Change” and our active travel priorities. The climate sees no boundaries, so it is important that we work together. I am in regular contact with the devolved Administrations, and I think we can all learn from each other.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Ministers will be well aware of today’s announcement by P&O Ferries that there will be no sailings. I understand that 40% of its holdings are owned by a Russian company. This has left some of my constituents in Cairnryan unable to get home to Larne, and it has left people in Larne unable to get to Cairnryan. What can be done about this urgently? Will there be an opportunity to have a statement in the Chamber as soon as possible?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
This emerging story is clearly causing great concern. I will be in regular contact, and I will take any appropriate steps. Of course I will meet the hon. Gentleman.
DWP Estate: Office Closures
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on proposed office closures in the Department’s estate.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I seek your guidance on whether it is orderly for an hon. Member who has taken very substantial donations from a trade union to ask an urgent question on a matter of direct interest to that trade union?
Mr Speaker
We need to be careful. Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) took the donation, or was it an agreement with the constituency party? This is a very serious allegation. Is it a constituency party donation or was it donated directly to the hon. Gentleman?
Dr Murrison
It is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Mr Speaker
That is not what I asked. We will leave it for now. We had better move on.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)
At the Department for Work and Pensions, we constantly look at ways to improve our services. I wish to say up-front that we know it is important to communicate changes to all relevant stakeholders so that everyone understands our plans and why we are making changes.
This seems to be an unusual situation, Mr Speaker. It is very disappointing that the embargo agreed with the Public and Commercial Services Union does not seem to have been respected. Clearly, our staff should be the top priority at this time. I hope colleagues will understand that I am not able to go into all the detail this morning as we are briefing affected colleagues as we speak. In fact, the delivery of the first stage of the strategy is being announced to affected colleagues at 10.30 today—right now. The Minister for Employment will write to MPs with an affected site in their constituency after 1 pm today, and there will be a written statement to Parliament tomorrow morning. The letter to MPs will include notification of a virtual surgery that the Minister for Employment will hold on Wednesday 23 March.
The change is to back-of-house offices and will support the delivery of the Government priorities to get more people back into employment, to deliver long-term savings for the taxpayer and to meet Government commitments to modernise public services. The Department has developed a strategy that will, over the next 10 years, reshape and improve how, where and when it delivers services to claimants. The Department is transitioning to an estate that is smaller, greener and better. This will deliver substantial benefits by increasingly developing modern, secure, resilient, sustainable and automated systems to drive better experiences for our customers, colleagues and taxpayers.
The plans for the next three-year period affect the future delivery of back-of-house services—that is, services that are delivered remotely via telephone and online, without the need to see customers face to face. I assure the House that the plans do not affect Jobcentre Plus and customer-facing roles. We have been engaging fully with PCS union representatives at the sites affected since January, and PCS union representatives will be present at sites for the announcements today, as the House would expect. Our focus today is, of course, on supporting staff through the changes.
Changes to DWP estates are not unusual. Like most public services, we are always looking to meet our customers’ changing needs, reflecting developments in technology and the approaches of successive Governments. We value our staff and are working with them now to support those who will be affected by the changes as we seek to deliver the best possible services to our customers at all times.
Chris Stephens
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my position as chair of the PCS parliamentary group—which, of course, contains more than 100 Members of Parliament.
Will the Minister confirm that the announcement could mean that 3,000 jobs in the Department for Work and Pensions are at risk of redundancy? What measures will he take to ensure that that does not happen? Has there been an equality impact assessment of the proposals? I am thinking particularly about the impact on employees who have disabilities, for example, and may not be able to move to another location that may be miles away.
The Minister is aware that the proposals were first mooted six years ago and that the Department is looking to close offices in areas of high economic deprivation. That seems rather counterintuitive in the context of the so-called levelling-up agenda. Has an economic assessment been made of the closures and their impact on the local economies in the areas where it is proposed to close offices?
David Rutley
On our plans, we have, as I said, been working closely with colleagues and PCS over recent months. Around 12,000 colleagues will be moving from one site to another that is in close proximity—that will involve around 28 sites. Around 1,300 colleagues could be involved at sites where there is no other strategic site nearby. We are looking at what opportunities there are within the DWP and at what other opportunities there might be across other Government Departments. We have seen in other areas how this can work, and we are committed to doing that. Clearly, we will look at any other options that might work for those individuals.
Let me turn to the impact on the local economies. There are not normally too many people involved on each individual site, but, clearly, we have been working very hard to strengthen local economies, with the opening of a large number of new jobcentres. Again, I stress that this is about back-of house roles. This will not impact on jobcentres and the customer-facing interactions within the constituencies.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I think that this would have been much better dealt with in a statement rather than requiring an urgent question. I understand that an office in a neighbouring constituency will be closing, so I urge my hon. Friend to make sure that we notify not just MPs in the constituency where the office is closing, but MPs in neighbouring constituencies, such as mine, where, for example, people will be travelling to work in those places and will be affected.
David Rutley
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We will, of course, make sure that those communications are made. We will also make sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), has those conversations with MPs. If any MP needs to contact her, they should do so, and she will be willing to talk to them. She will also proactively get out to speak to colleagues. Please be sensitive to the fact that she is currently recovering from covid at home, so I am fulfilling her role today. If any colleagues wish to speak to me after this urgent question, I will gladly meet them.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It looks as though the Department for Work and Pensions does not believe in levelling up, does not believe in its own rhetoric on jobs, and does not believe in keeping people in work. We hear that offices will be closed in Stoke, Southend, Peterborough, Chesterfield, Aberdeen, Kirkcaldy, Barrow, Bishop Auckland, Doncaster and Burnley, taking jobs out of these communities. Can the Minister answer these questions for the Members in Stoke, in Wellingborough and in Stockton whose communities and constituents will be concerned about the news today? We have heard that up to 12,000 jobs might be affected, but how many of the workers will be able to find new jobs locally within the Department? Can the Minister guarantee that there will no compulsory redundancies?
I appreciate that staff are being informed only this morning, but this is the correct forum for the Minister to answer these important questions. The PSC Union has said that its members are facing spiralling workloads. Is it not the case that the Department actually needs more staff, not fewer? If these closures are allowed to go ahead, we will face the absurd prospect of making staff redundant in one area, while recruiting new staff in another to do exactly the same job. That will be both costly and inefficient, so can the Minister confirm that that will not be allowed to happen?
If these closures go ahead, local communities will be faced with the loss of hundreds of good jobs potentially. Many of the closures are in areas of economic deprivation that can hardly afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs. Will there be a plan to help those communities attract well-paid jobs back to their local areas? This all comes at a time when families and working people are being hit hard by the cost of living crisis made by this Government. The price of petrol, food and energy is still soaring and people are worried about the future. Has there been any assessment of the impact that these job losses will have on the local economy? I think the Minister indicated in his previous answer that there had not been, but I would be grateful if he could confirm that. Has any consideration been given to the effect that this will have on the high streets of the affected towns? Will we see yet more boarded-up buildings? This is the opposite of levelling up; this is levelling down and it is closing down.
David Rutley
We are absolutely committed to bringing forward more jobs. Jobs are being filled and employment is at a record high. We have vacancies. It is important to highlight that the number of front-of-house roles that we are fulfilling has increased significantly. We have taken forward a rapid estate expansion programme over the past two years. We have created 170 new Jobcentre Plus offices. Many colleagues across the House will be beneficiaries of that along with their constituents. By the end of March, that increase will be up to 194, so there will be 831 Jobcentre Plus offices, which is a huge, huge investment. There will also be an increase in work coaches, which will be a real benefit to our customers. As I have said, the roles that we are talking about are back of house. An equality impact assessment has been made—I do not think that I mentioned that earlier. On the impact on communities, on the whole, this will involve a relatively small number of colleagues in particular communities. We want to make sure that we support those people back into work. For the vast majority, there are jobs close by, and we will help them to transition into those areas. For those who do not have jobs close by, we will give them the support that they need.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on this urgent question, though I feel this should perhaps have been offered as a statement. What I cannot quite understand is that the Minister is saying that no Jobcentre Plus offices are closing, but the shadow Minister says offices are closing. Which is correct, and does it affect anything in my area? This is all new to me.
David Rutley
To be clear, this relates to back-of-house offices that are often in our local communities. We are trying to update our estates, some of which are no longer fit for purpose, and to bring together colleagues with the right levels of experience to create clusters that will help the provision of back-of-house facilities and services. I want to be clear again—I am sorry if I was not clear earlier—that this does not affect front-of-house Jobcentre Plus. By the end of March we will have invested in an extra 194 of those facilities. We have increased the number of people who work in our Department and, as I said, we want to look after the people affected by these back-of-house changes. Hopefully that is clear to my hon. Friend.
Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)
I, too, think it would have been better if the Government had offered this as a statement to the House. May I ask specifically about the Longbenton site in East Newcastle, which the Department shares with the Inland Revenue? What impact will today’s statement have on employment at the site and the future location of the Department’s employees on the site? It is a famous site, and they have been there since the 1950s. The Inland Revenue, which holds the lease, is giving it up and moving elsewhere. It is pretty logical that the Department will follow. Is it moving, and if so, where to? I make the obvious plea to the Minister that we want to keep the jobs in Newcastle upon Tyne.
David Rutley
I understand the question and the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman asks it; I know he has a lot of concern for his own constituency. We are briefing staff right now, so I am not in a position to give him the details now from the Dispatch Box, but I will gladly meet him directly afterwards to talk through his concerns and seek to reassure him. I think that is the most appropriate way of doing it, given where we are right now in the process.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend outline to the House in a little more detail how these changes will lead to better working conditions for staff in the Department, what amounts of excess space the Department has and what opportunities there will be for people to relocate? I am thinking of those people elsewhere in County Durham perhaps having the opportunity to relocate to offices in my constituency.
David Rutley
DWP has too much estate. Recent calculations estimate there is capacity for 158,000 people, but the maximum headcount is forecast to be around 97,500 people. We need to ensure that we use that estate as effectively as possible, both for our colleagues and for the taxpayer. We want to refocus colleagues to work in clusters so that they can most effectively support customers and claimants, but at the same time help them to improve and develop their careers.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Many of the closures are in disadvantaged areas, including Liverpool, which cannot afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs. Can the Minister explain what he is doing to support those areas?
David Rutley
As I have said to other hon. Members, our top priority right now is working with the staff and supporting them through the changes. Most of the colleagues affected will be moving to other facilities that are really close by. In terms of the impact on the specific communities involved, typically the number of staff involved in a particular area is quite small. However, we will seek to see what we can do to improve. I do not have the details in front of me, but I am sure there will have been new, front-facing Jobcentre Plus offices put in place in Liverpool, because that is our commitment to help more people to get into work.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
In Harlow, the Department actually expanded the jobcentre, so it is now in two buildings, one in the Harvey Centre, which I visited recently and which is doing an enormous amount of work in getting Harlow people back to work. Will my hon. Friend or the Minister for employment come and visit the two jobcentres we now have in Harlow that are doing so much to help employment in our town?
David Rutley
As my right hon. Friend highlights, we are doing a huge amount of work to help claimants to find work and to help people to progress in work. I am delighted that he has those facilities in Harlow and I or the Minister for employment will gladly come and visit in the very near future.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
This week’s employment figures show that there are 580,000 fewer people in work now than there were before the pandemic. In particular, there seem to be several hundred thousand older workers now choosing not to work nor to claim benefit. We all want a full labour market recovery. Does the Minister recognise that this is going to require major Government investment rather than the disinvestment that I think he is announcing this morning?
David Rutley
I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, and he says it with authority as the Chair of the Select Committee, but I think he also understands that we are making a major investment in the front end—the customer-facing side—of our Department. As I said, over the past two years we have been increasing the number of jobcentres to 194. That will enable us to do exactly what he wants—to provide support for individuals across all ages through the plan for jobs.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I was a bit concerned about the response that the Minister gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) about the proposals for the site at Longbenton. We already know that the Inland Revenue is relocating from that site to central Newcastle upon Tyne, but what is proposed directly for the staff employed by the Department for Work and Pensions? This affects many MPs in the area who have hundreds of constituents employed at that very large site.
David Rutley
As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), I will gladly meet both him and the hon. Gentleman after this to discuss those concerns further. The Minister for employment will actively engage with affected colleagues, and we are engaging with the staff as we speak.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this urgent question. Ebury House in my constituency has been earmarked for closure. Will the Minister agree to meet me urgently to discuss what impact this will have on staff, and can he provide a cast-iron guarantee to this House and to my constituents that the services they receive will not be impacted?
David Rutley
This will not impact on services because the services we are talking about are primarily telephony and digital. Clearly, our primary concern now is to see what we can do to support people who might be impacted by the changing terms for staff. I will of course meet the hon. Gentleman after this, or during the course of today, to discuss his concerns more fully.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
On two occasions now, the Minister has referred to the equalities impact assessment, saying that this amounts to relatively small numbers of people at each site who will be affected, but over the whole estate, “small” can add up to a lot of individuals. Given that these jobs are located disproportionately in more deprived communities, the loss of good-quality public sector jobs is a really important issue. What conversations are the Minister and his Department having now with those people who may be affected, and what efforts is he really putting in place to ensure that nobody loses their job and everybody is redeployed?
David Rutley
As I have said before, we are working with the vast majority of the individuals who can be relocated very close to their current facility. We will continue to work hard with others, too. This is our top priority. We value our colleagues, who have helped the Department through some incredibly challenging times over the past couple of years, and we want to support them through the period now. I highlight to a couple of Members who have made this point that we continue to be committed to the Newcastle area, but I will meet those colleagues after this urgent question.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this urgent question, although I entirely agree that it would not have been necessary, had the Minister not tried to sneak the announcement out in a written statement on Friday after most of us had gone back to our constituencies. One of the premises earmarked for closure is Victoria Road in Kirkcaldy, which is not in my constituency, but employs a number of my constituents and provides support services for about 3,000 of my constituents in north-west Kirkcaldy. I echo the plea made earlier that the Minister should write to all Members of Parliament, because he probably does not know which constituencies have people who are affected by each of those closures. In that letter, will he explicitly set out why they should believe the assurances being given that this office closure programme will have no impact on public service, when similar promises given about HMRC’s office closure programme turned out to be utterly worthless?
David Rutley
Those MPs who have affected sites in their constituencies will be written to by 1 pm today, so further details will be available. If other colleagues may be affected tangentially, we will make an extra effort to contact them as well.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am not sure that is good enough, if the Minister does not mind me saying so. I think all Members of Parliament should be written to, clearly explaining what the Government are doing and what the implications are for our constituencies. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) read out the list of areas affected. He mentioned Doncaster, so can the Minister please tell me what that means for my constituency of Hull North and the city of Hull?
David Rutley
Right now, we are speaking to the colleagues affected. We have engaged PCS every step of the way to ensure we are following the right process so far as colleagues go. The engagement with parliamentary colleagues will take place as planned at 1 pm today, when letters will be made available. If the right hon. Member has further concerns, I will make sure that the Minister for employment contacts her after this urgent question.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
This issue speaks to the treatment of DWP staff, with morale in DWP offices across the country already at rock bottom, not least due to DWP management’s response to covid among staff. That has been an ongoing issue, but the Renfrew Jobcentre Plus office effectively closed after staff had to walk out after management refused to act after eight out of 18 staff tested positive for covid. In the end, 16 out of 18 staff tested positive. Can the Minister tell me what covid safeguarding, if any, is in place at DWP offices across the country, whether earmarked for closure or otherwise? Do they all follow the relevant local public health advice and regulations?
David Rutley
The Department has been following all the guidance that it needed to, and if there are concerns about that, I will gladly follow up with the hon. Member outside the Chamber.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify something? My understanding is that the Government are proposing a full site consolidation involving moving staff from Seaham Lighthouse View in my constituency to Wear View House in Sunderland. The impact of these closures in areas of economic deprivation, such as east Durham, will be huge, and we can ill afford to lose good-quality public sector jobs. My question to the Minister is: how will closing a DWP office in my constituency that employs 390 people help Easington to level up, when the Government are moving employment to the larger cities?
David Rutley
We had a full debate in Westminster Hall yesterday that the hon. Member was successful in securing, and we discussed this in more detail. What we can do to support his area is not just around the changes we are proposing today, but is much broader. There is a big broad economic agenda to improve the north-east, which his constituency will benefit from, too.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) for securing this urgent question. He is open and transparent about his strong trade union membership, unlike some Members of the House, who spend their weekends partying with Russian lords and are not open about that.
The Minister talked about the process of digitisation. Estonia is one of the great digital states of Europe and, as it admitted, the big failure of its transition to digital statehood was not recognising the profound impact on the most vulnerable, not only in the delivery of public service at the front end but in the back office. Can he assure the House that there will be no detriment to public service at the front end, given that he is removing the back office?
David Rutley
We are not removing the back office; we are modernising it. Of course we want to ensure that we deliver, at the front end, for people in the channels that need it. It is interesting and important that many people who have disabilities or health conditions and who are staff members can now be empowered to do their work, because they do not have to travel because of digital capabilities. There are some exciting possibilities there, notwithstanding the fact that, on the frontline, we need to ensure that we are providing support for all customers in the way they need it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On the impact of job losses, the Minister has clearly said that, in his opinion, there will be no impact on the offices and the delivery of the service, but I suggest that there is always an impact when jobs are lost. People who live in rural constituencies who have to travel by bus or do not have a car can be sanctioned if they do not attend their appointments. Can he assure the House that the benefit entitlements of constituents of MPs present, and not present, will not be affected by the changes in the offices?
David Rutley
I assure the House that this does not have an impact on the front end—on the activities that we do to support our claimants and our customers. It is also important to reconfirm that we are not reducing staff numbers; the focus is on retaining as many people as possible. We have great staff and we want to retain them. In many cases, people will relocate to another site in close proximity.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At last week’s business questions, the Leader of the House announced that there would be a debate this afternoon on protecting and restoring nature at COP15 and beyond. Unfortunately, it seems to have dropped off the Order Paper and no one understands why. I am sure that Government business has changed, but through your offices, may I encourage the Leader of the House and the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee to allow time for that debate, plenty of time before COP15 happens?
Mr Speaker
I do not know whether the Leader of the House wishes to give an answer to that. [Interruption.] I am sure that we can get you an answer but I do not have one to hand. I am sure that, as we go to business questions, the Leader of the House may want to point it out.
Speaker’s Statement
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Yesterday, I joined fellow G7 Speakers on a call with the chairman of the Ukraine Parliament to discuss supporting parliamentary democracy and peace in Ukraine. The Ukraine Parliament has met at least twice during the war—a testament to the commitment of its Speaker and MPs to keep their country running and democracy alive in Ukraine. I will continue to have meetings.
Business of the House
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mark Spencer)
It would be a pleasure. The business for the week commencing 21 March will include:
Monday 21 March—Opposition day (17th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Tuesday 22 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill.
Wednesday 23 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his spring statement, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Commercial Rent (Coronavirus) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Boiler Upgrade Scheme (England And Wales) Regulations 2022.
Thursday 24 March—Debate on a motion on war pensions and armed forces compensation scheme payments, followed by a general debate on the impact of long covid on the UK workforce. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 25 March—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 28 March will include:
Monday 28 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
Thangam Debbonaire
Well, there are lots of questions there. I start by thanking the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business and wishing everybody—all colleagues and beyond—a happy St Patrick’s Day.
I want to pick up comments from colleagues at Transport questions—in topicals, I think—about P&O and what looks like a real situation. I note, Mr Speaker, that you said that there might be a statement. Does the Leader of the House have any update for us on when there might be such a statement? I also echo the point the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) raised in his point of order: where has the COP15 debate gone? I note that the Leader of the House said he would mention it in his response.
It is a happy day in part at least because this morning Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori have come home. They have been reunited with their families after years of unjustified detention in Iran—it is a long time since I have felt able to smile at the Dispatch Box. In particular, I pay to tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) and for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for fighting for their constituents.
However, we continue to see the devastating consequences of Putin’s illegal attack on Ukraine, with war crimes committed daily. The Labour party stands with our allies, including NATO and others. We must strengthen our unity and resolve. We stand in complete solidarity with the Ukrainian people, but there are also implications for our own national security, so can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will not go ahead with the integrated review recommendation to cut 10,000 troops?
The hardest possible sanctions must of course be taken against all those linked to Putin. They must not live a Mayfair lifestyle in Moscow while committing atrocities in Ukraine. The sanctions package so far announced contains good measures, including the most recent on luxury items—pushed, I may say, by the Labour party—but questions remain about enforcement. The body responsible for dealing with this has issued just six fines in six years. I have already asked this but we have not had an answer, so could the Leader of the House again ask the Chancellor, who will be here next week, to tell us what he is doing to ensure sufficient resources are in place so that sanctions on dirty Russian money are properly enforced?
We on this side on the House are not ignoring the worsening cost of living crisis hitting working people up and down this country. We are on their side, but, unfortunately, it seems that the Government are not. Labour market figures published earlier this week revealed the true scale of the crisis engulfing working people: rocketing bills, stagnating wages and a buy now, pay later sort of loan scheme from the Conservative party, which is choosing to increase national insurance at the worst possible time, hitting 27 million workers. As I said, we are on the side of working people, but the Government are not. Instead, the Prime Minister is busy rowing back on his promise to ban second jobs for MPs—something we voted for. Will the Leader of the House confirm that at the spring statement the Chancellor will be scrapping his disastrous Tory national insurance rise?
The Online Safety Bill will, I hope, finally be published today—it may even have been while I have been standing here—although there was no mention of the Second Reading in the business statement. So that is another “Where is it?” question. Last year, the Prime Minister said that it would have completed all stages by last Christmas. With Russian misinformation on social media at an all-time high, threatening democracy, can the Leader of the House finally confirm when the Second Reading of the Online Safety Bill will be?
In a sign of our country’s vulnerability and energy insecurity, the Prime Minister went to Saudi Arabia to seek an increase in oil production, despite the appalling human rights record of that regime. Going cap in hand from dictator to dictator is not a long-term energy plan, so can the Leader of the House confirm when the Government’s energy security statement will be brought forward? As part of that plan, the Government should and could look again at Labour’s proposal for a one-off windfall tax on oil and gas producers. That would cut household energy bills by up to £600, helping those who need it most. Why are this Government forcing working people up and down the country, including the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, to pay the price for over a decade of mistakes made in Downing Street? I look forward to hearing his response and hope to hear more from the Chancellor on this next week.
Mark Spencer
There are a lot of topics to get through—the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm is spilling over this week—so let us make a start. P&O obviously is a developing situation. Mr Speaker, you indicated that you might take a statement later and I am sure that the Department for Transport would want to keep the House updated. I have not had any confirmation that there will be a statement later, but I know the Department will be looking at this closely and I am sure it will keep colleagues informed as the situation develops.
The hon. Lady moved on to the great news about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, and the whole House will want to celebrate her safe return to the United Kingdom. She named a number of colleagues on her side. The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) raised the matter at business questions on a number of occasions and also needs some recognition. I hope that the hon. Lady would also recognise the contribution of the Foreign Office and a number of Foreign Secretaries who worked very hard to try to expedite the process and get Nazanin home, which they have been successful in doing.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady again for her support and that of the whole House on our response to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. We continue to see the most appalling atrocities committed in Ukraine by the desperate regime in Russia. I have to say that these people will be held to account for the crimes that they are committing. This week we saw the bombing of a theatre with more than 1,200 people in it. One cannot even begin to imagine the carnage that such weapons cause. That is why we are right to continue with our sanctions regime. We have now sanctioned more than 1,000 people on the list and we are taking robust action against these individuals. We should be enormously proud of putting those measures in place. Alongside that, we have the largest humanitarian support package that there is and military support, with weapons for Ukrainians to defend themselves. The UK’s response has been exemplary. The Prime Minister has shown extreme leadership on the matter and continues to do so.
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the fact that that conflict is causing huge ripples around the world in terms of energy prices and the impact on the food market. The Government are very much aware of that. That is why we have put in huge packages of support. As she said, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be at the Dispatch Box next Wednesday for his spring statement. I am sure that he will update the House on progress in that direction.
The hon. Lady mentioned the Prime Minister’s trip to Saudi Arabia. Surely she recognises that the way to influence our world leaders is to engage with them: to go and sit with them, challenge them face to face and encourage them in a direction of improving human rights. We can do that only by having those face-to-face meetings and being a critical friend of those regimes. That is the right way to conduct world business.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Goring gap question—the subject of early-day motion 1082, which I raised at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday—requires consideration by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the whole of Government because it runs roughshod over all the planning responsibilities of district councils.
[That this House calls for revocation of the conclusion of the planning inspector in the appeal relating to land north west of Goring Station, Goring-by-Sea, Worthing, the Goring Gap, separating Worthing from Ferring in Arun; notes the letter of the hon. Member for Worthing West to the Prime Minister in October 2019 asking that any inspector nominated to hear an appeal against refusal of a planning proposal should be limited to gross obvious major misjudgment; rejects building over substantial parts of the valued strategic gap between Goring-by-Sea and the village of Ferring; notes the inspector recognised the first two main issues were whether the appeal site offers an acceptable location for development and the effect of the proposed development on the landscape, including in the setting of the adjacent South Downs National Park; recognises that if the inspector’s reasoning were allowed to stand, it wrecks the responsibilities of housing authorities and county councils and attacks declared ministerial policy to maintain strategic separation between towns and villages; notes that every green field and open space between the Downs and the sea is threatened by development; and asks the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to meet potentially affected hon. Members and local authority leaders without delay.]
In a letter to the Prime Minister in October 2019, I said that an inspector should be instructed to overturn a proper decision by a local council only if there has been gross misjudgment by the council.
The issue is that Persimmon is greedily trying to fill in the strategic green gap between Goring and Ferring, in contradiction of the Worthing local plan.
The interim letter from the other planning inspector was clearly going to accept what Worthing was doing. It is wrong for one inspector perversely to grant an application when another is considering the local plan.
Can I meet the Prime Minister, and will the Government make a statement on restoring proper planning powers and revoke this inspector’s decision?
Mark Spencer
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he indicated, he raised the matter at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. Independent planning inspectors take into account all relevant matters and decide each case on its own merits. However, the planning permission has been issued, so it is final, unless successfully challenged in the courts. As a challenge may be made, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to discuss the specifics of the case at the Dispatch Box, but the Government remain committed to taking forward planning reforms. As the “Levelling Up” White Paper set out:
“Ensuring natural beauty is accessible to all will be central to our planning system.”
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I wish all our Celtic cousins a very happy St Patrick’s day and welcome Nazanin home to her family. The Leader of the House is absolutely right to pay tribute to the shadow Leader of the House’s predecessor. As you know, Mr Speaker, no session of business questions was complete without the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) raising the case of Nazanin. I also want to thank the Leader of the House for continuing to ensure we have ample opportunity to debate and consider the ongoing situation in Ukraine. That is what our constituents expect from us and we will continue to be as flexible as possible as we go forward.
Yesterday, we learned from the Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) that the Prime Minister is a “very social” person. I have say that that came as a complete and utter surprise and shock to me. Blow me down with a feather, Mr Speaker! Who would have thought? Apparently, that accounts for his penchant for hanging around with Russian billionaires and oligarchs. Perhaps that description also helps us to understand a little bit more about the sheer number of rule-breaking parties and the heroic hedonism demonstrated by his No. 10 operation. Can we have a debate about prime ministerial sociability, and perhaps an update on the Sue Gray report and the conclusion of the Metropolitan police inquiry so that they can be considered properly by this House? Democracy requires that normal politics and scrutiny continue in this House.
One can only feel sorry for the Scottish Conservatives. Their leader, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), dismissed by the Leader of the House’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), as a political lightweight, has now had to endure the indignity of withdrawing his letter of no confidence in the Prime Minister. Instead, the red carpet will be rolled out at the Scottish Conservative conference to the man that every elected MSP wanted gone only a few weeks ago. So may we have an urgent debate on abject humiliation? [Laughter.]
Lastly, the Dnipro Kids issue remains unresolved this morning. My understanding is that everything is in place at the Ukrainian end and a plane is available to take off on Friday morning. There are places waiting for them in Scotland, with the care and support they need. Can we please get them over here and brought to safety in Scotland?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman. He started by emphasising the united approach of the House on the Russian invasion of Ukraine. We should not dismiss that. We should recognise that all political parties are right to condemn the actions of Putin. Having a united House of Commons sends a very strong message and I am grateful for his support.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Scottish Conservative conference, which will be taking place this weekend. There are huge numbers attending that conference, but I am sure there will be a space for him should he wish to cross the Floor of the House. I can arrange for a membership form to be headed his way. He could then pledge allegiance to the Prime Minister, attend the conference and demonstrate his support.
The hon. Gentleman finished on an important matter—his leader raised it at Prime Minister’s questions—of supporting children and getting them out of Ukraine and into a safer place. The Secretary of State for Education has made arrangements for more than 100,000 children to be supported in the UK through UK schools. We are absolutely committed to that. Our response—not only supporting people who are being evacuated out of Ukraine but providing humanitarian and military support—is an example to the rest of the world.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
Somerset County Council is about to spend £8 million on a computer system that will ultimately cost about £20 million. IT projects in this country have a pretty shabby history. The problem we have is that there will be unitary elections in May, with the four district councils still there, but the system will be neither one thing nor the other. With counties and districts buying expensive systems that inevitably tend not to work, may we have a debate in this House on IT projects?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is a tenacious campaigner on local government reform and this is not the first time he has mentioned Somerset councils in the Chamber. I know he will continue with enthusiasm to hold them to account and ensure they deliver for his constituents.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I wish my constituents in Gateshead, who will be celebrating as I speak, a very happy Purim and a very happy St Patrick’s day.
The debate on protecting and restoring nature at COP15 and beyond was withdrawn at the request of the answering Department. The debate’s main sponsor, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), acceded to the request, and we have promised her that we will reschedule the debate immediately after the Easter recess as long as we get the time from the Government.
I am glad that the Leader of the House announced the Backbench Business for 24 March on war pensions and armed forces compensation and on the impact of long covid on the workforce, but I am a little surprised that he has not also announced any time to debate the Chancellor’s spring statement. Possibly there will be nothing of any importance within it, I do not know.
The Backbench Business Committee can gladly report that we now have reinforcements. Two new members, the hon. Members for Bolton West (Chris Green) and for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), were appointed a couple of days ago, so it will be easier for us to get a quorum for our meetings in the coming weeks.
Lastly, I cannot help but note that we go into the summer recess on 21 July, but as yet we are not coming back. Will the Leader of the House let us know some time soon the date for our return after the summer recess?
Mark Spencer
It is a pleasure to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place. He was missed last week.
I am grateful for the update on the COP debate, which of course the Backbench Business Committee called for. I hope that he will recognise that so far I have delivered quite well for him on every request he has made. I think we are performing reasonably well on giving him what he asks for. As he identified, the spring statement will be next Wednesday and I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will be very generous in allowing colleagues plenty of time to ask questions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think that those were all the questions that the hon. Gentleman had.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
The people of Leyland—especially in Moss Side—have contacted me because they are concerned about street crime and antisocial behaviour, which has been an ongoing problem. The local police respond, but they are coming in from Chorley and Preston—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”]—which is too far away when your bike is being stolen by somebody with a knife, and gives plenty of time for people to scarper. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is past time to reverse the Labour police and crime commissioner’s cut to the Leyland response team and to get Leyland police station’s response teams open so that the community can feel safe on their streets?
Mark Spencer
I can understand why people would want to leave Chorley! [Laughter.]
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that everyone should have the security and confidence that comes with having a safe street and a safe home. That is why we are putting 20,000 more police officers on the streets. I know that the new Conservative police and crime commissioner, Andrew Snowdon, is already making a difference to community policing across Lancashire. I am confident that the Conservative team, under my hon. Friend’s leadership, will deliver for the people of Leyland.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
At the end of February, the Prime Minister announced an immediate full asset freeze for VTB bank. The next day, the Chancellor countermanded that and gave it till the end of March to wind down its transactions. It turns out that an individual who is the head of global markets fixed-income trading at VTB bank has donated £44,000 to the Tory party in the last three years. That indicates a close association between the Tory party and people at VTB bank. He also donated £3,000 to the local Greenwich Tories at the end of December. We are now fighting local elections. Should we be fighting local elections that are funded by Russian money?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the sanctions regime we have introduced and our ability to sanction those individuals associated with the Putin regime, but we should not confuse Russian people or people of Russian descent living in the United Kingdom with those who are supportive of the Putin regime. It is quite important to draw that distinction. He is able to raise that question in the House today because when anybody makes a donation it is logged and registered, and it is transparent for the electorate to view. That is a healthy place to be in a modern democracy.
Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
The shadow Leader of the House raised the important issue of energy resilience and security. On that theme, we need to look at water resilience and security. The east and south-east of England is running out of water, which is a serious and urgent issue that needs to be addressed. We need to build more reservoirs and build our resilience. Can we have an urgent debate in this place to talk about getting more water into the east and south-east?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is a long-standing campaigner on these issues and I know he will continue to hold the Government to account about them. He is right to draw attention to the fact that resilience within our infrastructure and utilities is vital to our future. For a long time, we have taken our access to good, clean water for granted, but that happens only with investment in our infrastructure. He is right to continue to draw attention to that.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Prime Minister was in Saudi Arabia this week, days after 81 people were executed by the same regime that has been waging the devasting attacks on Yemen since 2015. The long-established community in Liverpool, Riverside has called on the UK Government to halt arms sales to the Saudis in order to end the humanitarian crisis. Can the Leader of the House make some time for a debate on that humanitarian crisis?
Mark Spencer
I know the hon. Lady took the opportunity to engage in the urgent question earlier in the week. I emphasise again that the way to influence regimes around the world is to go and engage with them, to sit opposite them, to hold them to account and to challenge them face to face. The purpose of the Prime Minister’s visit was to engage with our colleagues around the world, to try to influence them and to lead them in a direction that is better for human rights.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I was horrified to read some extremely unwelcome news reports this week that the commitment made by the Government in their manifesto and in the Queen’s Speech to ban trophy hunting imports may be scrapped. Every day that we delay, more magnificent and endangered animals—lions, elephants, rhinos and even pangolins, to name just a few—are killed for sport and their corpses brought back into this country. Will the Leader of the House confirm when the animals abroad Bill will be brought forward and reaffirm the Government’s commitment to ending trophy hunting imports?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend has a long-standing record of campaigning on this topic. We have committed to a ban on importing hunting trophies from nearly 7,000 species. That is one of the toughest bans in the world and will go well beyond our manifesto commitments. She will understand that parliamentary time is finite and there has been huge pressure on it, not least because of emergency legislation brought forward in response to covid and to Ukraine, but we will bring forward legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows and business will be announced in the usual way.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
May I ask for a debate on those who are not pulling their weight in delivering sanctions on Russia over Ukraine? Lots of shops in the UK have now withdrawn products from their shelves, but anyone who wants to buy a £150 bottle of Beluga vodka can go to Selfridges, where it is on the shelves, or Harrods, where they have to ask for it and it is literally underneath the counter. There are also British companies that are still doing business in Russia, like Subway, Pirelli and Baker Tilly, who provide advice on how to hide money. Is it not time that everybody pulled their weight, because that is the only way we can make Putin fail?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House’s attention to these matters. In asking his question, he has delivered some of the publicity that is required. The only way to send the strongest message to that regime in Russia is to stick together and to hold firm. He is right to ask for that debate and I am sure there will be methods, either through an Adjournment debate or Backbench Business debate, for the House to continue to draw attention to those who are not condemning or issuing those sanctions as they should be.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Some of my constituents live in houses in multiple occupation. By their very nature, those are large houses that can come with council tax bills in bands E to H. Some of those constituents are on low incomes but are not benefiting from the discount for bands A to D—they are being charged the same tax as householders who may be able to afford the bills. May we have a statement on what the Government might do to assist my constituents who find themselves in such a situation?
Mark Spencer
The Government have announced a package of support worth £9.1 billion for 2022-23 to help households with rising energy bills. Council tax bands provide a targeted means of delivering support quickly to those most in need. The Government recognise that other households that do not automatically qualify for the rebate may require support. That is why every council has been provided with a share of the £144 million fund to provide discretionary support targeted to any household in financial need—including, if they choose, those in higher council tax bands.
I hope that my hon. Friend was able to raise the issue at Treasury questions this week; if not, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be delivering his spring statement next Wednesday, and my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to raise it then.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Some Members have come in rather late and should not really want to catch my eye; I am sure that you will not embarrass me or yourselves.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am glad it wasn’t me you were referring to, Mr Speaker—I am sure I was here.
On Wednesday at 5 pm, Thames Water began releasing sewage into Colwell brook at Witney, and that release is still ongoing. At 9.15 pm yesterday, Thames Water began releasing sewage into the Thames at Oxford. The Oxfordshire community says that enough is enough, which is why I and local campaigners have been fighting tirelessly to secure bathing water status for the Thames on Port Meadow. We are delighted to hear that a decision is expected in April. However, Surfers Against Sewage are calling on the Government to designate 200 official river bathing waters by 2030. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how the Government can support communities to apply for bathing water status?
Mark Spencer
I know that the hon. Lady has secured debates on this issue in the past and that she is passionate about it. She is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to it. There were strong measures in the Environment Bill to clamp down on the illegal release of sewage into our water courses. There are exemptions for water companies to make releases in extreme weather, but I think some of them, frankly, are abusing some of those loopholes. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that. That is why the Government are introducing stronger measures in the Environment Bill and will continue to hold water companies to account.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Being asked by a smart Stroud child constituent what MPs do all day, what I am doing to protect owls and orangutangs, and how we can help Ukrainian children is far worse than being grilled on the tellybox.
I give credit to the Parliament team who gave virtual tours of the House during the pandemic and brought me in to speak to local schools such as St Joseph’s, Rodborough, Upton St Leonards and Cashes Green. Given that restrictions have now been lifted here, will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging more Stroud schools and others around the country to engage with the Parliament education teams and come to visit us here in Westminster?
Mark Spencer
I, too, have been grilled quite recently—by year 6 at Blidworth Oaks Primary School in my constituency. It is absolutely vital that we encourage children to engage in our democratic process and understand how politics works. The parliamentary support mechanisms that engage with schoolchildren are fantastic. I encourage colleagues up and down the country to engage with their primary schools and ask students to come and learn more about Parliament and how it operates.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Many on both sides of the House have in the past asked for a debate or statement on the terrible situation in Nigeria, which has now just about met the United Nations criteria for genocide. Most of the attacks—not all—are against the Christian community, on a widespread scale. I have asked Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers questions about this in the past, but the answers have been a bit less than satisfactory. The last time, the relevant Minister said that some of the attacks might be connected to religious bigotry—the FCDO had clearly been sweating blood on that analysis. May we have a statement or a debate?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House’s attention to the situation in Nigeria. I know that many Members on both sides of the House are concerned about religious persecution, and call it out on a regular basis. I think that it is worthy of debate, and that such a debate would be popular in the House. The hon. Gentleman will have another opportunity to ask about the issue during Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office questions on 26 April, but I think that applying for a debate in the meantime is the right thing to do.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I thank you for what you said earlier, Sir, about talking to the Ukrainian Speaker, and for all the efforts you have made to allow the House to engage with the terrible crisis in Europe. I also thank the Leader of the House for what he has done to provide statements to the House. I think there have also been at least three debates on Ukraine in the Chamber and Westminster Hall this week.
May I make a suggestion for next week’s business and for that of future weeks? I suggest that there should be a statement on Ukraine each week after business questions to update the House. Members would know about the statement, and could make the time to come to it. Will the Leader of the House consider that?
Mark Spencer
As my hon. Friend has said, both you, Mr Speaker, and the Government have provided many opportunities for colleagues to ask about what is happening in Ukraine, and for the House to debate the subject. I see no reason why that should not continue. Indeed, we could probably do better than a regular statement on Thursdays, and update the House on a regular basis when the situation changes.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Let me begin by wishing everyone in my constituency a happy St Patrick’s day.
I know from my experience that this House does not promote equality. In fact, I would say that it is actually exclusionary. The Leader of the House has been helpful and open to discussion, but given that we are currently moving from crisis to crisis, can we, as a matter of urgency, introduce measures enabling all Members to vote and represent their constituents?
Mark Spencer
May I say what a pleasure it is to see the hon. Lady back in her place? I know that Members on both sides of the House will also be pleased to see her here. I, and others, understand the challenges that she is fighting and overcoming, and I pay tribute to her efforts. She will be aware that the Procedure Committee is about to report on ways in which we can assist Members through proxy voting, or other methods of enabling them to engage in the democratic process. I await the publication of the Committee’s report, but in the meantime my door is open to her, and I suggest that the second we receive the report, she and I meet to work out a plan for how we can help her to continue to exercise her democratic rights.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
My constituents have been disgusted to find out about the treatment of child Q by the police, but they are also desperately concerned about the fact that this is not an isolated incident. In Brent North we saw the vile treatment of the dead bodies of two black sisters, Bibaa Henry and Nicole Smallman, by the very police officers who were supposed to be safeguarding the crime scene, and I am currently dealing with two other disturbing cases of police racism on behalf of my constituents.
Colleagues on both sides of the House are also desperately concerned about this issue. I am second to none in my admiration for the thousands of police officers who keep us safe on our streets, but something must be done about racism in the Metropolitan police, and I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on the issue in Government time.
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman will understand that I do not want to comment on the individual case that he raised at the beginning of his question. I would say, in general terms, that the use of strip-search powers is an operational matter for the police, but we are clear about the fact that those powers should be used in accordance with the law, and with full regard for the dignity of the individual concerned.
I do not think that anyone could be other than concerned about the matter that the hon. Gentleman has raised. It should be fully investigated. There are clearly some challenges within the Met police force, of which both the Mayor of London and the Government are aware, and they need to be addressed. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw this matter to the attention of the House; it is worthy of further debate, and the situation does need significant improvement.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Can I ask my right hon. Friend what business he has in mind to help the House ensure that the process of the restoration and renewal of Parliament is undertaken for the benefit not just of Members of Parliament but of the thousands of staff and visitors who are here every day?
Mark Spencer
This is a very important issue. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is aware, but the Commissions of both Houses will be meeting this afternoon to discuss progress and to update this House later on any changes to the regime. The current plan that the House voted on certainly seems to have migrated in terms of its length and its cost, which has raised some concern within the Commission. I can assure my hon. Friend that this House will be kept up to speed with any changes, and will have the opportunity to vote on any changes that are brought forward.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, I hope that you and the Leader of the House will join me in the great celebration of Nazanin. Who would have thought, when a group of us took bouquets of flowers to the Iranian embassy for Nazanin on Valentine’s day, that we would get this result? So, well done everyone; it is brilliant that she is out. I am going to have a little party next week to celebrate, and you are both invited.
In my constituency, I have a man called Richard Dass. When the war broke out in Ukraine he jumped into his camper van, filled it up with stuff and drove out there. He is still there helping people. He has the languages and the contacts, so he knows what the local hospitals want and what supplies are needed, but I am having great difficulty in sourcing those supplies for him. Could the Leader of the House use his influence with Ministers to get me the relevant information for Richard Dass? He is a brave young man doing a great job.
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Nazanin, and I join him in celebrating her safe return. I also join him in congratulating and paying tribute to his constituent who is assisting with the humanitarian support in Ukraine. I will pass on those comments to the Foreign Office and see if we can assist him in getting the information he requires.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The freezes on fuel duty by Conservative Governments since 2010 have been the right thing to do and have saved motorists and businesses thousands of pounds. However, the cost of petrol and diesel remains disproportionately high compared with other countries because of fuel duty. The Government cannot buck the market, given global events effecting the price, but they can change the level of taxation. Will my right hon. Friend allow for an urgent debate ahead of the spring statement so that Members on both sides of the House can highlight how the high cost of petrol and diesel is affecting motorists and businesses?
Mark Spencer
We recognise that the global price of crude oil has been increasing in the past year, leading to a rise in petrol prices around the world. That is why we are supporting people by freezing fuel duty for the 12th year in a row. This is the longest sustained freeze in British history, saving drivers money every time they fill up their tank compared with pre-2010 prices. The 2022-23 fuel duty freeze will save consumers almost £8 billion over the next five years. However, the overall impact of energy price spikes on the public finances needs to be considered in the round, and the Office for Budget Responsibility will be setting out the overall fiscal position next week, when the Chancellor will be giving his spring statement.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I have a constituent who had to flee an abusive relationship. That was clearly traumatic enough, but she has now discovered that her ex-partner took out an advance universal credit payment, or loan, of nearly £1,000, which went directly into his bank account. The Department for Work and Pensions is saying she is jointly liable for this money, which she did not see a penny of, and it wants her to pay it back. We know that coercive and financial control can be a problem in domestic abuse, so will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to intervene and show compassion for my constituent?
Mark Spencer
I am very sorry to hear about the situation in which the hon. Gentleman’s constituent finds herself. People in coercive and controlling relationships should reach out for support to try to escape that situation. I will make sure that the Department for Work and Pensions is aware of his question to see whether anyone can assist his constituent.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Not only is today St Patrick’s day and Purim, but tonight is the start of the Hindu festival of Holi. There are two versions of why Holi exists. The first is that Holika, the evil witch, took the king’s son Prahlad into a burning fire, but she was consumed by fire and he was delivered unharmed. The other is about Lord Krishna, whose face turns blue after being poisoned, and therefore he throws colours around to encourage people not to see that he is blue. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing Hindus across the world “Holi hai!”?
Mark Spencer
I would like to join my hon. Friend in wishing the Hindu community across the UK a happy Holi, including those in his constituency. It is a joyful occasion. I have not participated in it myself, but splashing colours around looks like great fun, if nothing else. I think it is something I would quite enjoy.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Residents of Lantern Court and Compass Point in my constituency are stuck in limbo with unaffordable insurance premiums and eyewatering repair bills while they are unable to sell their apartments. Can the Leader of the House confirm when the Building Safety Bill will come before us?
Mark Spencer
Business will be announced in the usual way, and the Government are very keen to get on with the Building Safety Bill. I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that the Bill will help to support his constituents. It is heading our way very soon, but he will have to be patient and wait for business to be announced in the usual way from the Dispatch Box.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
On 28 July 2021, every Labour councillor in Bury voted to destroy large areas of green belt in my constituency. By supporting Andy Burnham’s “Places for Everyone” plan, local Labour politicians ignored the views of thousands of my constituents who wish to preserve areas of countryside at Walshaw, Tottington and Elton reservoir. Will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate on Places for Everyone and the devastating impact it will have on green-belt land in my area?
Mark Spencer
My hon. Friend is a tenacious campaigner on behalf of his constituents. This is not the first time he has drawn attention to the shortcomings of Mayor Burnham, and I know he will continue to do so by campaigning tirelessly for his constituents. He demonstrates once again today what a great representative he is for his constituents.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I am sure the Leader of the House will be tempted to consider an electric tractor or a hydrogen combine harvester, if he has not done do so already. Consumers across the UK have been switching to electric vehicles. Impressively, plug-ins were 26% of the February car market, and that proportion is growing. However, the charging infrastructure sector and the automotive manufacturers are frustrated by the lack of an integrated strategy. Can we have a debate in Government time on how the Government will ensure these two industries do not stall?
Mark Spencer
I have been lucky enough to buy an electric car, which has been a revelation. It is a very good product. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that not only cars will have to migrate to a new fuel source in the long term. The good news is that in his part of the world, which is the heart of the car industry, great companies such as JCB are doing a lot of research into hydrogen fuel cells and gigafactories, into which the Government are pouring huge amounts of investment to make sure the United Kingdom is at the heart of the new revolution in energy supply. That is the right thing to do, and the Government are very committed to doing it.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Can we have both an urgent statement and a debate on the draft terms of reference for the covid inquiry? Astonishingly, although there is a small sentence on school restrictions, they do not mention children or the impact on children’s mental health, lost educational attainment and life chances. Children must not be forgotten in this inquiry.
Mark Spencer
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. Obviously, that inquiry is about to get started and it will be wide-ranging, and to restrict it to any particular area would be a mistake. He is right to draw attention to the impact that the pandemic had on children, and I am sure that the inquiry will go into all areas of covid and be a wide-ranging inquiry that we will respond to in due course.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
This week has been an important one for those infected in and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. Sir Robert Francis has given his review of compensation frameworks to the Cabinet Office, ahead of what we hope will be the conclusion of the infected blood public inquiry later this year, so that the Government are ready to respond to whatever recommendations Sir Brian Langstaff makes. I know that the Paymaster General has already indicated that he will publish Sir Robert’s review, alongside the Government’s response. When that happens, will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made to the House, as Members of Parliament have not had an opportunity to question the Government over the past few years about this issue, with the inquiry ongoing, and it would be a really opportune moment for us to be able to ask questions about the Government’s plans?
Mark Spencer
I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady, because I know she has campaigned on this issue for a very long time. I also pay tribute to Sir Robert Francis QC, who has conducted the inquiry—an enormous amount of work has gone into it. As she said, the Paymaster General said from the Dispatch Box that he would publish that inquiry. I hear her plea for a statement at that time, and I will pass it on to the Department of Health and Social Care, which I am sure will look upon it favourably.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
In 1222—I know the Leader of the House was not there at the time, but his predecessor might have been—our late King Alexander II designated the already ancient Dumbarton a royal burgh. It is actually first mentioned by Ptolemy, on his great historic map of the then Roman empire, where it was known as Alauna, before becoming Alcluith, which even the Speaker of the other place has taken as our designation. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is now time to debate in this House the value and worth of our ancient and historic places, and the wonderful opportunities they speak to in terms of our heritage and history and the communities who have made them their home for centuries?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is a true champion for Dumbarton, and I enjoyed his history lesson. It is a demonstration that lots of places up and down our great British Isles are worthy of visiting and have a great tourism industry. We should celebrate that in this House and continue to draw attention to it, and he has contributed in that way this morning.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
There are massive concerns across South Reddish at the proposal to merge GP services in South Reddish with the surgery in Heaton Norris, closing the site at South Reddish in the process. That will massively reduce accessibility. I am opposed to the changes, and a survey conducted by local campaigner Holly McCormack showed massive public opposition too. May we have a debate on GP service cuts and accessibility to GP services, so that these issues can be properly addressed on the Floor of the House?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that accessing GP services is a very important challenge that faces many of our constituents. He will be aware that lots of those policies in that part of the world are under the control of the Mayor of Manchester, who has some responsibility, too. The issue is worthy of debate and it would give the Government an opportunity to celebrate their record and acknowledge the investment that we are putting into the NHS.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The stories we are currently hearing of security being hired to remove P&O crew from vessels is deeply concerning. As I understand it, all P&O sailing staff are to be made redundant with immediate effect and to be replaced with agency staff—but it is okay, apparently, because those staff will be able to apply to the agency for employment. All sides have had an issue with the Government’s inaction on fire and rehire, but today’s events go further still. I heard what the Leader of the House said earlier in response to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), but will he make recommendations to the Secretary of State for Transport such that he comes back to the House today to make an urgent statement?
Mark Spencer
I will make sure that the Department for Transport is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He will understand that the DFT is currently working feverishly behind the scenes to try to assist with the situation. I am sure that, in due course, the DFT will update the House on the progress made, but at the moment we need to leave it to get on with its job in trying to assist those who are in a challenging situation.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
After eight years as leader of Hounslow Council, Councillor Steve Curran recently announced that he was standing down as a councillor to focus on his health and medical treatment. Steve and I occasionally disagree on things, but on the big things we do not. Under his leadership, Hounslow has achieved more than 2,000 social rents and council homes and London’s best roads and fewest potholes; it is on track to deliver on net zero; and it was named the 2021 Local Government Chronicle council of the year, particularly—although not exclusively—for its work supporting businesses and vulnerable residents during the covid crisis. Will the Leader of the House join me in sending our best wishes to Councillor Curran? Will he find time for a debate in Government time on the important work of local councils such as Hounslow?
Mark Spencer
I suspect that Councillor Curran and I would probably disagree politically on a few issues, but I am sure that in his eight years as leader of Hounslow Council he has worked tirelessly on behalf of the hon. Lady’s constituents and many others. She is right to draw attention to the fact that councillors and council leaders of all political persuasions up and down the country put in an enormous amount of effort to try to improve people’s lives. That is worthy of debate and I encourage the hon. Lady to talk to the Backbench Business Committee or apply for an Adjournment debate.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Can we have a statement on covid? In York, the case rate is now 625 cases per 100,000 and shooting up. In York Hospital, the bed occupancy rate for patients with covid is now greater than it has been at any previous point in the pandemic, including during the spike because of the delta variant. We were promised guidance on care home visits and for care home staff and NHS staff, but it has not been brought forward. We urgently need to know how the Government are to manage the rise in the number of covid cases, so may we have a statement?
Mark Spencer
There will be an opportunity for the hon. Lady to question the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care directly at Health questions on 19 April. A debate on covid is worthy of an application and she could apply to the Backbench Business Committee or for an Adjournment debate. That would provide an opportunity for the Government to set out our fantastic record on covid—how we were the first to deploy the vaccines and the first to get out there with a booster programme, and how we offered tremendous support for those who found themselves laid off.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out his support for my Bill on paid bereavement leave for all, which will have its Second Reading tomorrow and has support throughout the House?
Will the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, join me in urging Members from all parties to observe a minute’s silence at midday on 23 March, to commemorate the lives lost during the pandemic and show our support for all those who have been bereaved, as part of a day of national reflection?
Mark Spencer
The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to that minute’s silence; it is important that we reflect upon the lives of those who have not been as fortunate as we have been to make it through the covid pandemic.
I wish the hon. Lady well with her private Member’s Bill tomorrow. I am sure she will convince the House to support it. The democratic process will take place and I wish her well in it.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
May I also say happy Holi, happy Purim, and happy St Patrick’s Day?
On Wednesday, the UN General Assembly proclaimed 15 March the International Day to Combat Islamophobia. I hope the Leader of the House will join me in commending the international community for taking important steps to promote a culture of tolerance based on respect for human rights and for freedom of religion or belief. Given the rampant Islamophobia in the UK, which has devastating consequences on our British Muslim community, will the Leader of the House consider a Backbench Business debate in Government time on Islamophobia?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his good wishes. He is right, again, to draw attention to the fact that all forms of racism, which are often overlooked, should be called out. We have a responsibility as Members of Parliament and also as members of society to call out any form of racism, and 15 March gives us the opportunity to remind people once again that racism is unacceptable in all forms and should be called out by anybody who sees it.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Rutherglen Bankhead Tenants and Residents Association on its 30th anniversary this month, making it one of the longest standing associations in south Lanarkshire? Will he schedule a debate in Government time on the contributions of tenants and residents associations across the UK?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is right to draw attention to the thousands of tenants and residents associations up and down the country. There are many very active groups in my own constituency that contribute a great deal not only to the place in which they live, but to the community with which they engage. I join her in congratulating her constituents on their 30th anniversary, and I wish them all the best for the future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and everyone in the House—right hon. and hon. Members—a very happy St Patrick’s Day? It is said that if, on St Patrick’s Day, St Patrick turns the stone over, it means that the sun will shine for 30 days. I am sure that we are all looking forward to 30 days of good weather—certainly, that is my hope.
Just this morning, ISIS-DRC claimed the killing of more than 50 Christians in a raid on villages in Ituri province, in the north-east of Democratic Republic of Congo. This is just the latest in an increase in attacks by ISIS affiliates on religious minorities. The Leader of the House is always very responsive, so will he ensure that there is a statement from the relevant Minister of Her Majesty’s Government on the re-emergence of ISIS and the potential threat to religious minority communities in DRC?
Mark Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He always brings a little sunshine into this Chamber whenever he contributes. That is why Mr Speaker saves him up to the end to bring that enthusiasm. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a Westminster Hall debate this afternoon on some of these challenges, which he has called. I am sure that he will be there to lead it. He is right to draw attention to this matter. He is a tenacious campaigner on religious rights around the world, and I pay tribute to him for the work that he is doing in highlighting this terrible crime.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Points of order should come after statements. Is it about this?
Mr Speaker
It is definitely previous business, is it? I have already been hoodwinked once today. I do not want it to happen twice.
Mr Speaker
That was earlier. Your point of order can come after this statement.
Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement, let me say that I understand that the content of it has been extensively trailed this morning, including through tweets from the Secretary of State’s Department and from the right hon. Member himself. I have made it clear previously that important policy announcements need to be made first to this Chamber, not to the media. I repeat that again today. It is a discourtesy to the House and to the Members, and I expect Ministers to make sure that this does not happen again.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Dominic Raab)
Mr Speaker, forgive the exuberance in communicating at least the trail of this statement. Of course, you are absolutely right, and I will make sure that it does not happen again.
Today, I am setting out the proposals to tackle strategic lawsuits against public participation—the so-called SLAPPs—to end the abuse in UK courts, and of UK laws, by corrupt oligarchs and Putin allies to protect democratic debate and to uphold our fundamental liberties of free speech and a free press.
Let me offer the House a recent illustration of the problem we seek to tackle. Earlier this month, the British journalist Tom Burgis was sued for libel in the High Court by the oligarch-owned mining company ENRC. His book “Kleptopia: How Dirty Money Is Conquering the World” seeks to chart how dirty money is being used around the world, highlighting instances of money laundering, corruption and other wrongdoing.
ENRC did not just bring its claim against Mr Burgis’s publisher, but made multiple claims against him personally, as the author of articles, tweets and podcasts about his book. The High Court dismissed ENRC’s claim at a preliminary stage, on the grounds that the statements it had complained of were not defamatory, and awarded costs to Mr Burgis. It should be said that ENRC has also been under criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, and during that period, ENRC has also brought two separate High Court civil claims against the SFO itself, in 2019 and in 2021.
That is not a one-off case, however, and such cases often do not end well. Certainly, they do not always end in the way the libel suit I mentioned did. I give it as an illustration, but that one-off case is part of a worrying and growing pattern of conduct that we are starting to see, whereby those accused of wrongdoing try to use their deep pockets and the UK courts to financially bully their critics into submission.
I will try to give the House a sense of the scale of the problem. Provisional figures from the Coalition Against SLAPPs in Europe, CASE, estimates that there were 14 such cases in the UK last year. It is worth pausing to reflect that that is a significant increase from just two in 2020 and one in 2018. This is a relatively recent, but burgeoning, phenomenon. Across Europe, CASE has identified 538 SLAPP cases over the past decade, 26 of them brought in this country, so this is not just a UK problem.
As a matter of plain principle, it is wrong that unscrupulous individuals and corporations are able to exploit our laws and our courts in this jurisdiction with claims designed to muzzle respected journalists, academics and campaigners, explicitly to stop them from shining a light on corruption and links to organised crime. If we think about it for a moment, this is a modern-day struggle between David and Goliath. We have individual journalists, authors and academics on the one hand, pitted against billionaire oligarchs, some of whom bankroll the Kremlin, on the other. We in this House cannot, and will not, allow our courts and our justice system to be used by those kleptocrats to intimidate and harass those who lift the lid on their murky dealings and wrongdoing.
The stark reality of the problem runs far deeper than the relatively small number of cases that will ever reach court. It is fair to say that the high-profile cases that we know about are likely to represent just the tip of the iceberg. This is probably the most important point for the House today: SLAPPs have their most pernicious impact through the pre-action letters and legal pressure applied well before court proceedings are initiated. Understandably, if a researcher or campaigner of relatively modest means finds themselves on the receiving end of such bullying tactics, the risk is that they will back down before a formal case is begun, for fear of the sky-high costs and damages that most working people in this country could not possibly afford to bear.
That is the harm we must guard against—publishers and authors forced to hesitate before publishing properly grounded stories, and legitimate, well-researched investigative reporting reined in, or perhaps not begun in the first place, for fear of the crushing legal costs. The most serious and surreptitious danger in all this is that SLAPPs then have a chilling effect on the transparency that is essential to a healthy democracy.
Of course, the war in Ukraine has highlighted the urgency of tackling what is a recent but none the less growing problem. The same kleptocrats availing themselves of SLAPPs are often found bankrolling President Putin’s war machine. As the Kremlin silences Russia’s independent press and jails critics of its illegal war, in this House and in this country we will stand up for those shining a light on corruption and cronyism.
So today I have set out proposals to reform our libel laws and launched a call for evidence, a copy of which is available in the House, that asks for views on how to make these reforms as targeted and effective as possible. Let me briefly summarise the measures we are taking. First, we will consider whether it is necessary to establish a legal definition in order to create a higher threshold for SLAPP-type cases, and look at whether we need to introduce stronger powers to enable our courts to strike them out earlier as an abuse of process to deal with the risk, the threats and the bullying that these cases involve. Secondly, we will set out for consideration options to strengthen the public interest defence. Thirdly, we will consider limiting legal costs in SLAPP cases, perhaps capping the costs that claimants can receive, to address the issue of the glaring inequality of arms between the parties in these kinds of cases. Fourthly, our proposals allow courts to put restraint orders on repeat litigants and consider the case for a specific requirement for SLAPP claimants to prove malice in libel cases. Fifthly, we will review the wider existing defences in our libel laws to assess whether and how they could and should be reformed to counter the growing threat from SLAPPs. Sixthly, we will look at the regulatory regime. In fairness, I should point out that the Solicitors Regulation Authority recently issued new guidance reminding solicitors of their duty to report misconduct, identifying SLAPPs as an example of litigation for improper purposes. We will assess how that regulation is working and whether it is adequate in the light of the evidence that we have.
This call for evidence is necessary to provide us with the most robust basis on which then to move swiftly to introduce the targeted reforms to deal with the problem at hand. These reforms sit alongside our proposals for a Bill of Rights that will reinforce freedom of speech and freedom of expression. This is a good example of why that Bill of Rights is necessary.
Today in this House we have an opportunity—I hope that hon. Members on both sides will embrace it—to put President Putin and his cronies on notice. We will not allow our courts to be abused to censor those brave enough to call out corruption. We will protect our free press, which is there precisely to hold the powerful to account. We will defend freedom of speech—the liberty that guards all our other freedoms in this country. Our reforms will further strengthen free speech so that those with blood on their hands and those with dirty money in their bank accounts are no longer free to hide in the shadows. I commend this statement to the House.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement—and so does everyone on Twitter. It certainly marks a major and welcome shift in Conservative party policy. When the Prime Minister was Mayor of London, he actively encouraged oligarchs to pursue vexatious libel claims through the British courts, and it is good to see some belated recognition today of just how wrong that was.
We are used to double standards from this Government when it comes to Russian dirty money. Senior Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, partied with Kremlin-linked oligarchs even as their plundered wealth flooded into London. They buried the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report instead of acting on the threats it exposed to our politics and to our democracy. The reason there has been an increase in this kind of lawsuit—what the Secretary of State called a “glaring inequality of arms”—in this country is that the Conservative party got itself hooked on the Kremlin’s dirty money. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) has worked bravely to expose the Conservatives’ increasing dependency on Kremlin-linked oligarchs. Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us how many Conservative party donors have used a SLAPP to silence free speech?
These measures, welcome though they are, are too little, too late. Labour called on the Government to fix this problem way back in January. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) demanded clearer guidance for judges, tougher regulation of law firms, and legislation to control costs so astronomical that no one can afford to stand up to Putin’s bullying billionaires. My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition demanded legislation two years ago.
The Conservatives’ track record is frankly problematic. They ignored the Leveson inquiry when it called for low-cost litigation for claimants and defendants in media cases. Instead, they sided with Putin’s oligarchs against British journalists and campaigners until it was far too late. The Secretary of State says that he wants to end abuses in UK courts by Putin’s cronies, but he is proposing a consultation that does not finish until 19 May. Has he made an estimate of how much these oligarchs will continue to abuse the current skewed system until then, as they attempt to hide their collaboration with the Kremlin? Let us be clear: their money funds Putin’s wars of aggression in Chechnya, Georgia, the Crimea, and now the rest of Ukraine. The Government must act much faster if they want to cripple Putin’s war machine and stop it slaughtering the children of Ukraine-.
The Secretary of State mentions the Solicitors Regulation Authority, but what penalties will be imposed on firms acting in these cases? What is the SRA doing to check that solicitors are doing proper due diligence on oligarch clients and the source of their wealth before helping themselves to a share of it? What action is he taking to stop law firms helping the Russian state to make money that helps to fund Putin’s war machine? Putting Putin “on notice” is not enough—the Government must end this corruption now.
Dominic Raab
It is a bit surprising, on an issue of such seriousness, that the hon. Gentleman resorted to making the usual partisan political points. Frankly, I think the House can rise above his partisan approach.
The hon. Gentleman says that this is too little, too late. In fact, in January, when he says Labour called for this, Justice Ministers had already made it clear that we were actively working on proposals. Indeed, I made that clear in the House in February. He referred back to 2018, or a couple of years ago. We had one case in 2018. As I said, this is now a burgeoning problem. Frankly, an element of “Captain Hindsight” seems to have crept along the shadow Front Bench.
In relation to the broader points that the hon. Gentleman makes about oligarchs, I set out in the House yesterday the scale and the level of sanctions that we have imposed—indeed, with cross-party support. We have led the way internationally.
The hon. Gentleman did not really make any substantive points about the consultation. [Interruption.] He did not really, actually—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) is chuntering from a sedentary position. He did not really ask me anything—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady should not be chuntering from a sedentary position. She is a very senior Member of the House and she should know better.
Dominic Raab
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman taking some time to look over the proposals in a slightly more sober way. I hope that, on reflection, he will agree to that, given that some Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), have shown that this can be done in a cross-party way.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I unreservedly welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement. This has been a seriously cross-party issue. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has taken a terrific part in it, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) and many others have engaged in it, because it is so important: we are talking about a fundamental defence of free speech. This is going to be difficult but it is also going to be urgent. The one point on which I agree with the Opposition spokesman is that dealing with this will be urgent, because it is not just about oligarchs. We have already debated in this Chamber cases like that of Mohamed Amersi—a disgraceful case brought against a former Member of this House. The timetable is important. I unreservedly welcome to this, but will my right hon. Friend give the House some indication of when he expects legislation to come out of the call for evidence he has announced?
Dominic Raab
I thank my right hon. Friend. He is absolutely right to pay tribute to the cross-party nature of this, notwithstanding the statement by the Opposition spokesman. That is very important, and he has helped to lead it, as is often the case. He asked about the timetable. As he will see, these are substantive proposals—not a Green Paper but a set of proposals. It is important, with regard to libel, which is there to defend the reputation of decent, upstanding people, that we get this right. It is about testing the evidence so that when we go to legislation, we get this right. After the consultation, I will look for the earliest opportunity and the earliest legislative vehicle. It may end up being a third Session Bill, but he has my reassurance that we are already looking at the appropriate legislative vehicle. It depends how much of this we do in primary legislation. I suspect most of it will require primary legislation.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I welcome it, and the sentiments behind the proposed changes. For too long, Russian oligarchs have used their ill-gotten wealth to threaten and silence those who would rightfully seek to expose them. We know that the UK is awash with dirty money, whether it is the London laundromat, golden visa schemes or utilising UK law firms to silence journalists and intimidate activists who rightfully call out their unethical behaviour. Vladimir Ashurkov, a Russian political activist who was an executive director of Alexei Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation, said that SLAPP lawsuits were
“acts of hybrid warfare which are used to weaken the UK’s democracy, judicial system and fundamental freedoms”.
Given that we know that Kremlin-linked oligarchs use SLAPP lawsuits to silence criticism and to attempt to control the public narrative, what steps is the UK taking to ensure that we cannot be manipulated to silence free speech, while protecting journalists and political activists? What steps are the Secretary of State and the UK Government taking to name and shame such companies and will specific secondary legislation be proposed to strengthen existing defamation and libel laws?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful and cogent statement, intervention and set of questions. I point out to her that we are dealing with the tier 1 visa, and the sanctions regime, both in the number of people and entities, plus the scope—I think it is now at $45 billion—demonstrates what we are doing on that front. The substantive proposals are all set out in the call for evidence, which is available in the House. She will find all the answers. I think it will be a combination of things. There are regulatory matters through the SRA regime that we want to look at, particularly around the ethics for solicitors, where there will be elements of perhaps secondary legislation. When we are dealing with libel law and the Defamation Act 2013, it will require changes to primary legislation, but I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the call for evidence.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify what has been a stunningly quick recent phenomenon, bearing in mind the exponential increase in cases in the past year alone. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for discussing this matter with me when I was in office. We could see this trajectory rising at an alarming rate. The Secretary of State is absolutely right now in his consultation to build on the work we did in the Defamation Act 2013, where we raised thresholds to bring libel cases, and strengthening the public interest defence is absolutely the right way to go. Will he undertake to look not only at this phenomenon, but other areas where we see individuals or groups bringing cases purely on the basis that they wish to get disclosure or information from Government that is designed to make some sort of political or power point, as opposed to wanting the merits of the case dealt with by a court?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to all the work that my right hon. and learned Friend did in his tenure as Justice Secretary. He and I have looked at various things in this House together over many years, and the one thing we have always agreed on is the primacy of free speech. It is not entirely unqualified—libel laws are there for a reason—but he is absolutely right that the quintessential British liberty that guards all the others is freedom of speech and expression. However troubling it may be for politicians to have the journalistic scrutiny, rigour and all that, we understand in our hearts that it is critical to a healthy, vigorous democratic society, and I will certainly look at any other examples that he may wish to raise where we see this kind of legalised bullying through the courts and our jurisdiction.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
This is all really good stuff, and I am delighted that we are moving in the right direction. I always want the Justice Secretary to go faster; he can be very slow in delivering what he knows I want him to deliver. The real trouble we have had in this country is that the people of Britain have never known the truth about Russian money, because journalists, broadcasters, sometimes politicians and Governments have been too frightened to go to court because they know that the pockets on the other side are so deep, and they are terrified they will lose their home or their business, or the Government will lose millions of pounds on behalf of the British taxpayer. Can I ask him about the seizure of goods? We will need to seize assets. Take Chelsea football club—we will not be able to sell it on until we have seized it. Will we not need legislation for that, as well, and will he ensure that there is a proper tender for the sale of that, so that it does not go to somebody who is equally dodgy?
Dominic Raab
Forgive me if I do not get drawn into Chelsea football club, which is outside the scope of what we are discussing in this statement. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. Since doing BackBench Business debates on Magnitsky in 2012, he and I have always, whatever else we may differ on, made common cause on the need for robust sanctions. He has been one of the leading lights in relation to SLAPPs, and I will certainly look carefully at the important specific points he has made.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am very impressed by the Deputy Prime Minister’s action, and I thank him. It is a great shame that over recent years, we have allowed a corrupting cottage industry of legalised intimidation and legalised gangsterism to be offered by unscrupulous law firms in this country to some of the most wretched and unscrupulous people on earth. I hope that the senior partners in firms such as Carter-Ruck, CMS, Mishcon and Harbottle & Lewis will consider whether they feel that they have played an entirely negative role in enabling Kremlin neo-fascism. My brief question is that I was bringing forward a private Member’s Bill on this issue so that the tools of abuse—data protection, privacy and libel laws—can be wrapped up in a series of amendments. Should I continue to try to bring forward that private Member’s Bill in the hope that I can help write some clauses that would be of value in an upcoming Bill, or should I offer that in evidence to the consultation process? I am keen for the Bill to be strong, just and transparent.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend should do both. I thank him for his campaigning tenacity on all this. As ever, he is very forensic, as well as tenacious. I make one point. He makes a perfectly reasonable point about legal ethics—as I mentioned, we will look at the SRA regime, which is important—but I want to avoid this being an anti-lawyer push, because the vast majority of legal practitioners are as aghast as us at the abuses we see. Let us have a targeted approach, because we are more likely to be effective at dealing with the real problem that he has been so tenacious and eloquent in highlighting.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a daughter who works for a London law firm. I join my colleagues on all sides in saying that speed is of the essence. The fact of the matter is that some of the luxury yachts have already left, and we do not want that to happen in this case. When I was an undergraduate at the London School of Economics, I remember Professor Michael Oakeshott saying that the courts of England, like the Ritz Hotel, are open to everyone. That is the case, so I welcome the measures today. I want them to be speedy, and I want everything we do to make clear where our support is in terms of this terrible invasion of Ukraine.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his long-standing interest in this area and the very constructive points he has made. We need to act swiftly, and I said that in my statement. We also need to recognise that we are constantly balancing the right of honourable people to protect their reputation—libel law has a role to play in this country—with not allowing libel law to be hijacked by those with deep pockets to muzzle the very transparency that we want in this country. That is a balance, and we need to be careful to get that balance right. We also remain a global country with a global outlook, and we want investment into this country. That is crucial and is part of our USP. What we do not want is dirty money or the money of those with blood on their hands. We will move swiftly, but the most important thing is that we do not do this in a knee-jerk way, because when this House does things in a knee-jerk way, we get it wrong and we repent at leisure. Let us move swiftly, but firmly. That is why the call for evidence is about how we shape these reforms, not whether we do them.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is right to set out the harm, intimidation and cost bullying that comes even before there is live litigation, as that happens in many libel matters generally. I also welcome him guarding against being anti-lawyer, particularly as he is doing so much work in other areas to undo the historical attacks on lawyers in this country. Thinking about the indispensable free press in this country, it is difficult for us in the UK to comprehend how narrow and limited is the information that Russian people, for example, receive, let alone what they understand can be trusted and impartial. Will he clarify what the Government are doing more widely to promote press freedom?
Dominic Raab
As ever, my hon. Friend absolutely nails the point. These reforms are targeted at a specific problem, which is recent and burgeoning, and we do not want to conflate that because it might hit other areas and do ancillary or incidental harm and because that is a displacement of our effort and our energies.
My hon. Friend asked more generally about what we are doing around the world. When I was Foreign Secretary, we ramped up the Media Freedom Coalition, which, in my time, we chaired with the Canadians. I am not sure whether it is them or us who currently hold the chairmanship—I think it is the Canadians. We expanded that coalition. The idea was to help with the legislation that countries have to protect free speech and to ensure that, when journalists come under attack, they get legal support. We raised quite a lot of money and we keep working on it. I know that the current Foreign Secretary is enthusiastic and energetic about it.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Justice Secretary’s statement. He has well specified the problem and the need for urgency, so I urge maximum speed, although he is right to be cautious about getting the legislation right. There should be a presumption that the public interest test is right. That test is not synonymous with the British state; I hope he would agree with that. Nor is it necessarily, in this complicated world, synonymous only with the UK national interest. Will he ensure that the test takes the widest possible view about what is good for this complicated world, because that matters against the oligarchs?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and makes one of the most important points. If he looks at the call for evidence and the menu of options that we set out, we look at the threshold for bringing SLAPPs and whether there ought to be a new right of public participation. We look at the various defences in defamation law to see whether they are sufficient to deal with this problem. That includes the public defence and the serious harm test of a defamatory statement. We are trying to look at it from every angle. I should add for completeness that we will look at whether we are getting the right balance in terms of being an attractive destination for litigants to want to solve disputes, which is a great USP for the country, and whether we have allowed and given succour to libel tourism in this particularly pernicious area. We will look at all those things and I look forward to his further thoughts in those areas.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
I, too, warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. As he said, however, SLAPPs are an international phenomenon that are used across Europe to stifle investigative journalism. Most notorious, perhaps, are the 47 lawsuits that were being brought against Daphne Caruana Galizia at the time of her murder in Malta in 2017. Does he therefore agree that protecting freedom of the press properly will require international action? Can he say what discussions he has had with his counterparts in other jurisdictions to bring about co-ordinated action?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I mentioned the European figures; it is clearly a much broader phenomenon. One of the things that we have looked at is the threshold. To give an illustration of a jurisdiction that we have looked at, in the United States, there needs to be malice, I think, for most libel cases. Under the US constitution, there are a whole series of judicially enforceable rights that are probably stronger than in this country under the European convention on human rights or otherwise in relation to free speech. We will look carefully at the bespoke libel laws that we have and we are mindful of the lessons that we can learn from other jurisdictions.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I welcome the statement and especially the Justice Secretary’s words about it being the tip of the iceberg. I was caught up in the issue when Navalny released his list and I named Abramovich in this House as someone who we needed to look at sanctioning. I then tried to do a follow-up story with a newspaper but, lo and behold, the lawyers got involved and the newspaper never printed it. I wonder how many such stories that shed sunlight on our democracy have been stifled.
The Justice Secretary will know, however, that it is not just oligarchs who do that. For example, Sienna Miller said that she had to stop her case against the News Corp newspapers in December because she could not afford to continue to take the case to court. Will the legislation cover not just the oligarchs who desperately need looking at but anyone who seeks to use the law to silence the truth?
Dominic Raab
Yes. Whatever other differences we have had over the years, I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s campaigning tenacity on the issue. I think she is right. Of course, although we have oligarchs and Ukraine in mind, it would need to be something that applied across the board.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
As a former journalist, I believe strongly and passionately in freedom of the press. We see all too vividly at the moment how important that is with the incredibly brave journalism coming out of Ukraine, yet that freedom has been increasingly threatened in recent years, so I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Will he reassure journalists and the wider public that he will take whatever steps are necessary to uphold freedom of the press and freedom of speech more widely?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I remember him as a television news presenter, so he has first-hand experience of the issue. He is right that we need to deal with the problem. More broadly, we have seen all sorts of incursions on free speech over recent years. There has been, I think, some collective denial about this. That is partly because, in some areas, if it is an issue that we feel torn about, perhaps people turn a blind eye. We need to redevelop the culture—frankly, the attitude—that we listen and perhaps embrace views that we do not always find comfortable. Freedom of speech is the liberty that guards all the others. That is why, on top of these reforms, our Bill of Rights reforms, which will strengthen and reinforce freedom of speech, are so necessary and timely.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I welcome the statement. As ever on these occasions, the devil will be in the detail, but I share hon. Members’ concern for urgency in disabling the enablers of the oligarchs. It is a war of attrition, but it is not just against journalists; it is also against Government agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office, which ENRC took to court in a SLAPP litigation, as well as an individual who formerly worked for the Serious Fraud Office. When the Justice Secretary is considering the legislation, will he consider creating a protection for such agencies from that sort of litigation, perhaps through a complaints system for anyone who wants to take up an issue with an agency such as the Serious Fraud Office, rather than them going through really expensive litigation that wears down the resources of those agencies to do the job for which we set them up?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points. Yes, we will look across the board at the defendants in these SLAPP cases. We in this House, because of the privilege that Parliament affords, have the opportunity and the responsibility to ensure that, come what may, those abuses are not swept under the carpet and that the issues that need to be aired, whether through authors, academics or journalists, are not muzzled.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I was lucky enough to meet Tom Burgis recently, who, alongside other journalists such as Oliver Bullough and others, does an incredible job of highlighting the dirty money, corruption and general economic crime. The other cohort that does that most effectively, and has been involved in every case that I have been involved in in those circumstances, is whistleblowers. Will he, with his Home Office colleagues, seek to put protections and compensation for whistleblowers into a future economic crime Bill? Those people are critical in identifying this stuff and bringing those guilty of it to justice.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes good points both on SLAPPs and more widely on whistleblowers. I will make sure we have that angle in mind and speak to our Home Office colleagues on the legislation it is looking at.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I join others in thanking the Secretary of State for his clear commitment to protect our legal rights across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it is good to hear positive stories coming out of this place. I have long expressed concern that those with money are able to tie legal knots around those with limited funds. Does he believe these proposals go far enough to protect freedom of speech and ensure money does not equate to legal victory?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman has been a staunch supporter of our liberties in this House and in the United Kingdom. I hope when he looks at the series of options—there are over 30 pages—he will see that we have covered all the bases, whether it is the threshold for SLAPPs to bring libel claims, the cost protections, or the ability to strike out or have a permission stage to deal at an earlier stage with abusive claims. If we have not, precisely because this is a call for evidence, we will need to look at other areas as well.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
It is abhorrent that corrupt elites have sought to suppress legal criticism in this country. Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying this type of litigation has no place in our society? Could he go further and highlight what other steps the Government are taking to crack down on these dodgy elites exploiting our country?
Dominic Raab
As my hon. Friend will know, we are sanctioning over 100 individuals and entities—I think the sum involved is $45 billion—and the economic crime Bill has come in. I regard the issue we are dealing with today as a forensic target issue. We will move swiftly—I have heard hon. Members calls for that—but it is right that we move on a firm basis, identify and target the problem itself, and that the pendulum does not swing too far the other way. I am confident that we can get the balance right, but we need to test the evidence for the reforms I have put forward and then proceed as swiftly as possible to legislate.
Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our work to tackle ethnic disparities and to build a fairer, more inclusive Britain for all.
In April last year, I came before this House following publication of the report by the independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, chaired by Dr Tony Sewell. I return to the House today to announce publication of our response to that report and to outline our new “Inclusive Britain” action plan.
The Sewell commission was established by the Prime Minister in response to the protests we saw throughout the summer of 2020. It was tasked with carrying out a deeper examination of why disparities exist and considering how we can reduce them. The commission published its findings on 31 March 2021, making 24 recommendations in all, focused on health, education, crime and policing, and employment. The result was a groundbreaking report that set out a new, positive agenda for change. It provided an important contribution to both the national conversation about race and the Government’s efforts to level up and unite the whole country. I would like to take this opportunity to again thank the commissioners for their tireless efforts and the invaluable contribution they have made to helping us better understand this complex and multifaceted policy area.
The Government fully endorse the findings of the Sewell commission and our action plan is based largely on its recommendations. Its report conclusively showed something which I, and indeed hon Members on all sides of this House, know to be true: disparities do persist in the UK and racism and discrimination continue to shape people’s experiences. But it also showed that most of these racial disparities are not driven by individual acts of prejudice committed by people behaving, either consciously or subconsciously, in a racist way. What the report’s analysis shows is that, for the most part, negative disparities arise for reasons not associated with personal prejudice. That is why so many disparities stubbornly persist even in this progressive age when there has never been such an acute awareness of racism and so much action and policy against it. All of this underscores the importance of moving beyond gestures and soundbites, to look in depth at the evidence and to challenge many of the deeply held assumptions about race and ethnicity that exist within our society.
The response we have published today, entitled “Inclusive Britain”, presents a clear strategy to tackle entrenched disparities, promote unity and build a more meritocratic, cohesive society—a society in which everyone, irrespective of their ethnicity or cultural background, can go as far in life as their ambition will take them. The response sets out over 70 actions to level up the country and to close the yawning gaps between different groups in education, employment, health and criminal justice. In many of these areas, we have gone much further than the commission envisaged to ensure that our action plan is as ambitious as it possibly can be.
The UK is a multi-faith, multi-ethnic, multicultural success story and we believe that many of our greatest strengths derive from the diversity of our population. One only has to look at our brilliant NHS—one of the largest and most diverse employers in Europe—to see the benefits of being an open, tolerant and welcoming country. However, it would be naïve to say that tolerance and inclusion are the universal experiences of everyone who lives here, so our action plan seeks to right these wrongs with three clear aims: building a stronger sense of trust and fairness in our institutions and confidence in British meritocracy; promoting equality of opportunity, encouraging aspiration and empowering individuals; and encouraging and instilling a sense of belonging to a multi-ethnic UK that celebrates its differences while embracing the values that unite us all.
One of the most basic, but also one of the best, ways to build trust is to ensure that every individual in our society knows that they will be treated fairly and will not be discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity. So we will continue to work with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to challenge race discrimination through investigations and supporting individual cases. We will hold social media giants to account for the vile and racist abuse that is allowed to propagate on their platforms. Our groundbreaking Online Safety Bill will force those companies to comply with a tough new regulatory regime, and if they fail to take action then the Bill will allow us to issue hefty fines of up to £18 million. These fines could be even heavier for the big operators failing to take down racist posts and racist accounts. We will also tackle unfair pay through new guidance to employers on how to assess and address their ethnicity pay gaps.
To improve the way in which stop-and-search powers are used by the police we will strengthen scrutiny arrangements so that local communities are able to hold their police forces more effectively to account. We will strive towards the goal of ensuring that police officers and members of the judiciary better reflect the people and communities they serve.
To tackle persistent ethnic disparities in health outcomes, our new Office for Health Improvement and Disparities will even the playing field in access to good-quality care, with measures to be set out in a White Paper this spring. We will place particular emphasis on maternal health disparities, including identifying and driving change through our new maternity disparities taskforce. We will also tackle misleading information that can undermine trust in our public services and the institutions delivering them. This work includes encouraging more responsible and accurate reporting on race issues in the media.
The second strand in our action plan is to promote equality of opportunity, encourage aspiration and foster personal agency. Over the last decade we have made great strides in widening opportunity and giving more people from all backgrounds the chance to fulfil their true potential, but there is still more to do and we are fully committed to removing the barriers that are holding people back.
That starts from birth. We know that a strong start in life, and a stable family support system, can make all the difference. That is why we will invest £200 million in expanding the supporting families programme and £300 million in transforming start for life services and creating a network of family hubs so that children can grow up in a loving, stable and nurturing environment that fosters creativity and learning. This funding also means that families in desperate circumstances will receive the dedicated support they need to turn their lives around, find well-paid jobs and ensure that they and their loved ones can live happy and healthy lives. Indeed, we have asked the Children’s Commissioner to ensure that such services put the needs of children at the heart of everything they do. We also want to see more ethnic minority children adopted by loving parents who can give them everything they need in life to grow and flourish.
Members across this House know that access to high-quality education from an early age will set a child up for success later in life. While some ethnic minority children outperform their white British peers, that is not the case for every ethnic group, so we will look to level up pupil attainment by understanding what works best to drive up standards and bridge the attainment gaps for good.
We are providing the biggest uplift to school funding in a decade—£14 billion over three years—and supporting children to catch up on what they missed during the pandemic, and we will drive up the quality of education outside mainstream schools. Our forthcoming schools White Paper will focus on improving literacy and numeracy standards for the most disadvantaged pupils. We will also continue to invest in what works for pupils, improve access to apprenticeships and demand better transparency from our higher education providers so that all prospective students know there is a wealth of options open to them.
While promoting and celebrating diversity is hugely important, it is ultimately meaningless if people do not feel a sense of belonging or inclusion. That is why the third strand of our action plan is to instil a sense of belonging in those who feel that they are treated differently, left out or left behind because of their colour, class or creed. No child should grow up feeling alienated from the society in which they live. They should know that this country is proud to call them citizens of our United Kingdom and that that applies to every individual who chooses this country as their home irrespective of whether they were born here. To foster that sense of belonging from an early age, we will work with a panel of experts, historians and school leaders to develop a model history curriculum to help pupils understand the intertwined nature of British and global history and their own place within it.
When those children grow up and enter the workplace, we want to ensure that they do not experience some of the biases and unfairness that they do today. To that end, we are appointing a new “inclusion at work” panel to help employers drive fairness across their organisations. The panel will develop a wide range of new and effective resources that employers can use so that they move beyond unverified, low-quality training materials and create a more meritocratic place to work. That is complemented by a new “inclusion confident” scheme to provide employers with the tools to overcome barriers to in-work progression and improve retention of their ethnic minority staff. Finally, in the fields of science, innovation and medicine, we will ensure that new technology, including cutting-edge medical equipment and artificial intelligence, is harnessed for good and not inadvertently biased against ethnic minorities.
It was right that we took the time to consider carefully the commission’s findings. The breadth and scale of our action plan shows that we have put to good use the time since the report was published, but we have not stood by and waited to publish our response before taking action. We began to implement the commission’s recommendations even before the report was published, including moving the Social Mobility Commission into the Cabinet Office. We have also published new guidance on how to write about ethnicity while moving away from use of the term “BAME”, and our recent levelling-up White Paper draws on the commission’s findings.
So much work has been done, and I am grateful to all those who have helped us get here. I thank officials for their support in the race disparity unit—Summer Nisar in particular. I also thank Bryony Bonner in my private office and the special adviser Daniel El-Gamry, as well as Munira Mirza, formerly of No. 10.
“Inclusive Britain” sets out a clear and comprehensive action plan to tackle ethnic disparities, level up communities and build a stronger, fairer and more united country. I will return to the House in 12 months’ time to report on the progress we have made in delivering those actions.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I will be honest with the House: I was beginning to think that today’s statement would never come. The “Inclusive Britain” strategy is woefully late. The Sewell report was published a whole year ago and the Conservatives have been in government for more than a decade. We all know that significant race and ethnic disparities exist in Britain today—indeed, even the flawed Sewell report acknowledges that life chances and outcomes for black and ethnic minority people vary hugely—so why has it taken the Conservatives 12 years to decide to do anything about it?
Most frustratingly, the strategy unquestioningly accepts the Sewell report’s controversial premise that there is no such thing as structural racism in our society. When the report was published last year, it was met with outrage for its failure to acknowledge that structural racism exists and, despite the spin on today’s announcement, the Government continue with the same flawed analysis; one that Baroness Lawrence rightly stated is
“giving racists the green light.”
If both the Sewell report and the strategy fail to identify the root causes of racial and ethnic disparities, how can either possibly hope to tackle them? That is why the strategy was always going to be hopelessly ineffective and short-sighted, and that is why it will fail to deliver for black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.
Let us briefly reflect on what that means. The strategy fails to deliver for black, Asian and minority ethnic NHS workers—frontline workers who faced a disproportionate risk to their health throughout the deadly covid-19 pandemic. It fails to deliver for black children living in Britain, more than half of whom are growing up in poverty. It also fails to deliver for Child Q, a 15-year-old black girl from Hackney who faced the most appalling treatment at the hands of the police, with racism very likely to have been an influencing factor. When the Government publish a flawed report and then churn out an inadequate strategy a whole year later, those are the very people they are failing.
When we look at the strategy line by line, sadly, matters go only from bad to worse. The strategy suggests that we can tackle race and ethnic disparities by just levelling up, but levelling up is a slogan still searching for a meaning. It is the empty soundbite for a Minister struggling to answer the question. It is not the solution to entrenched racial disparities. Where the strategy does put forward proposals, they are either too weak or too slow. For example, it fails completely to implement mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting despite repeated calls from the CBI, the TUC and the Labour party to do just that. Does the Minister think that such measures are not urgently needed? It is absurd that her strategy places so much emphasis on early years support when the Government systematically decimated Sure Start, stripping away a lifeline for children and families. The strategy will not paper over the long-term harm that did.
Where the Conservatives dither, the Labour party acts decisively. The Labour Government in Wales have already introduced a bold race equality action plan to create a truly anti-racist Wales. The Leader of the Opposition commissioned Baroness Lawrence to produce a report addressing the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on minority communities, with clear recommendations for the Government. The next Labour Government will introduce a landmark race equality Act to tackle racial inequality at its source.
The Conservative Government have had 12 years to act. Instead, they have failed to deliver and failed to acknowledge the genuine reasons for racial and ethnic disparities in Britain today. This country deserves so much better.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. I have a lot of time for her personally, but the fact is that Labour Members cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that this is an ambitious strategy. It would not have mattered what we brought to the House today; they would have criticised it.
The report is not late: we started implementing actions immediately after the commission’s findings came out. Labour Members know that. They know that the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is set up and running, and they know about the work that we have been doing on maternal disparities. They even know about the changes we made in ethnicity reporting and guidance, because her predecessor wrote to me about that. We have started implementing many actions and are presenting how they weave into so many other strategies across Government, such as levelling up, the health inequalities strategy and the schools White Paper. We will not wait for the last thing to be ready so that we can put it into a nice package for the Labour party to criticise.
It is laughable to say that Labour is decisive in this area. It had the internal Forde inquiry into racism in its own party in 2019, and, three years later, it still has not reported. It is joke that Labour Members are telling us we are late when we have started implementing the actions.
I turn to the hon. Lady’s specific comments on the report. It is not true that the commission’s report denied the existence of structural racism.
Kemi Badenoch
If it did, the hon. Lady would have been able to stand at the Dispatch Box and read out that section. In fact, the commission said that it did not find institutional racism in the areas that it examined.
A rhetorical trick is happening around this question. There is a difference between racism and institutional racism, which has a specific definition as defined by Macpherson. The commission said that there is racism and that it does persist. It has made recommendations on actions to tackle that in its report, and we have taken them up. It is quite wrong to conflate the two. We see crime in our country every day, yet we do not say that this is an institutionally criminal country. We look in the same way at accusations of racism, and it is important to distinguish where there is a pervasive institutional failing across the board that is unable to provide services to people of colour So I am afraid I reject the misrepresentation Labour Members make about the commission. I also remind them about the personal targeted attacks and harassment the commissioners suffered because of that misrepresentation—a group of commissioners who were all, bar one, ethnic minorities. I am very committed to ensuring that ethnic minorities in public life get a fair say and have their voice. What is wrong is when people with different opinions are attacked and told they are not allowed to think in a certain way because there are rules about what black people or Asian people are allowed to say. We reject that..
The hon. Lady raised the case of Child Q, and I am very happy to speak about that. It is an appalling incident. I am glad to see that the Met has apologised and that the Independent Office for Police Conduct is looking at it. We have systems in place to ensure that when things go wrong we can right them. What we cannot do is stop any bad thing happening to anyone in the country at any time. That is a threshold that is impossible to meet. What we do know is that everybody is rightly appalled and outraged by what happened to Child Q. That is an example of a country that cares about ethnic minorities and about children in the system. We will continue to do everything we can to support them.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests relating to higher education. In accepting my congratulations on her robust counter to the small minds who have criticised the Sewell report—small minds that cannot tell the difference between disadvantage, disparity and discrimination—will the Minister ensure that every Government Department effects what she has said today and what the report proposes? Education is at particular risk, from Brighton and Hove Council’s destructive and pernicious racial training for primary school teachers, which still has not been dealt with despite a cursory inspection from the Department for Education, to Nottingham University—my old university, by the way—which, appallingly, withdrew Tony Sewell’s honorary degree, while giving them to Chinese holocaust deniers. Will she issue guidance to each Government Department to stop the nonsense about critical race theory and white privilege?
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is right to make the point about distinctions in language. Discrimination, disparity and disadvantage all mean different things. They can correlate and they can be related. Now that we have an action plan and something written, I can assure him that we will be propagating it across Government and not just across but beyond Whitehall.
My right hon. Friend is right to raise the case of Brighton and Hove. In fact, I read in a paper today about a black mother who complained that the anti-discrimination training is actually discriminatory. He is right to raise the case of Tony Sewell, who, unbelievably, had an honorary degree withdrawn because he did not believe that this is a racist country. That is an example of the sort of silencing of ethnic minorities that we are seeing across the board. It is terrible, and I have to say I was disappointed to see the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) congratulate Nottingham University on cancel culture. She will find that those sorts of actions prevent ethnic minorities from participating in public life.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advanced sight of her statement. Only by acknowledging and understanding institutional inequalities will we be able to effectively tackle them in all aspects of life. That is certainly true in the world of work, where BAME people were already in a precarious position in the labour market before the pandemic, and is linked to the disproportionate economic impact on those groups of the cost of living crisis.
I have two quick questions. The TUC recently warned that insecure work is tightening the grip of structural racism in the labour market, with BAME workers overrepresented on zero-hour contracts. Will the Minister urge the Government to introduce the long-awaited employment Bill to tackle zero-hour contracts?
Unlike with gender pay gaps, there is currently no legal requirement for UK businesses to disclose their ethnicity pay data. Will the UK Government follow the recent recommendations of the Women and Equalities Committee and introduce mandatory ethnicity pay gap reporting by April 2023, including urging employers to publish a supporting action plan?
Kemi Badenoch
We have made an action on ethnicity pay gap reporting in the report, and we will be issuing guidance to help businesses and organisations to deliver it. What we are not going to do is mandate ethnicity pay gap reporting. It is very different from gender pay gap reporting, which is binary—male and female. Men and women are represented equally across the country. Ethnicity pay gap reporting covers multiple categories that are not necessarily applicable in each area, so mandating it in a particular way could actually end up distorting and skewing the figures. What we are going to do is support organisations that want to understand what is going on in their businesses and help to progress pay and opportunity for ethnic minorities.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
I strongly welcome the report because it will ensure that everyone, from whatever background, can climb the important ladder of opportunity. The vice-chancellor of Nottingham University should hang his head in shame for the way Tony Sewell has been treated. I genuinely find it incomprehensible that such a thing could happen, with an honorary degree being withdrawn.
My hon. Friend will know that the Education Committee produced a report into our biggest ethnic group, disadvantaged white working-class children, who underperform at every stage of the education system compared with almost every other ethnic group. They are at the bottom except for Gypsy/Roma children in terms of going on to higher education. Will my hon. Friend ensure that the report also looks at our Select Committee’s recommendations and makes sure that white working-class people from disadvantaged backgrounds are disadvantaged no longer?
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is right. I have seen his Select Committee’s report, and those are things we will be working on. He is right to point out the disadvantage that children from white working-class communities face. The commission found that the issues that affect black Caribbean, black African, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian children when it comes to deprivation and disadvantage also affect white working-class communities, which is why we know that race cannot be the factor that explains many of those disparities. What I can tell him is that the solutions we have put in place will be solutions for all children. That is one of the principles we have for this report: we are not segregating or targeting specific solutions for specific communities; we are going to be looking after everybody.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
The Minister will be aware that recommendation 4 of the report is that the Government wish to:
“Bridge divides and create partnerships between the police and communities”.
Will the Minister explain how she thinks strip-searching black schoolgirls helps to bridge the divide between the police and communities? Is she aware that this is not an isolated incident? The Metropolitan police’s own figures show that in 2020-21, 25 young people under 18 were strip-searched. Most were black or from other ethnic minorities: 60% were black and the rest were some kind of minority ethnic. Only two of the 25 children who were strip-searched were white.
Is the Minister aware of how degrading this strip-search was? It was not just that this schoolgirl was stripped naked. They made her part the cheeks of her bottom and cough. She was on her period. I could give more detail, but I do not want to distress people in this House. It was utterly degrading. She is still traumatised. I must stress that they found no drugs and she has never been accused of taking drugs. How can the Minister sit there and tell this House that that had nothing to do with that young girl’s race, and that the figures I quoted are not striking? Will she assure this House and the wider community that the Government will take notice of whatever comes out of the report into that case, and make sure that the Metropolitan police and schoolteachers will not collude in the mistreatment of young schoolgirls again?
Kemi Badenoch
The right hon. Lady is very, very correct to raise the issue of strip-searching. The Home Secretary, I believe, wrote to her shadow and said that the incident is deeply concerning. Strip-searching is one of the most intrusive powers available to the police, because it allows officers to go well beyond a person’s outer clothing. There are safeguards and codes of practice that must be followed when the power is used, so what has gone wrong in this specific instance? That is being investigated. I do not have the full details and I am not able to provide those sorts of answers until an inquiry is finished. What I can tell her is that those figures are startling. No one has said that racism does not exist. No one has said that there are no problems in the system, but what we do ask is that we investigate every single incident and that where we see a trend, we try to understand what is going on. The action plan provides even more things we can do to support communities to hold the local police to account.
The other thing that we stress is that when these things happen we must not forget that every day the police save the lives of young people across the country. They save the lives of young black children, brown children and Asian children—children from all communities. When incidents such as this happen, we must not look at them as representative of every single thing that the police do, even though we will do all that we can to tackle them and reduce the number of times they occur.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Aylesbury is a diverse community and it is all the better for it. Does my hon. Friend agree that today the Government have ushered in a new way to think about race and, more importantly, a new way to act about race, shifting from ideology to evidence and from destructive discourse to constructive action? In other words, will she reassure us all that today marks a new approach that will genuinely improve people’s lives whatever their race or religion?
Kemi Badenoch
I am very happy to reassure my hon. Friend. This is a new way of thinking about things. We are not looking at issues in isolation. We had many suggestions from people across the country about what we should do. The Government have listened. We do not agree with all the suggestions, but we think that to have a genuinely ambitious and transformative strategy on race we need to ensure that we look at the evidence. We do not accept the premise that all disparities are due to discrimination, so that is one principle that actions must have. We also want to make sure that we do not damage institutions even when we find problems, because the institutions themselves will be part of the solution. Finally, as I said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), we also want to make sure that we target solutions across the board and do not segregate communities. We were sent many actions that did not meet those three tests, which we believe will help to frame the way that we look at race in this country and improve it for a generation.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
Unfortunately, I find what the Minister has said to be smoke and mirrors. We started with a report that began on the premise that there is no evidence of institutional racism when those who contributed to the report and those who it is meant to support have widely rejected that idea as completely false. Why would the Minister not take the question back to the drawing board? What on earth is moral history meant to be when people have called for the teaching of black history? How can the Government claim that there is no evidence of institutional racism given the case of Child Q and everything we have heard about police institutions, educational institutions and health institutions? Claiming that those institutions do not fail people will not help us to start from a place where we can fix things. Does the Minister understand why black, Asian and ethnic minority people across the country will not be encouraged by what she has said today? It simply looks like more smoke and mirrors, more warm words and nothing that will solve the racism we face daily.
Kemi Badenoch
I completely disagree with the hon. Lady. In fact, I know that black, Asian and other ethnic minority communities across the country will be very pleased with the plan because I have gone out and spoken to them. I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), who spoke from the Labour Front Bench: I know that there is nothing that we could say from the Conservative Benches that would please Labour Members, because they believe that they own this topic. They are not in government; we are. The fact is that we have been carrying out actions over the past 12 years. We even had one of the shadow Front Benchers, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), carry out a review.
We have taken actions on those reviews, yet even after we carry out those actions Labour Members stand up and deny that anything is happening. The truth is that they are not interested in an action plan. They want a debate about institutional racism. I will not spend time as a Government Minister having an academic argument and debating semantics and language. We will deliver the actions in this plan, and I am very proud to be the Minister responsible.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for setting out the Government’s comprehensive plan to tackle negative disparities wherever they exist, and especially on the model history curriculum, which will be very important. I am proud of our heritage. Of course there is good and bad, but we are proud of where we come from and what way we are going. Will she confirm that this Government remain fully committed to a fairer Britain for all and to taking necessary actions for everyone who is left behind by society, regardless of gender, age, sexuality or ethnic background? We are all one country and one great nation.
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, and my hon. Friend will find that that is what the model history curriculum will deliver.
I forgot to mention to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) when she talked about black history that black is a category that cuts across so many significant ethnic groups that there is no way that one history module could go into any depth. We need a model history curriculum that explains the story of Britain and all our places within it. We cannot have segregated history curriculums for people of different skin colour. I am completely against that and I do not support it.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
All of us want to tackle racism in all its forms in this country. One thing that ethnic minorities felt let down by at the height of the covid pandemic was what was seen by many as the Government’s disregard for the disproportionate impact that covid had on many ethnic communities. Will the Minister assure us that the action plan will address that issue and that it will be included in the covid inquiry?
Kemi Badenoch
I am really surprised that the hon. Lady would say that. We did an 18-month piece of work on covid disparities and covid’s disproportionate impact on ethnic minorities, and I came to this House multiple times and gave updates and reports, so it is not true to say that the Government did not take that seriously. I am very confident that the findings will be part of the covid inquiry; they were even among the evidence that the commission used, which we built on when we were writing the action plan. If she wants to write to me, I am sure that we can get a report to her to show her its findings.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The hon. Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) stated that the report of the independent commission was received with outrage because it failed to find structural racism. Surely we want Government strategy to be based on evidence, not ideology. Does my hon. Friend agree that a narrative that all minority discrimination is caused by majority discrimination or privilege is by definition divisive, diverts attention away from the real causes of discrimination as found by the independent commission and is incompatible with the goal of a sense of belonging?
Kemi Badenoch
I completely agree with that. We cannot have young ethnic minority children growing up being told that everyone in that society is against them. It means that they give up, lose aspiration and decide not to take up opportunities that they should, because the rhetoric is so demoralising.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
A year ago, when the independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities published its report, within hours it was unravelling and it has been discredited. The strategy published today states that the Race Disparity Unit will begin consulting on the types of data it will collate with a view to reducing the levels of evidence and data that it will collate. Everybody across the House knows how important data and evidence are, so can the Minister say why the RDU is consulting on that? When will the consultation begin, and will it be a public consultation? Why on earth would it seek to reduce the level of race and ethnicity data right now?
Kemi Badenoch
I am not quite sure why the hon. Lady thinks that we are trying to reduce the amount of race and ethnicity data. We are improving and increasing the amount of data. Perhaps she could write and explain a little further; I am not sure that she has quite got what the RDU will be doing. More broadly, she mentioned that the report began to unravel, but I remember seeing invitations to events at which she was supposed to be participating and was planning to criticise the report—well before it was published and anything had been seen. She and I know that what she said is not quite what happened.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I know that my hon. Friend is 100% committed to implementing the commission’s recommendations. Does she agree with me that it is our Conservative belief that background should not determine destiny and promoting fairness is the key to truly delivering real social mobility? As we level up in places such as Darlington, can she comment on how “Inclusive Britain” is key to our ambitious levelling-up plans?
Kemi Badenoch
Yes, that is absolutely right. When constructing the actions in the report, our three pillars were building trust and fairness—fairness was right at the heart—creating agency and opportunity, and inclusion. Those actions will benefit everyone across the country, including people in Darlington. We are focusing more on inclusion than on diversity, because we believe that inclusion brings in more factors, such as socioeconomic factors, that tend to be forgotten. Given everything that my hon. Friend has said in the House about Darlington, I think he will find his constituents welcome that approach.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Soon after the pandemic began, the Prime Minister said:
“people who have worked hard for this country, who live and work here should have support of one kind or another”.
The no recourse to public funds condition meant that many got no support at all. The Select Committee on Work and Pensions has heard harrowing testimony of the hardship that resulted. Will the action plan that the Minister has announced review no recourse to public funds, which has driven ethnic disparity?
Kemi Badenoch
No, the action plan will not be looking at that. No recourse to public funds was outside the terms of reference for the commission, and the action plan is very much based within those terms of reference.
I challenge what the right hon. Gentleman says about no recourse to public funds, because it is important that we do not conflate migration and ethnicity. No recourse to public funds was based on nationality, and during the pandemic I distinctly remember, even in the Treasury, that we took many policy decisions to overcome any barriers that people might have had. I cannot speak specifically about what the Work and Pensions Committee has looked at, but I am sure officials from that Department will take those points away. If more can be done within that policy, I am sure that we will look at that, but that would fall outside my terms of reference for the Equality Hub.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The highly discredited Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities report stated that Britain “no longer” had a system that was “deliberately rigged” against black people, but as the first black MP for Liverpool, I would beg to differ. I have little faith that the “Inclusive Britain” report with its 70 practical actions will change how police powers work. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill will give more power to the police to stop and search, and it will not stop them from strip-searching young girls. Can the Minister explain in detail how local scrutiny will prevent that from happening?
Kemi Badenoch
I will continue to rebut the assertion that the report is widely discredited; it was discredited only in certain quarters, in the same way that our environmental policy will never meet the test for the likes of Insulate Britain and Extinction Rebellion. The fact is that we are doing something that will be great for the vast majority of people in this country. The report will change the way we look at race in this country. We are in government and we are taking these ambitions forward.
On her question on local scrutiny, the commission looked at the way that policing was taking place in communities. It accepted that there was a “lack of trust”—a trust deficit; I think the hon. Lady would agree with that. The commission put forward a recommendation that we will be trialling and piloting. I cannot give specific details of how that will happen, because I am not a Home Office Minister, and the actions of the police are independent and we cannot get involved in their operational decisions. If the hon. Lady has suggestions on how that can be improved or tackled, I am very willing to hear them.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am disappointed that there is not a Home Office Minister on the Treasury Bench. The Select Committee on Home Affairs report, “The Macpherson Report: twenty-one years on”, was published last summer and we have been waiting for a substantive reply to our recommendations ever since; the Government said that they wanted to deal with their response to the commission. Now that the Minister has made this statement, can she confirm that the Government will respond to our call, first for urgent action on racial disparities in law enforcement? She referred to stop and search, but it is not enough to do something just about scrutiny, as she announced in her statement. Secondly, will the Government tackle the worrying decline in confidence in the police among some ethnic minority communities? Thirdly, will they deal with the need for anti-racism training in the police, especially in the light of the horrific case of child Q, where race played a part in her treatment?
Kemi Badenoch
The right hon. Lady is right that there are actions on stop and search in criminal justice, but we are doing many different things, including improving skills training for police officers. She will find that the actions in the report will address the issues she raises. I have already made comments on the case of Child Q, which I will not repeat. I am sure Home Office Ministers will be able to respond to the questions she has specifically for them.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
In the light of the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities, I put on record my dismay and sorrow that Child Q experienced being stripped of her clothes and searched at her school by police officers. I thank the Minister for mentioning Child Q, but is she aware that she was on her menstrual cycle, which made the experience even more undignified? This morning I was shocked to hear that she was taken out of an exam by teachers and, following her ordeal, it was considered appropriate by all professionals concerned for her to return to her exam, with no consideration for her emotional wellbeing. That is one of the cruellest and most despicable things I have ever heard.
Teachers and officers failed to keep this child safe and, speaking as a former child protection social worker, I think that they have acted in the most abusive manner. They are not fit to work with children and they bring shame on their profession. This child now suffers from self-harm and is having therapy. I have fond memories of my secondary school and my teachers, but her bitter memories will remain with her for life. Will the Minister fully investigate what role the colour of Child Q’s skin played in how degradingly she was treated?
Kemi Badenoch
We are all appalled at the details that we are hearing about Child Q. As I said before, I cannot comment until a full inquiry has come out, but it is important to understand what led to the failures. They are very significant failures, if what we are hearing and all the details that are coming out are true. We have systems in place to look again, learn lessons and make sure that they are not repeated. I am sure that everyone in Government will be seeing what we can do to ensure that happens.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I have listened with great interest right from the start of the statement and to all of the questions, and two things strike me. Racism is totally abhorrent and I can completely understand why Members, especially Opposition Members, are absolutely fuming that it is not completely exterminated from our society, but I say as a scientist that we have to fix that problem via evidence and ensure that we are helping the people whom we seek to help. Does my hon. Friend accept that the evidence in the report and delivering on it is the most important thing to stamp out the evil of racism in this society?
Kemi Badenoch
I can assure my hon. Friend that that is the case. The evidence and looking underneath it at the details of what is happening is important; otherwise, how can we tell when looking at something negative that has happened to someone from an ethnic minority whether that is racism or not? In many cases, when the commission examined a case where racial discrimination was given as a reason, it found that that did not explain the disparity. One example is the difference between black African and black Caribbean students when it came to exclusion. There is a statistic that black children are more likely to be excluded from school than white children, but looking at the data, black African children, who are far more in number than black Caribbean children, are far less likely to be excluded than white children, even within the same communities, compared to black Caribbean children. They have the same skin colour. Racism does not explain that disparity. That is an example of why people need to look at the evidence and not immediately jump to a discrimination conclusion.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I am astonished that the Minister does not think that there is evidence of racial disparity in this country. She made the point that a strong early start makes all the difference. When the Government smashed up Sure Start, that made a demonstrable difference to black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, and, yes, to the deprived white communities in Britain. She is talking about putting £500 million back. Can she go back to the Treasury and say that that is totally inadequate if we are going to make a real difference? Can she go and tell the Treasury that if we want to make a difference, real money can do that?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is putting words into my mouth that I did not say and that the commission did not say. I have already disputed that. It is not true to say that we have not found any evidence for racism or racial disparity in this country; that is not the case.
Regarding the hon. Gentleman’s comment about Sure Start, I remind him that when we came into government in 2010, the country’s finances were in a dire state. His party ran down the finances of this country, and we have spent the past 10 years fixing them, which is why we are able to put more money back in the system. He is citing one particular statistic on funding. He does not, for example, mention the £14 billion increase, which is unheard of and, frankly, unprecedented in this country. We are doing what works, not just complaining because we do not want to see Conservatives do well. We are going to do well for this country, and I am very proud of what this action plan puts forward.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to take the Minister back to her statement, where she outlined that one of the most basic but also best ways to build trust is to ensure that every individual in our society knows that they will be treated fairly and not be discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that a number of black and minority ethnic children do not feel that that is the case. They do not feel that that is the case when they continue to be stopped and searched; when they hear the story of what happened to Child Q; or when they watch their community centres being raided. The Minister has mentioned that she has been out speaking to communities. I invite her to Lambeth to speak to a group of young people from my constituency, so that they can share with her their experiences of what they face day in, day out.
I commend the police in Lambeth, who are doing great work with those communities, but the fact is that there is still mistrust. The Minister outlined that the powers for scrutiny of the police will not come into effect until summer 2023 and that police training in de-escalation and conflict will not happen until autumn 2024. Please Minister, why cannot those be brought forward?
Kemi Badenoch
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She is right that we are concerned about the trust deficit and people feeling that they do not belong or are not included in this country. We have listened, and we believe that this is what is going to work.
I understand very much the story the hon. Lady is telling me about people believing that, because they are being stopped and searched and being raided—she points to the case of Child Q—they do not feel trust in the system. What we need to show is that when these actions happen, they are done fairly and that when they are not done fairly, they are investigated. A country that did not care about racism would not be tackling these issues at all; we would not be looking at them. What we want those communities to see is that we do care. That does not mean that those things will never, ever happen, but that when they do happen the process is fair.
I am very happy to come and explain the policy to the young people in Lambeth; as the hon. Lady knows, I used to live in Brixton, near her, so I know the community very well. I am very happy to take up any opportunity I have, as a black woman in the Government, to explain to people all we are doing and how that is going to work for them.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am really astonished that there is so little reference to policing in the Minister’s statement today. It was the actions of police in the US that sparked the protests here and led to the commissioning of the Sewell report. Trust and confidence in policing are absolutely fundamental to communities feeling safe and secure, and that is foundational for addressing disadvantage and racial disparity in every other area of life. Yet my constituents see racism and racial disparity in the actions of police, whether in the use of stop and search, deaths in custody or—this week—in the grotesque case of Child Q, which is all the more appalling because it is not the only example.
What action is the Minister taking in the action plan to address the transformation in the culture of our policing, which is so desperately needed to address racial disparity?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady said that the report was set up because of what happened in the US; I really have to stress to the House that we are not the United States and we cannot assume that the problems there are exactly the same as the ones here. That is why the commission investigated what was happening in the United Kingdom and made recommendations based on what is happening in the United Kingdom. It is really important that we understand the difference; in so many things that I see and read, people are conflating what is happening in other countries with what is happening here. Our police are not routinely armed, which makes a huge difference when it comes to our statistics. I have seen four statistics on deaths in custody that are based on US stats. There is a lot in the report that will help improve policing, but it is based on evidence from this country, not just on what is happening on social media and Twitter.
The fact is that the mothers of children who die as a result of knife and gun crime do not dislike stop and search. They want to see more of it—they want communities to be policed properly. That is what we are going to be doing. If the hon. Lady looks at the worst statistic in the report—that black children are 24 times more likely to die of a homicide than white children; this is not race crime—she will find that we need stop and search in communities, to help stop those types of crime.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
The Sewell report states that when we include more minority ethnic history in our curriculum, children from those backgrounds identify themselves as part of British history. I have been proud to work with footballer Troy Deeney, who the Minister will know is the driving force behind taking the knee in the premier league, on his new campaign, #HistoryUntold, which would mandate—not model—a history curriculum that reflects our society. In Wales, the Lib Dem Education Minister in the last Government did that. We are asking for this to be the case in England. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Education? Would she like to back Troy’s campaign today?
Kemi Badenoch
I do not know the details of Troy’s campaign but I can say that the model history curriculum has been drawn up in conjunction with the Department for Education. We think it is the right way to teach history in a super-diverse country such as ours. That is why we are moving beyond the very broad categories such as BAME. We have a very complex society and a model history curriculum will allow us to tailor history depending on the school and community, and ensure that people feel included in the history of the United Kingdom.
Points of Order
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier this morning, a Minister was asked to come to the House to answer an urgent question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) about the consolidation and closure of Department for Work and Pensions offices.
I stood to ask the Minister a question because we had seen a published list of closures and consolidations. Nowhere on that list was West Dunbartonshire mentioned. I was thankful for that because such office closures would be a dreadful imposition on my community and those who work for the Department in my constituency. Nevertheless, a publication has now come out via The Mirror, which highlights Glasgow, Radnor House, Clydebank. With all due respect to the Minister and the Department for Work and Pensions, Clydebank has never been, is not, and will never be—with all due respect to that great city—part of Glasgow.
I want the Minister to come here and tell me why the Department has failed to inform me, as a Member whose constituency this is impacting. Why have I not received an email that we were all told we would receive at 1 o’clock? May I have clarity from you, Madam Deputy Speaker, about how I go about that? Alternatively, will the Minister come and give an explanation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As he will know, it is incumbent on Members, including Ministers, to correct the record if they provide incorrect information to the House. It is also important that, if Ministers are informing Members and others about events in constituencies, they inform everybody who is relevant. I am confident that the hon. Gentleman’s point will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench, who will feed back what he has said. If a correction is required, or further information should be sent to the hon. Gentleman, I am confident that that will be forthcoming.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members representing port constituencies, not least in northern England, will be shocked at the news being reported about DP World, which owns P&O Ferries, suspending services this morning, sacking 800 P&O workers immediately by pre-recorded video message, and replacing them with agency staff.
I understand from the RMT union that those agency staff, mainly from overseas, are in buses on the quayside, while members of a security firm, hired by DP World and wearing balaclavas, are taking British crew off these ships. This is shameful and goes against all norms of fair and reasonable behaviour. It is clear that foreign ratings will be employed on terms less favourable than those applying to current UK seafarers. This is about a race to the bottom on terms and conditions, reminiscent of the worst Thatcherite policies.
Of course, the UK seafarers being removed from those ships battled through the pandemic to keep P&O afloat, and the company received taxpayers’ support. This action will also have a major economic impact on places such as the Humber. Further to the comments of Mr Speaker in Transport questions earlier, will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, please indicate whether the Secretary of State for Transport, who at this very moment is tweeting his concern about what is going on with P&O, will come to the House this afternoon to make an emergency statement about the actions of P&O?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order, and I completely understand the deep concern that she has expressed. We have had an indication that there will be a statement at 5 pm on this extremely important issue because the Secretary of State wishes to inform the House about the latest position, and I am sure she will be here then. I hope that that is helpful.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you have had any notice from the Department for Education—and, if you have not, what Members could do about it—regarding a statement on the treatment of Tony Sewell. He was commissioned by the Government to produce a report, which he dutifully did, only to be—I put it in these terms without exaggeration—persecuted by his old university, Nottingham. As several Members have said today, it is vital for the Government to make their position clear on behaviour of that kind on the part of a public body such as the University of Nottingham.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but we have just heard a statement on this issue, and I rather believe that he raised some of these matters then. However, I am sure that the Ministers on the Treasury Bench have heard his comments, and if there are further statements forthcoming—although, as I have said, we have just heard a statement on this issue—I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, who is a long-standing Member of the House, knows that there are various ways in which he can raise issues should he wish to do so. If he does not have that information to hand, the Table Office will no doubt be pleased to advise him on the different points that can be made.
Education Catch-Up Programme
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Robert Halfon will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Robert Halfon to respond to them in turn. May I emphasise, as I did last week, that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not to the relevant Minister? Interventions should be questions, and should be brief; they should not be long statements. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
I call the Chair of the Education Committee, Robert Halfon.
1.42 pm
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank you and the Backbench Business Committee for giving me a chance to make a statement on the Committee’s new report, entitled “Is the Catch-up Programme fit for purpose?” I also thank the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). It seems a bit like groundhog day, because we have spent the last few weeks debating this subject, and we did so in the Committee just last Tuesday. I want to give a special mention to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), who is an incredibly hard-working member of the Committee, and to thank her for being here today.
Let me begin by paying tribute to all the teachers and support staff, not just in my constituency but around the country, who have done everything possible to keep children learning, and to the children and young people themselves, who have had to deal with extremely difficult circumstances. I only wish that the chair of the covid inquiry had not forgotten to mention the word “children” in the draft terms of reference; I hope that that will change.
To date, the Government have spent almost £5 billion on the catch-up programme, which I warmly welcome, but, as our report points out, more targeted efforts are needed to help our children to recover from the pandemic. The impacts of school closures were devastating for most of them. Many now face an epidemic of educational inequality, a widening attainment gap, worsening mental health, an increase in their safeguarding risks, and an adverse effect on their lifetime chances. One study found that children locked down at home spent an average of two and a half hours each day doing school work, but one fifth of pupils did no learning at home, or less than one hour each day.
Our report sets out four key findings. First, it notes that disadvantaged pupils have been the worst hit. The Education Policy Institute told us that disadvantaged pupils could be
“five, six, seven—in the worst case scenarios—eight months behind”
their most affluent peers. There are regional inequalities too. By the second half of the autumn term in 2020, the average learning loss in maths for primary schools was 5.3 months in Yorkshire and the Humber, compared with just 0.5 months in the south-west.
By March 2021, the national tutoring programme, the Department’s flagship programme, had reached 100% of its target in the south-west, but just 58% in the north-east, 59% in the north-west, and 60% in my region of the east. These regional disparities should not be occurring.
Secondly, rates of persistent absence remain high, but without up-to-date data from the Department we do not know how many “ghost children” continue to experience severe levels of absence. In December, the Department announced that rates of persistent absence had risen to 16.3% in secondary schools in the autumn of 2020. That equates to almost 502,000 of the 3 million secondary-age pupils. I strongly support the work of the Children’s Commissioner in this regard. Her new report suggests that 124,000 children were severely absent last year. However, we do not yet have the Department’s official absence figures even for the summer term of 2021. Without that data, we risk creating an Oliver Twist generation of children, lost to the system forever.
Thirdly, Randstad and the national tutoring programme are not delivering for the most disadvantaged pupils. Our inquiry found that the NTP had reached just 15% of its overall target. Some headteachers described the “bureaucratic nightmare” of navigating Randstad’s tuition hub, and said that there was a “lack of communication” with schools about the programme. Concerningly, Randstad has also reportedly removed the requirement to reach 65% of children eligible for the pupil premium from its tutoring contracts with providers.
On Friday, the Secretary of State announced that the Department had agreed to publish mid-term data on the performance of the NTP, and that the £65 million originally allocated to the tutor and academic mentor NTP pillars would now go directly to the school-led tutoring arm. We strongly support that move, which we called for in our recommendations. I believe that all the money should have gone to schools, because they would have known how best to spend it, and could have been judged on the outcome.
Figures published by Randstad, mentioned by the Department, suggest that more than 1 million young people have now started tutoring courses, but there are questions to be asked about those figures. For instance, 311,000 of these new starts were made in the previous academic year, when the previous contractor, EEF, was leading the roll-out of the NTP. In total, only 720,000 new starts have been made this academic year, according to the statistics. Moreover, Randstad has revealed that about one in six pupils are enrolled on multiple courses, and are therefore double-counted. Of course I am pleased that more young people are accessing the help and support that they need to catch up on their lost learning, but much greater effort is required to target that support at those who need it the most. The Government must ensure that Randstad shapes up. They have made some changes, but if things do not improve dramatically they must cancel the Randstad contract.
Finally, the Department needs to do more to support young people’s mental health. Our Committee heard that the number of children referred for mental health support in 2020 represented an increase of nearly 60% in comparison with 2018. The impact of social media was especially concerning. Research shows that, just last year, 16.7% of 11 to 16-year-olds using social media agreed that it had had a negative impact on their wellbeing. One in three girls said that they were unhappy with their personal appearance by the age of 14, and 78% of Barnardo’s practitioners reported that children aged 11 to 15 had accessed unsuitable or harmful content through social media. These are worrying trends. Our report asks an important question: how can we ensure that the catch-up programme delivers for the most disadvantaged?
First, we need more reliable and up-to-date data to establish the full effect of the pandemic on children and young people. This data must include regional breakdowns, and must pay due regard to disadvantage and special educational needs. Greater statistical transparency is also needed on the performance of Randstad and the NTP.
Secondly, we need to end the spaghetti junction, as we call it, of catch-up funding. It is a fragmented catch-up programme with complex and bureaucratic funding applications that schools have to navigate. Teachers know their pupils best, and our report recommends that the funding schemes are simplified and merged into one pot for schools to access and spend where the recovery need is greatest. Any future initiative should direct funding to schools using existing mechanisms for disadvantage, such as pupil premium eligibility. Then, schools should be held accountable for how they spend the funds on improvements for the children.
Thirdly, the Department should launch a pilot scheme in the country’s most disadvantaged areas to explore the benefits that a longer school day—in terms of extracurricular activity such as sport, music and drama—could bring to pupils’ educational attainment and mental health recovery. The Minister will know that there is a wealth of statistics to show that such extra activities improve both the mental health of children and their educational attainment. This is topical, given that we have heard mention of the online harms Bill. The Government should introduce a social media levy on the profits of social media companies. That could be distributed to schools to support better online harm and mental health resilience training. For example, from a 2% levy, the Government could raise £100 million, which could be spent on resilience for children. It would certainly concentrate the minds of the social media companies.
Finally, the Department for Education should take really urgent steps to address the issue of persistent and severe absence by working with schools and local authorities proactively and appointing attendance practitioners to work with parents, local authorities and schools to return these children safely and quickly into school. There are 13,000 children missing in year 11, a crucial exam year. The most disadvantaged schools have the equivalent of a whole classroom missing. Dramatic action must be taken by the Department to get these so-called ghost children back into school and learning again.
Education catch-up must be for the long term. If the Department is to make the case to the Treasury that the programme is making a difference and if it is to get more funding for the future, it has to prove that the programme is providing value for money for the taxpayer with the existing funds and also, most importantly, that the catch-up programme is really working for the most disadvantaged pupils. Education should be the cornerstone for levelling up, and every avenue should be taken to extend the ladder of opportunity to every child. Charles Dickens wrote of
“so many things forgotten, and so many more which might have been repaired”.
If we are to ensure the catch-up is fit for purpose and to the benefit of every child, we must act to fix it now.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his statement. We have often worked on issues in our constituencies that share similarities. I agree with him about the spaghetti junction of the funding. How does he think we can support the Government in unravelling this spaghetti junction and recognising, as he said, that schools are the only people to be able to lead this recovery, with the proper governance structures? Can we do more to help?
Robert Halfon
I was pleased to visit the hon. Lady’s constituency when I was the Skills Minister and to go to her wonderful FE college. As I said earlier, and as we say in our report, the Government say that they believe in school autonomy, so why not ensure that the funds go direct to the schools so that they can spend them on the catch-up programme as they see fit? The Government need to look at long-term reform of the pupil premium to ensure that it reflects the long-term disadvantaged, but why not give it to the schools and then look at the metrics to see how the children are improving in terms of the catch-up? When they need to intervene and offer support, they can do so. At the moment, there are different funding streams and it is incredibly difficult and bureaucratic for the schools to deal with these funds. It just makes life complicated. As we know, the Randstad part of these strands is not working properly, despite significant amounts of taxpayers’ money being put into it.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
It is a real privilege to serve under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on the Education Committee. As we know, Kevan Collins recommended £15 billion to meet the needs of catch-up, and the £5 billion that is available falls far short of that. The fact is that the national tutoring programme is failing to meet pupils’ needs at the moment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the contract needs to be terminated as soon as possible?
Robert Halfon
I am very close to saying yes, the contract should be terminated. We have said that Randstad should perhaps be given one last chance. The Government made some changes last Friday, but if they announced today that they were terminating the contract with Randstad, I would certainly not be upset. I suspect that most teachers and support staff would not be upset either. I have always worked for more funding for schools, and I absolutely get that there is a debate about more money, but my point is that, if the Department goes for more money when the £5 billion it has already been given is not working properly, not giving kids what they need and not giving the taxpayer value for money, how can the Department go to the Treasury and say that actually it should be £10 billion or £15 billion if the existing money is not being used to get it right?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Minister, Matt Western.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank the Chair and the Select Committee for putting together this report. This is clearly not my specialist subject, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from last week, but it is clearly not Randstad’s either. The entire programme is, as the tutoring providers have said, shambolic and at risk of catastrophic failure. Having sat on Select Committees, I appreciate how words are carefully chosen and I see that the report states on page 30:
“It is not clear that the National Tutoring Programme will deliver for the pupils that need it most.”
Sometimes words get argued over. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could elaborate on that. As I understand it, the requirement that 65% of places should be allocated to children on the pupil premium was dropped. Could he explain a bit more on that?
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. On the first point, it is not just our report saying this; the Department for Education itself said in its December report that there were significant problems with the catch-up programme. It is quoted in the report. He may have been reading the direct quote from the Department. I forget whether that was the exact quote, but there was one from the Department itself saying that there were significant problems with the catch-up. I beg his pardon, but what was his second point?
Robert Halfon
I have been worried about this, and I have raised it with the Minister on the Floor of the House and in the Select Committee. The Minister has said that that target remains, although there is some flexibility in terms of some of the tutoring groups. I am absolutely clear that the catch-up programme should reach the most disadvantaged. My worry is that it is not, and we will continue to press the Government and make sure that it does.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Select Committee Chair for his statement and for answering the questions put to him.
Bill Presented
Online Safety Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Nadine Dorries, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Dominic Raab, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Sajid Javid, Chris Philp, Julia Lopez and Mr Damian Hinds presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the regulation by OFCOM of certain internet services; for and in connection with communications offences; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 285).
Ordered, That the Explanatory Notes relating to the Bill be printed (Bill 285—EN).
Backbench Business
Irish Diaspora in Britain
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Irish diaspora in Britain.
Lá fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh, a Leas-Chean Comhairle. Happy St Patrick’s day to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to everyone. That is the hard bit of my speech done. It is worth recording that, while there are around 600,000 people who declare themselves to be Irish living in Great Britain, the true figure, if we look at those who are first and second generation, is probably something like 10% of the population of this country—some 6 million people. There should be 60-plus MPs here today on that basis. Alas, there are not. In fact, there are proportionally more Britons living in Ireland than there are Irish living in Britain, which is an interesting statistic. I say that because we have a very complicated relationship between our two islands, and a complicated history that has been interwoven over not just a few hundred years but thousands of years, from St Patrick travelling one way and St Columba travelling another way.
Those of us who have some claim to an Irish background are very proud of that background. I grew up in the very Irish city of Manchester, and in an Irish part of that city, listening to Radio Eireann at breakfast every morning. It is instructive that I knew as much about the tallyman’s projections for an Irish election, and that I knew, long before it had been declared, that the last seat in Donegal would go Fianna Fáil, as it virtually always did. Even better, I knew at least the advertised prescription for worming cows.
I never used that piece of information but, nevertheless, it has held me in good stead.
Manchester was a very Irish city, and the Irish were everywhere. One of the players who died in the Munich air crash, Billy Whelan, was Irish, and one of the heroes was Northern Ireland’s goalkeeper Harry Gregg, who dragged people—Bobby Charlton among them—from the ruins of the plane, for which he became a legend. He was a legend on the football field, too, because a few months previously he had helped Northern Ireland to defeat England. Northern Ireland went on to play in the 1958 World cup.
When Manchester United won the European cup in 1968, slightly after Celtic—that team was partly Irish, too—four of its players, Shay Brennan, Tony Dunne, the very Scottish but very Irish Pat Crerand and, of course, the great George Best claimed Irish origins. The Irish in Manchester could not be ignored.
The image of the Irish in those days was of builders and nurses, which was true to a degree. My good friend John Kennedy, who is known to many hon. Members, came from County Mayo with nothing in his pocket and built a business that has allowed him, as an older man, to be a philanthropist. My equally good friend Rita Maher—God rest her soul—probably nursed more people back to life, and towards the end of their life, than I had mugs of tea in her kitchen.
They are the archetypal working-class Irish, but it would be a mistake to see the Irish as just that, even though there are 200,000 Irish people working in our NHS—the Irish are much more than that. Robert Boyle, the father of modern chemistry, was Irish-born but lived long parts of his life in England. Britain’s greatest general and the victor at Waterloo, the Duke of Wellington, was Dublin-born. The Brontë sisters are famed Yorkshire women writers, but their father was from Northern Ireland. Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw had Irish backgrounds and contributed to British society. I am proud to say that Denis Healey and Jim Callaghan were both of Irish origins. More recently, Danny Boyle, Caroline Aherne and Professor Teresa Lambe, one of the co-creators of the AstraZeneca vaccine, are all from Irish backgrounds.
The contribution is much wider than the image of builders and nurses. “McAlpine’s Fusiliers” declares:
“As down the glen came McAlpine’s men
With their shovels slung behind them”.
Nevertheless, we have doctors, lawyers, accountants and academics, everything the Irish contribute to this country. It is great to be able to record that.
These two islands have a complicated history that has caused problems. Although there is no doubt that the north of Ireland suffered most during the troubles, no part of these two islands did not suffer—my own city was bombed by the IRA in the late 1990s. The Good Friday agreement was a triumph not just for Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair, although their perseverance was instrumental in making it work, but for the many others who brought it into being. It was so important because it was not just about peace or even reconciliation; it was about a very different way of living together. It was about mutual respect between the people of these two islands, which is worth recording because the Good Friday agreement has taken a knock in recent years.
This is not the right time to rerun the Brexit debate, but Brexit has confounded and confused the relationship between these two countries. It has had an impact on the Irish living in Britain. We have to get back to getting it right. We owe it not simply to the Irish in Britain or to Britons in Ireland; we owe it to all our people to get it right once again. That is the big prize we have to pursue because, in the end, mutual respect is what we should be about.
Brian Dalton of Irish in Britain, who is alas stricken with covid—good luck to you, Brian—would say that the challenges facing the Irish in Britain are, of course, about making sure we live well together, but we face some challenges in common, such as dementia in an ageing Irish population and heart conditions in an Irish population whose diet in their youth probably was not always good. We face these things together.
It is about recognising Irish heritage and what it means in modern society, but there is something more important. The 6 million people of Irish origins are the template for this mongrel nation of ours. I say that with pride, because we are a mongrel nation brought together from many different strands. It is the template for how we treat and respect each other. If we can use the Irish in Britain as the template for how we respect heritage and how we respect each other, we will achieve something important for modern Britain and for the relationship between our two islands.
I am proud to be part of the hand-me-down Irish diaspora, and I am proud that colleagues are here to speak on this tremendously important issue. I am proud because the Irish in Britain represent the best of modern Britain, as do all those who weave the tapestry of what we are as a nation.
May the blessings of St Patrick be with us all this day, and may the blessings of St Patrick—I say this wearing a shamrock and a Ukraine badge on my lapel—be with the people of Ukraine, too. The peace we want between these two islands is the peace we want around the world.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my near constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd). I agree with every word he said.
To be bluntly honest, when I thought about what I wanted to say in this debate I was thinking about my dad and my memories of him. When we talk about the Irish diaspora in Britain, we do not see ourselves as different. The Irish diaspora is part of our everyday life. An estimated 6 million people in the UK have an Irish grandparent, which means people will probably have some form of relationship with somebody with an Irish grandparent—they will see them in the shops or at their place of work. We see the Irish diaspora, Irish history and Irish culture every single day.
I could not be prouder of coming from an Irish Catholic background. On my dad’s side, I have two Irish grandparents, Frank and Molly, who came to this country in the 1920s. My dad and his sisters would tell me stories of their early experiences in Lockwood when they first came to live in Huddersfield as native Gaelic speakers. They vividly remembered the abuse, the insults and how they were treated. My dad always told me the story of how his mum once had a bucket of water poured over her head from a house window while she walked down the street. Those early pioneers, certainly in my family, had to go through terribly difficult times, and I am very proud of everything they achieved. The fact that they took the step to come over here to find a job or to make a better life means that I am stood here, and my cousins are all over the country doing whatever they are doing in their lives. I am pleased to say they are all positive, lovely people, and their Irish heritage touches every person they meet, which is a wonderful thing.
On my mum’s side, my great-grandfather John was born in Athlone in Westmeath. He came over here, to Bradford, in the 1870s, so this migration is not just from the ‘20s to the ‘50s; it goes back over many years. He married a Yorkshire lady. Again, without those roots and without people being brave enough to come over here to a place and a country they did not know, without friends, in many circumstances, many of us would not be able to have the lives we have today. When I look at the contribution of the Irish diaspora in Britain, I think it is everything; there are no negatives and there is nothing else to say. Every part of our life as a nation has a little bit of Irish heritage and history within it, because we are all part of a wider story.
Sometimes the best way to elicit and highlight a point in this place is not by going on Google to find out facts, but by speaking from personal experience about the things that people have been through and how they shape the country that we are and the one we want to be. In my youth, I always used to hear stories in my family about Gerald Paddy Slavin—I am looking at the hon. Member for Rochdale, as he may not know this—who came over to Huddersfield, to Longwood, in the 1930s. He is my great uncle—the brother of my grandma—and was born in Aughnacloy. He came across, got a job, worked hard, got married and looked after his family. He served on HMS Nelson during the second world war as a gunner. He was a true hero and a man who served the nations of Great Britain and Ireland in every possible way.
When he was in the Army, he decided, or it may have been decided for him, that boxing was the thing for him, so a man who had worked in the mills of Huddersfield and brought up a family—a respectable man—in 1948 fought in Belfast for the heavyweight title of Ireland. He became the heavyweight champion of Ireland, and went on to fight Don Cockell, Brian London and various other people. Within my family and my personal experience of people who have come over to this country and been part of a wider story, here was not only a heavyweight champion, a man who fought the great boxers of the era, but a man who was a respectable, kind, caring father—a good man. Those qualities sum up my experience of the Irish diaspora in Britain. The Irish community where I grew up in Huddersfield, who were a central part of that town’s identity, could tell endless stories about what things were like in Huddersfield and I am sure that there are similarities with what was happening in Manchester.
I could not be more proud of the contribution made by Irish people, over many hundreds of years and continuing to this day. I am lucky enough to have that heritage, and these opportunities, from my relatives who came over from Westmeath in the 1870s. To my grandad Frank, the idea that he would have a Conservative MP as his grandson would be mind-blowing. When they are all looking down, I hope that when they see me, my cousins and all the rest of the family—this applies to everyone, all over the country, who is lucky enough to have Irish heritage—they will say that there was a complicated history, which we could talk about forever, and there were challenges and some awful times, but the sacrifices they made created opportunities for us, which we are enjoying today. I will be forever grateful.
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Like all Members, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for securing this debate, which is possibly the first Backbench Business debate in this Chamber to focus specifically on the Irish in Britain. I have known him for more than 25 years and am acutely aware of his political skills, but to secure this debate on St Patrick’s Day, in the middle of the Cheltenham festival, which is promising another greenwash of wins for Irish trainers, and following the biggest Irish victory in Twickenham history says something about his tacit political skills of timing; it is an extraordinary gift and we appreciate it today, with this debate. On acknowledgments, I should also stress the role of my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), whom I know will be immensely proud to be replying for our party this afternoon. He performs incalculable work on behalf of the Irish in Britain today and wider UK-Irish relations. He does a great job, and long may it continue.
This is undoubtedly an important debate, allowing us to demonstrate our support for the Irish in Britain, and how the Irish are recognised and valued as a core part of British society, fundamental to its economic and cultural life. As has been said, that cannot be expressed simply in a numbers game of Irish nationals in the UK, given the countless millions of second and third-generation Irish who have shaped the character of this country, informed by their family identity, culture and heritage. Yet the importance of this debate goes beyond general statements of support, partly because it is more personal for those children of Irish immigrants, brought up within Irish families in this country, who have become Members of this Parliament. Let me give full disclosure: my family come from Donegal. My wife sits in the other place, and her family come from Mayo and Galway. They all came over in the 1950s, for reasons of work. Many of us also represent communities with very strong Irish traditions and cultures.
Much debate of this debate might well focus in on the needs of the Irish community in this country. Undoubtedly that is correct, given that, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, an estimated 10,000 Irish in England may be suffering from dementia and that death by suicide is disproportionately high in this community, as are some of the effects of cancer-related diseases. Those are all vital issues, but today is also an opportunity to highlight not just the community’s needs, but the fundamental contribution of the Irish in creating and shaping Britain’s economy and society over many decades. That extends throughout Britain and throughout this city—it is not confined to Brent, Camden and Islington. Dagenham, 13 miles from our debate, is a good example of that. For it is impossible to understand Dagenham without an intimate appreciation of patterns of Irish migration in the creation of community, which is a story played out over many decades and one that is still strong today.
I am fortunate to be writing a history of my community, and 7 November 2021 marked the 100th anniversary of the birth of modern Dagenham. Exactly 100 years earlier, the first house was completed on the Becontree estate; 27,000 new homes, containing over 100,000 residents and spread over 4 square miles of marshland, would follow by 1935; this was the largest council estate in the world. In 1931, the Ford Motor Company relocated from Manchester’s Trafford Park to Dagenham. The site offered deep-water port access, allowing for bulk coal and steel shipments on a much larger scale than the Manchester Ship Canal did. The 475 acre riverside site became Europe’s largest car plant, with 4 million square feet of floor space. By 1953, it employed 40,000 direct workers, and 11 million vehicles and over 40 million engines have rolled off the line.
I raise that because when the plant first opened in 1931 so many men from Leeside in Cork got work there that some oral histories suggest that the county accent predominated on the factory floor. Later in the ‘30s, when tractor manufacturing in Cork was terminated and transferred to Dagenham, thousands more followed. When these Cork migrants returned for a holiday, with their trendy clothes and money, they were affectionately known as “Dagenham Yanks”. It was the beginning of a link between the two places that remains as strong today—it is an industrial link that uprooted Irish villages and planted them into what was then Europe’s largest factory and on to its largest estate. That pattern of migration continued throughout the whole of the last century; estimates suggest that well over 10,000 Irish migrants have worked for Ford in Dagenham over the years, laying down strong local roots and family connections.
One of the few private estates in Dagenham, the Rylands estate, just opposite the factory gates, was literally built to house thousands of Cork Ford workers. In the 1940s and 1950s, thousands more Dagenham Yanks were attracted to the expanding assembly plants. When the engine plant that Ford retained with Dunlop in Cork closed in 1983, many thousands more came across the water throughout the ‘80s. The social impact of this migration has been immense not least in the promotion of Irish culture and heritage. In the local pubs and drinking clubs, such as O’Gradys, the Casa and, right outside the plant gates, the Mill House Social Club, Dagenham was known as Little Cork, a place of tripe and drisheen, spiced beef, Beamish and Murphy’s. The term “Murfia” was coined to describe the Corkonian-controlled network of work and political connections, patterns of family and kinship, and extensive cultural, sporting and faith-based communities.
Local Gaelic Athletic Association clubs flourished, and there was a deep-rooted connection between the Ford paint shop and Tomas McCurtain’s GAA club. This was partly the product of an Offaly man named Bill Flanagan, who supervised paint contractors and was always eager to hire good hurlers and footballers for McCurtain’s. Many of them originated from Dromina in County Cork, through the influence of the legendary Timmy O’Sullivan, a main contractor who relocated half the village. Sadly, he died in 2014, but he is still a legendary figure. He even convinced the Cork hurling team, including Christy Ring, to travel over to play McCurtain’s in the ’60s, and Bertie Ahern regularly came down to present jerseys.
The wider character of Dagenham was informed by the GAA, the pipe bands, the Irish language classes, the music and the dancing, and they have remained enduring features of the Dagenham culture for decades. I make these points not out of some sense of romantic nostalgia but to acknowledge the extraordinary economic, social and cultural contribution of the Irish community in Dagenham and its wider role in powering manufacturing across this city and the manufacturing economy of the country over many decades. The Irish were indispensable in the creation of our community in Dagenham, which has helped to define the industrial history of this country and this city.
Locally, things have changed—car assembly finished in the early 2000s—but this debate speaks to what is being made in Dagenham today, with new industries emerging that promise once again to strengthen the economic links between the two countries. For instance, Hackman Capital Partners—the owner of what will be the largest film and TV studio in London when it opens in Dagenham in a few years—has just acquired two Irish film studios, in Wicklow and Limerick.
In recent years, Irish migration has slowed, yet the community retains a strong Irish identity, with extraordinary numbers of second and third-generation Irish alongside a healthy number of older Irish residents, who are well represented in the churches, the union branches and groups such as the Irish Pensioners Forum of East London, a social and cultural group for older Irish people partly funded by the Emigrant Support Programme, which does some fantastic work for communities up and down this country. Such networks of support, advice and kinship—in the local clubs, societies and groups—have been critical in the response to covid. The sense of fraternity that is the hallmark of the Irish in Dagenham has really been a blessing for us.
Today’s debate gives me the opportunity to acknowledge, in Dagenham’s 100th year, the role of the Irish in the creation and sustaining of Dagenham. They remain a cornerstone of the local community. I have told just one story to illustrate the indispensable quality of the Irish community in this country, which we can honour and treasure today.
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
I am grateful to be called, Leas-Cheann Comhairle—Madam Deputy Speaker—and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for not only securing the debate but stealing my thunder: his Gaelic pronunciation is a wee bit better than mine. As a vice-chair of the all-party group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain, I am delighted to be here. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, are also a member of the group and that you work with its chair, the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn).
As someone with probably one of the longest Irish names in history—Máirtín Seán O’Dochartaigh-Aodha—it would have been remiss of me not to have participated in this debate. I am a grandchild of Irish immigrants on my father’s side and have Irish great-grandparents on my mother’s side. Sarah Timlin—a very uncommon name in Mayo, if not in the whole of Ireland—was from Ballinglen in County Mayo, and John Doherty was from Stralongford, which is literally a big long road between Letterkenny and Convoy in County Donegal. A strange and complex family, just like the story of our heritage across these islands. Sarah and John met in Scotland and married back in County Mayo. Further back, Sarah’s big brother fell on the western front the week before the armistice was signed.
John’s family from Donegal—well, that is a completely different matter altogether. Let me say something about the complexity of John’s life when he came to Scotland. He was brought up by a single parent. His mother Ellen had 15 children and was designated in the 1901 census as illiterate—a stigma—because she only ever spoke Irish. Although she may have been illiterate in English, which she never spoke, she was able to bring up 15 children singlehandedly on a farm in the middle of Donegal in the early 1900s. Most of her children survived birth—unlike a lot of children at the time—and many went to the United States. I now have a lot of family around Philadelphia and in New York. Luckily for me, my relatives made their life in Clydebank.
I wish to say a few words about the heritage and sporting activity of the Irish diaspora not only in my community but across these islands, and specifically in Scotland. This year, the Gaelic Athletic Association celebrates 125 years of existence in Scotland. It is now based in the Clydebank community sports hub in Whitecrook, which has a rather large Irish diaspora. I was delighted that Minister Seán Fleming TD from the Dáil Eireann came from the Oireachtas yesterday to visit the GAA in Scotland, although I was sadly not able to attend myself.
I am grateful that on St Patrick’s day back in 2016 the House highlighted and supported my recognition of St Patrick as a guy fae West Dunbartonshire. At least as far back as the 13th century, Jocelyn of Furness wrote in his stories of the Celtic saints about Patrick being born in what we now know was a Roman fort in the village of Old Kilpatrick, where the well was reopened in the 1930s. Sadly, it is not like Knock these days—there are not thousands of folk coming for a shrine—but Members are more than welcome to come to Old Kilpatrick and taste the waters.
In modern times, there is Irish heritage through the industrial revolution not only in Dumbarton but throughout the shipbuilding in Clydebank. The Twitter feed of West Dunbartonshire Arts and Heritage reminded me today that the ships the Carrowdore, the Clarecastle and the Clareisland were all built in Scots shipyards in the village of Bowling by the Guinness family, for one reason: to ship Guinness fae Dublin straight to the heart of Glasgow and across the whole of Scotland.
Only last week, we commemorated the 81st anniversary of the worst aerial bombardment in the history of these islands: the Clydebank blitz of March 1941. The Irish diaspora were very much part of the rebuilding of Clydebank and the fight against national socialism, which crossed all communities, even in the difficulties of the 1940s. It was a very proud moment.
I am mindful that in the past five years the West Dunbartonshire Council administration took the unusual but welcome step to recognise the connections between West Dunbartonshire and Letterkenny, with the signing of the first ever friendship agreement between a Scottish local authority and an Irish local authority. I was delighted to be there to welcome the then mayor of Letterkenny—who was related, which was great.
It is not always a great story. As the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, I have to be mindful of the fact that for an Irish Traveller, St Patrick’s day is tinged with sadness, and of the challenges that the Irish Traveller community face across these islands in terms of their ethnicity and lived experience. I hope the Minister will take cognisance of that.
In summing up, let me perhaps ask a question of the Minister. It is appropriate that we mention today the complexity and history of these islands, which is an opportunity to build on the strength of diversity and for Governments across these islands to work together, as was noted in the St Andrew’s agreement. When the Minister sums up, will she give the House an idea of progress on an Irish language Act in the context of the new deal, and of opportunities to support and promote the Irish language in Northern Ireland?
Perhaps there is something to learn from Scotland, where the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act was introduced in 2005 by the then Labour Administration in Holyrood and unanimously supported. My own Government in Holyrood are now bringing forward a Scots language plan to develop a guid Scots leid. There is also an opportunity when it comes to Ulster Scots. The diversity of language is a great opportunity for the whole island of Ireland and, of course, the whole of these islands, to recognise the strength of diversity in language and culture.
I again thank the hon. Member for Rochdale for securing this debate.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
I rise proudly to speak as the vice-chair of both the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly and the all-party group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for securing this debate.
In 2018, I spoke in one of the Brexit debates on the eve of St Patrick’s Day. I said then that, although we did not know where St Patrick was from, we knew that he was probably not Irish, but he did wander and roam across much of these islands. I also talked then about the Bristol merchants who, under Henry II, went to Dublin in 1171 to defend Dublin castle and were rewarded with the establishment of trading posts between Bristol and Dublin. The point is that the movement of people, trading to deliver economic prosperity, is what has fashioned our political relationships across these islands for centuries, and today is no different. In so many other respects, though, today is so very different and thank goodness for that.
My own parents were part of the post-war ’50s exodus of young people from rural Ireland to London. Their older siblings had to come, but my parents came for the craic, because, frankly, it was a lot more fun here than it was in rural Mayo or Cavan. We all know that they faced some challenges, but what fantastic opportunities England gave to them and has given to us, no more so than, in one generation, my being elected here as an English MP, of which the entire family is enormously proud.
Here in Britain, that post-war community established support networks. Since the 1970s, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, the work of Irish in Britain, as an umbrella organisation, has supported individuals and groups throughout the country. Colleagues can check on its website, but, on average, there are at least 1,000 Irish people in each of our constituencies. The charity supports culture, heritage and health. I and the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), who is in her place, proudly supported the Green Hearts campaign a couple of years ago.
The post-war exodus was facilitated by the common travel area—loosely defined, securing centuries-old exports of Ireland’s youth to the powering of Britain’s economy between the then separated countries in 1922. Covid has highlighted for most of us many, many difficulties, but, for me, effectively losing the common travel area was particularly difficult. Trying to visit my older family members, some in care homes, across the border in Cavan and in Northern Ireland with different rules, added needless bureaucracy, cost and stress to thousands of families. We were an afterthought for the Government in Dublin, and it took them a long time to listen to the pressure from us here and through the embassy here in London as they tried to balance their responsibilities to their greatest and oldest neighbour with their responsibilities within the European Union. This will continue to be difficult—we understand that. As we heard last week, Ministers mistakenly suggested that Ireland and the common travel area is an unchecked backdoor to Britain; it is not. None the less, we say to both Governments that, as the diaspora, we will continue to roam freely across these islands, and both Governments need to learn from our experience the social, political and economic benefits of the CTA.
Ireland has changed beyond recognition with membership of the European Union. I want to highlight briefly one area of particular importance that is joyful for me, which is women’s rights. Women were at the heart of Irish politics and culture throughout the battles for home rule and independence, but the consolidation of the Irish state, with the dominance of the Church, meant that very quickly women were relegated to the private sphere. Indeed, although much divides Unionists and nationalists, as the dust started to settle, there was one thing on which they could all agree and that was keeping women in the home. That is where I learned my formative politics: watching and listening to Irish women; learning that what was said in public was not the same as what was said in private.
My nan, sat by her peat fire in Mayo—I can still smell it—and the women would call round. She sat there talking. My Mum carried on this tradition in London, with women coming round for a chat. After a long night of talk on every conceivable subject, my mum passed on to me what she had heard at home, saying, “up the chimney with that now”. Up the chimneys and around the tables of thousands of Irish homes, women talked differently than they did in the public sphere from which they were effectively barred. It ill behoves any politician who does not know what goes up the chimney.
Once in the EU, Ireland, like the UK, had to accept the social change along with economic support: equal pay, maternity rights, non-discrimination on marital status, and finally those votes on divorce and abortion. What I learned from the private conversations around the chimney I also learned from women here in the British Labour party: individuals in private do not change the world. Women have to occupy the public space. Women have to have political power to secure our rights to equality with men and to change the laws that dictate the private sphere, and all legislators across these islands have a long way to go. It has been a privilege to be part of the solidarity among the women of these islands—north, south, east and west—and we still have much work to do.
Today, I have my slightly wilting shamrock and my British-Irish parliamentary brooch. As a child, I was sent to school with the shamrock, but I did not often wear it on St Patrick’s Day through the ’80s. That was due in part to my moving away from my childhood, seeking an identity of my own, and in part due to the fact that being Irish here in the late ’70s and ’80 was hard. We were expected to have a view and to take a side in the constant struggles, but we did not often have a side. I knew that there were many sides, and I knew that I had a stake in them all. The 1980s changed the narrative of having sides. That decade allowed us to have many sides, and we all wanted the same thing: to live in peace and prosperity.
The 1998 Good Friday agreement was not just about Northern Ireland, Ireland, or a border; it was about the freedom of movement of people across these islands, about our deep roots, about mutual interest and respect, and about shared security and prosperity. Our duty now is to build upon it in full.
Finally, one of my predecessors as a Bristol MP is Edmund Burke. I think he was Bristol’s last Irish MP, whose statue still stands proudly in the centre of our city—a city he apparently visited only twice. He lasted six years, which is a milestone that I have only recently passed. During that time, he had a somewhat acrimonious time with the Bristol Merchant Venturers whose patronage was needed in those days in order to be able to hold office. Burke, as is befitting the father of modern conservatism, recognised that restrictions on people—as with the anti-Catholic legislation at the time—and restrictions on trade from Ireland meant an ever-impoverished Ireland, and that, he felt, was economically unwise for England. His riposte to the anti-Irish protectionism of the Bristol merchants should be heeded by us all today:
“England and Ireland may flourish together. The world is large enough for us both. Let it be our care not to make ourselves too little for it.”
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I am very grateful for this opportunity to take part in a debate to celebrate the contribution of the Irish in Britain and the very deep bonds of friendship and neighbourliness between our two islands. The other quote I remember from Edmund Burke was when he said that, for most English people, their ambition about Ireland was to hear no more about it, but I thank all the Members participating today for having a much wider ambition.
It is a pleasure to follow Members from across the House who have done so much to honour and deepen the contribution of the Irish to the fabric of Britain. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for securing this debate and the others who have spoken. I also thank the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) who played such a key role in events yesterday and who has exemplified and represented the Irish in Britain for many years with inclusivity, practicality, confidence, wit—lots of wit—and stories, and we are very proud of him for it.
It was not always an easy landing for Irish people in Britain. We know that many faced discrimination and isolation, but Britain, and England in particular, provided refuge, acceptance and opportunities for people who, in many cases, had been rejected by Ireland. Perhaps that was because they were pregnant, because they were gay, because they were different in some way or because there was no work for them. Ireland, to our great shame now, pushed out many unwanted people to England, who then found acceptance, solace and opportunity here, and for that we are very, very thankful.
Irish people and their descendants have not only found a good home in Britain; they have helped to make it a good home for other people. The work of Irish people across all classes of work, skills, vocations, talents, enterprise, creativity and service is rightly a source of pride—from roads and buildings in decades past to those at the very top of industry and the creative sectors today, and throughout many decades and very much during covid’s curtailments, within the National Health Service. It was lovely to see that represented and celebrated in the parade at the weekend.
As a result of that contribution and mutual support, I have no doubt that the Irish centres and networks in Britain will be stepping forward to offer support, service and space to Ukrainian refugees in their time of need. While the common travel area privileges the Irish in Britain and the British in Ireland, as befits our close neighbourly relationship, the Irish stand in solidarity with others across the world who have had to leave their homes because their home was not safe or because they could not make a life there. We know how it feels to be cast at times as a suspect community, and to be at the bottom of the pile. That experience is reflected in the internationalism of the Irish community and the support that they offer to migrants and minorities from elsewhere.
The deep integration of Irish people on this island has not come at the expense of pursuing distinctive Irish sports, traditions and arts, which, as others have mentioned are flourishing. Indeed, in many parts, British TV presenters and journalists frequently claim some of Irish people as their own. The only surprise is that our current Home Secretary has not spotted British citizenship being conferred on people and come down on it like a house of bricks.
Fosta, Seo Seachtáin na Gaeilge, coicís go deimhin, agus tá imeachtái ar fud an tír, agus ar fud an domhain a thugann faillí dúinn cultúr, teanga agus oidhreacht na hÉireann a cheiliúradh. Indeed, what better opportunity than this to celebrate Seachtáin na Gaeilge, Irish Language Week, which is taking place now and is an opportunity to celebrate Irish language and culture across the island and across the world.
Irish people in Britain are a strong thread in British-Irish relations and a critical part of the ethos and architecture of the Good Friday agreement. John Hume always saw, and the Social Democratic and Labour party to this day have always seen, those three strands of the agreement as interdependent, indivisible and mutually reinforcing. Cherishing and nurturing the strand 3 relationship is core to the role of SDLP MPs taking up our mandated place in this House. That is something we take very seriously.
As others have said, the conflict playing out in Ukraine reinforces the need to protect what has been the most successful peace and reconciliation project in generations. It is a fact that the violence and at times the depravity of the troubles—all of it, and all that went before it—drove a wedge between people that has been difficult to bridge, but it is precisely because of those painful aspects of our history that we must continue to work to deepen and maintain friendship, co-operation and reconciliation, to put that cycle of mistrust in the past and to realise the reciprocal benefits of cultural, personal and trade ties. It is a statement of fact that a strong, pluralist Britain is in Ireland’s interests and vice versa. Nothing will change that.
Thanks to the Good Friday agreement, Irish people here have been able to step forward even more. We encourage them to keep doing that and not to be afraid to lead in British-Irish relationships at the many cultural, social, business and sectoral levels where they provide a natural nexus.
We live in the shadow and the shelter of each other, as President Michael D. Higgins acknowledged during his historic state visit and address here in 2014. Confident in our relationship as equals and with mutual interest, we can
“embrace the best versions of each other”.
The Irish in Britain are doing so every day; many are moving on from the traditional binaries of the past and embracing the “or both” part of the Good Friday agreement, not feeling that they have to decide between being British and Irish if they do not wish to do so. The tensions of the past five years, as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, are probably a topic for another day—indeed, we probably do talk about them every other day of the year, so I am happy to park them for today.
Though our relationship has been turbulent in the longer past and in the recent past, it can and should be mutually beneficial, warm and reconciled. I say thank you to the Irish people in Britain and the British people in Britain and in Ireland who make that so and wish everyone a happy St Patrick’s Day.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Go raibh maith agat, Madam Deputy Speaker —thank you very much. I, too, wish all right hon. and hon. Members and also all my constituents across Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill a very happy St Patrick’s day.
We all know that Ireland is Scotland’s closest neighbour and relation, and our often shared heritage and our historical bond run as deep today as the Rivers Clyde and Liffey combined. We in Scotland value immensely the relationship between us and our Irish brothers and sisters, and our bond remains ever strong.
The histories of the peoples of Ireland and Scotland are closely intertwined, with our stories of migration taking many forms at different times over the centuries. Whether Scottish or Irish, chances are we are all immigrants. Place names and family names and our traditions across both our lands are an ever-present reminder of our interlocked Gaelic past and, more importantly, our shared futures together.
My own family surname comes from an Irish heritage, and my roots can be traced back to County Donegal, itself an Irish county with its own unique story, being geographically in the north of Ireland but part of the 26 counties that make up the rest of the island. Today, my ties to Ireland allow me to visit frequently; just last week I was fortunate enough to be in the town of Drogheda, County Louth. The reason for that trip was to partake in one of those old Scottish and Irish traditions we share, wetting the baby’s head, as we welcomed Finn Martin Murphy into this world—born of a Scottish mother and an Irish father, so it is safe to say the connections between our families and countries are safe for at least another generation.
While there, I took the opportunity to visit the site of the Battle of the Boyne in Drogheda—a truly historic place that can be appreciated regardless of faith, creed or political persuasion. The profound consequences of the battle reverberate to this day in the to-ing and fro-ing over the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol, but it is always worth remembering there is far more that unites us than separates us. I was also able to indulge in Ireland’s greatest export, Guinness. I extend my gratitude to those kind persons of the St Laurence’s Club at McHughs for their warm hospitality. As they say in Ireland, the craic was 90.
Both Scotland and Ireland are nations who have stood strong through both glory and tragedy, from the creation of Saint Columba’s monastery on the Isle of Iona—the Irish saint also lends his name to my local parish in my constituency—to the tragedies of the Scottish highland clearances and an Gorta Mór, the great famine in Ireland, which saw so many perish and thousands of Scots and Irish move between these lands. Millions of people worldwide today can trace their descendants back to these tough, resilient Irish and Scottish survivors.
The 2011 Scottish census revealed that almost 11,000 Irish citizens were living in Scotland, and Coatbridge in my constituency is long renowned in both Scotland and Ireland for its Irish diaspora. By the same token, many of my countrypeople live across the Irish sea—15,000 in the north of Ireland alone, based on the same 2011 census. A further 57,600 people were recorded as speaking an Gaeilge, so it is no surprise that our relationship across the sea remains vibrant and is vital to Scots and Irish alike.
With the current census in Scotland ongoing, and the ramifications of Brexit never far from the minds of the Scots or the Irish, I am entirely confident that the number of Irish passport holders in Scotland will have increased sharply over the past couple of years. Such drastic impacts on our identities and outlooks as Brexit will have a profound effect on the eventual make-up of these shared islands. Despite our no longer sharing membership of the European Union, the strong and enduring foundation of the common travel area and the structures created by the Good Friday agreement provide a stable foundation for the continued development of good relations between our peoples.
Ireland has a long tradition of diaspora engagement around the world, which was reinforced by the Department of Foreign Affairs appointing its first Minister for diaspora affairs in 2014. Scotland engages her global diaspora through GlobalScot, a worldwide network of almost 800 entrepreneurial and inspirational business leaders and experts. The Scottish Government will continue that good work with Irish colleagues on common issues and shared goals, particularly on diaspora affairs, to assess where lessons can be drawn from Ireland’s experience.
There is also scope for increased exchange and partnerships between different diaspora organisations. That is something I am eager to encourage, in the hope that it will allow us to provide greater support to Irish community organisations across Scotland—a community that, it cannot go unsaid, has not always been fully accepted into Scots society by all.
However, today is about celebration—the celebration of the feast of St Patrick—and we are all a wee bit Irish today, are we not? Together across this House we celebrate our shared heritage, our music, our traditions and our culture.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
As the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar) said, we are all a bit Irish today. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak in this debate because this is a subject that is important to me for many reasons. I would like to acknowledge all the Members here today who were either born in Ireland or are of Irish extraction, whatever party they represent. Of course, I salute all my constituents, everyone in this country and everyone around the world who is celebrating St Patrick’s day today.
I would like to pay a special tribute to our former Labour colleague and Member of this House, Jack Dromey, who sadly died earlier this year. I knew Jack long before he was an MP—in fact, when he was a firebrand trade unionist energetically involved in the Grunwick dispute. That dispute engaged Jack because it was about mainly Asian women striking against their extreme exploitation, low wages and terrible conditions in their factory, which led to them being sacked when they tried to form a union. As a proud Irishman, Jack was vehemently opposed to any idea that these women could not be unionised, and he was determined to fight for those mainly migrant workers.
That brings me to my first substantial point, which is why we, as immigrants or the children of immigrants, came to be here in the first place—because of course we are, all of us, descendants of the children of empire. It is a great credit to the people of Ireland that they have the honour of having set in motion the end of colonialism and the end of empire. I know that is a controversial view in some parts of this House, but my starting point is the position of a colonised people. My concern is not for the nostalgia and relics of the past, but the truth is that the people of India are only now recovering their former wealth and place in the world after the raj, and the people of China are recovering from having been effectively carved up by foreign powers. The people of Ireland now have a greater per capita GDP than this country. Yet before independence all these countries lived in abject poverty. I say that not to disparage anyone, but it confirms my view that no people can prosper while they are not free. In the approximately 100 years of British rule in India, the population fell substantially. We know that the Irish fared even worse. So all around the world there is a special place of pride reserved for the Irish, who began the end of empire, and there is a certain pride and a certain outlook that is conferred on many Irish people and people of Irish descent as a result.
I would like to convey my own personal experience of growing up in a part of west London not too far from where Jack Dromey did—Kilburn, which had, when I was a child, a very large Irish community. Others who migrated to this country came from the east and settled in the east end of London, but Irish—and, to a great degree, the West Indians—came to west London. The infamous sign, “No Blacks, No Dogs, No Irish”, came from that time and place. I grew up in that part of London when it was famous for its so-called race riots, but they were not race riots at all; they were rampages by white racist gangs and fascists. One even called itself the White Defence League, showing that it was continuing to play the same old tired songs.
My mother never tired of telling me about a time when one of those white fascist gangs came rampaging down our street knocking on doors to find out if black people owned the houses. Although our house, which was in Paddington, was a three-storey house, we only lived in one room—the rest of the house was occupied by tenants. That is how my parents could afford to pay the mortgage. In the basement was an Irish family headed by my Uncle Jimmy. The white racists were going up the street knocking on doors. Uncle Jimmy thought the absolute world of me; he adored me. I was a little baby. My mother used to give me breakfast and then she would take me down to Uncle Jimmy’s, and he would give me another breakfast. When he heard the white racists rampaging up the street, he said to my mother, “They’re not going to get our Diane”. He went up the stairs and opened the front door, and when the racists saw a white man there, they assumed he owned the house and went away. I suppose the pride and self-confidence that comes from slaying colonialism works its way down to the individual level, so even those rampaging white racists and white supremacists cannot frighten you. I will of course always be grateful to my Uncle Jimmy.
For 20 years before 1998, as some Members have mentioned, there were what were known as the troubles. To some of us observing at the time, it felt like low-level warfare, and l think the participants on all sides regarded it the same way. One of the features of war in general is that there is hardly ever a participant who looks back on it fondly. There is nearly always regret and sorrow, and I think that regret is true for the vast majority of the combatants in the troubles on every side, whether they were loyalists, republicans or part of the forces of the state. One of the reasons it took so long to get to the Good Friday agreement in 1998 was how the conflict was portrayed, including Britain’s own role in it. Many argue that there was a refusal to understand the Unionist population and their feelings, a denial of Britain’s role and a determination to demonise rather than understand Irish republicanism.
Well, we have come a long way. Irish republicans, such as Gerry Adams and his departed comrade Martin McGuinness, have both been invited to No. 10 many more times than most Members of this House. There is a reason for that. People may not like it, but Irish republicanism represents an ideal that harks back to at least the 18th century, based on ideas of anti-feudalism and national democracy. It was conditioned by the partial defeat of empire 100 years ago and transformed by the emergence of the civil rights movement. These were ideas with mass popular support, but successive Governments refused to see that or accept it, even after Bloody Sunday. Finally there has been an official apology for Bloody Sunday, but no prosecutions.
As we celebrate St Patrick’s day in this debate, I express my concern about the dangers to the Northern Ireland protocol from current political debate. It is as if some people have learned nothing and are determined to repeat their mistakes. This time it is different. In the words of the great Robert Emmet, Ireland has survived to take its place among the nations of the earth, and everyone who values freedom should rejoice in that.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Happy St Patrick’s day to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to colleagues across the Chamber and to friends of Ireland around the world. I give a big thank you to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for securing this debate. Anyone questioning the potency of outward-looking, culturally rich states with, by global standards, relatively small populations and their ability to penetrate the highest offices of the global system in Brussels and Washington need look no further than the Irish to see what can be done. It is great to celebrate the sons and daughters of Ireland in this Chamber, even though some of us would like to ply our political trade elsewhere. When I got elected two years ago, I was pretty confident that I would be the first double-o Doogan MP in this place, but sadly not. It turns out that in the late 19th century there was a chap from County Monaghan who beat me to it, but that is one for the record books.
I am Scottish. As you may have established over the past two years, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very proud and motivated by that fact. However, I am of Irish stock, and I wear that complementary characteristic with great pride also, and this year I will take delivery of my Irish passport to underscore that I will not be stripped of my European citizenship, and I will also get through the airport quicker.
My family hail from Donegal, Ireland’s premier and most picturesque county with the tallest mountains, the finest golden beaches, the sweetest turf smoke and the wettest bogs. It is the Irish county against which all others are judged. My mother and father came to Scotland separately working in service and in agriculture respectively, settling in Perth to raise six children. It was a rich childhood experience being part of the Perth community and the Perth Irish community and being pals with the kids who lived around about, but also with the kids who went with me to the Catholic school across town.
My mum raised us with the heavily repeated expectation of “We could do well for ourselves”—that we could do better than those who went before us with the opportunities of employment and education that we had. As kids and young adults, we were repeatedly told, “You have the ability.” This immigrant ideology of ambition and betterment is not unique to the Irish diaspora—far from it—but it stood generations of us, the product of Irish immigration, in good stead.
Slightly contradictory, however, was the equal but opposite message that we also got from our parents, which was, “Don’t get too big for your boots or somebody will cut you down to size”—life could often be complex at home. Perhaps because of that advice from my mum and her contemporaries, the sons and daughters of the four families who I grew up with in Perth—sons and daughters of the Irish in Scotland—have gone on to Spain, Japan, Taiwan, Australia, the US, England, Colombia, Bahrain and the Netherlands and back to Ireland. That is limiting it just to my first cousins; I am sure there are more that I cannot recall. The bulk of us remain on these islands in Scotland and England, however, which I know is not uncommon.
My dad was an agricultural and building contractor who came to Scotland to work the land as a teenager in 1938. He stayed in Great Britain for most of the second world war, during which time he was employed harvesting sugar beet and constructing the new runway at Biggin Hill airport in Bromley, which became a key RAF location in the battle of Britain. In half a century of contracting across Angus, Perthshire, Clackmannanshire and Fife, he created wealth, employment and capital, as did thousands of other Irishmen through industry based on their labour and their business acumen. These enterprises, the length and breadth of Britain, changed the face of our streets, building sites, agricultural production, pub trade, literature, professional football and energy production in the hydro schemes in Scotland.
Right hon. and hon. Members have touched on the prejudice faced by the Irish in some quarters. That was a real and ugly struggle faced by the Irish community and others. I will not dwell on that except to note that the Tunnel Tigers are a legendary Irish tunnelling corps, many of whom hailed from Arranmore island off the coast of Donegal. They have been tunnelling their way under Great Britain for the last 75 years or more. They were a key component of the hydro schemes and dams in Scotland and of the tube lines in London, but strangely they received no mention in Scottish Hydro’s official social historiography of the tunnel projects in the central highlands of Scotland. I am grateful to my friend John O’Donnell for campaigning on the issue and to my colleague Annabelle Ewing MSP for raising it in the Scottish Parliament.
Here on the western shores of Europe, Scotland has many close friends and neighbours, all of whom, bar our friends in England and Wales, are across the sea. Of those, Ireland is our closest and that closeness extends well beyond the realm of geography. The symbiosis of Ireland and Scotland goes back more than 1,000 years with the Gaels and their culture reaching across the channel to the western isles and into almost the entirety of the Scottish mainland. Although Gaelic culture may have been forcefully driven out of Scotland to great effect, we value the Scotland-Ireland relationship very highly.
Scotland’s bonds with Ireland remain deep and strong. Ireland and Scotland are steeped in the tradition of education and shared learning that dates back to the time of St Colmcille, whose monastery on Iona provided the first centre of literacy in the region. For more than a millennium and a half, Ireland has been influencing life in Britain and I do not see any end to the positive influence of this proud independent nation.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I speak for many of those celebrating the feast of St Patrick today when I say that we share the values embodied by his story—solidarity, care, kindness and compassion. We stand in solidarity with the people of Ukraine as they struggle to protect their right to live in freedom and peace.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for securing this important debate to celebrate the strong cultural, political and business ties between Britain and Ireland and the immense contribution of the Irish diaspora in Britain. As he knows, as my local MP growing up, the contribution of the Irish community in Greater Manchester, of which we are both part, is immense. My mum is from Galway and my dad is from Belfast.
We await the most recent census data, but at the 2011 census, more than 430,000 people living in Britain identified themselves as Irish-born. That is only part of the picture: Bronwen Walter, emerita professor of Irish diaspora studies at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, estimated some years ago that the true figure for those with at least one Irish parent or grandparent was roughly 5 million. As we have heard today, the figure has now increased to 6 million. It is also said that, if someone’s family has lived in Salford or Manchester for more than a generation, the chances are that they have Irish ancestry.
The huge Irish diaspora across the north of England has been recognised by the Irish Government, who have opened the consulate general of Ireland for the north of England. Its establishment reflects a strong commitment to developing the British-Irish relationship and it will strengthen the political, commercial, community and cultural ties between Ireland and the north of England.
Niall Gallagher, chairman of Irish Heritage, described the contribution of the Irish to cultural life in Britain as incalculable. On the contribution of the Irish community in Greater Manchester, Irish President Michael Higgins said that it had given the area countless talented footballers, vibrant cultural festivals, and talented students, writers and businesspeople. Indeed in Salford, it is asserted that it was the Irish community who contributed to the creation of Salford as a city in its own right. During the mid-19th century, there was huge migration of Irish people into the Salford area, partly due to the great hunger in Ireland, and in 1848 Salford Roman Catholic cathedral was consecrated, reflecting Salford’s huge Irish population at the time.
It was also a huge proportion of the Irish community who built the Manchester ship canal, which spurred on the industrial revolution in Greater Manchester. Indeed, the same is true of the railways, the roads and even the channel tunnel. From the early days of industry to the present day housing estates and skyscrapers we see today, the immense contribution of the Irish diaspora to construction in Britain is undeniable. In our NHS, as of September 2021, there were 13,971 members of NHS staff in England reporting their nationality as Irish, including just under 2,500 doctors and 4,500 nurses.
The Irish diaspora has made its mark on culture, too. In Salford, from renowned playwright Shelagh Delaney, a pioneer in women’s writing, who challenged the accepted views of race, gender and class at the time, all the way through to Shaun Ryder of the Happy Mondays, the list of those with Irish ancestry who have made their mark is endless. Interestingly, it is also said that the famous song about Salford, “Dirty Old Town”, that many will be singing in the pub tonight, written by Salfordian Ewan MacColl, has all but taken on its own Irish citizenship. It is a staple favourite tune not just in Salford but in St Patrick’s night celebrations across the world.
In political life, as we can see today from Members of Parliament who are representing the Irish diaspora, Salfordians and Mancunians with Irish ancestry are found in abundance across our political and council chambers, transforming lives in our communities. One of my favourite historical figures is a lady called Eva Gore-Booth, a famous Salfordian suffragette who was instrumental in the creation of the trade union movement, which spurred on the creation of the Labour party.
In business, commercial ties between Britain and Ireland are stronger than ever. When President Michael Higgins came to Manchester 10 years ago, he said that over 55,000 directors who are Irish sit on the boards of British companies. Irish people are present in nearly all the listed occupations of the census in Britain. They have risen to distinction in all professions. That number is of course even greater now.
But leaving all of these achievements aside, it is the everyday actions of people within the wider Irish community that I am so proud of—those who seek to care, nurture and build relationships within their wider community. We have so many amazing charitable and social organisations, such as Irish in Britain, Irish Community Care, Irish Heritage, the Irish World Heritage Centre in Manchester, Irish societies and clubs right across the UK, sports clubs, radio stations, dance and music groups, festivals and even welfare advice services. Of course special mention must go to The Irish Post and The Irish World newspapers, which have been keeping the Irish community in Britain connected for decades—and I was forced to read them on a weekly basis by my mother to find out what was going on. So it is clear that the contribution of the Irish diaspora to all aspects of life in the UK is indeed incalculable, and that the warm connections between Ireland and the UK are going from strength to strength. As President Higgins himself said:
“The closeness and warmth that we laud today was founded to a large extent upon the lives and sacrifices of generations of Irish emigrants who settled in this country—generations of Irish people who came here and contributed so positively to nearly every aspect of British society, who did so much to make Britain what it is today while at the same time fostering understanding, tolerance and co-operation between our two countries.”
Long may this strong bond continue, and Lá fhéile Pádraig sona daoibh—happy St Patrick’s day.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) on securing the debate and wish everybody a happy St Patrick’s day. I am very proud of my Irish heritage. My nan Mary Higgins was born in Dublin before she travelled across the Irish sea to the greatest city in the world, Liverpool. I am privileged to represent Liverpool, the city where I was born and raised. I am a very proud Scouser because we are a world in one city, with communities hailing from all corners of the world. Three quarters of Liverpool’s population has Irish roots and it is not for nothing that Liverpool is often referred to as the 33rd county.
The contribution of Irish working-class communities is immeasurable and has fundamentally shaped the soul of our great city into what it is today, from politics, to art, music, our unique sense of humour and life and soul of the party spirit. Many, of course, came to Liverpool in the great famine of the 1840s. 1.5 million passed through the port. Most were en route to America, but many settled, choosing to make Liverpool their new home and joining an already established Irish community. By 1851, the Irish-born population already made up nearly a quarter of the population. Those who came built much of the Liverpool docks and the canal system, while others staffed the shipping lines and worked on the quayside. The trade unionist and socialist James Larkin, Liverpool born of Irish immigrant parents, was pivotal to the 1913 Dublin lockout.
On every street corner, more evidence lies of the Irish community’s footprint on the fabric of our great city. The beautiful Walker Art Gallery and the Liverpool World Museum were built by Ballymena-born William Brown and are now situated on the street named after him. Irishman Michael Whitty was the founder of the Liverpool police and later the fire service. The renowned Agnes Jones from County Donegal was the first trained nursing superintendent of the Liverpool workhouse infirmary. Famed for her work ethic, Agnes died tragically at the age of 35 from typhus. Florence Nightingale described her as
“one of the most valuable lives in England.”
Before her came Kitty Wilkinson, an Irish immigrant from Derry, nicknamed Liverpool’s saint of the slums because of her educational campaigning to teach the public about health and hygiene. As the only person in her Liverpool neighbourhood to own a boiler in the 1832 cholera epidemic, she invited all those with infected bedding and clothing to use it, saving countless lives. Soon after, she opened the first public wash house in Liverpool.
The Irish contribution to our Liverpool health service continued with Irish nurses targeted for recruitment to work in the new NHS. By 1971, it was estimated that 12% of all UK NHS nurses were Irish. John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison all hail from Irish ancestry, and the Irish still contribute massively to Liverpool and British culture: think of Roger McGough and Jimmy McGovern, to name just a couple, not to mention our two great football clubs, both of which employed Irishmen as their first managers.
Liverpool is a city that marches to the beat of its own drum, and we owe so much of our rhythm and spirit to the Irish settlers and their descendants over the centuries. We are proud to celebrate with them today on St Patrick’s day.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) on securing the debate, which is an excellent opportunity to pay tribute to our friends from the island of Ireland and recognise their valuable contributions to mainland Britain.
The contributions of the Irish span every corner of Britain and every industry, so it is easy to forget the anti-Irish sentiment that was rife throughout even recent history, despite two former British Prime Ministers being born in Ireland. Even today, the Irish are not always painted in a positive light in the media. They are often portrayed comically as an outdated stereotype. It is shameful. Shameful too is the continuing and prevalent prejudice and racism aimed at the Irish Traveller community. The reasons behind those issues are for another debate on another day. I would like to keep my speech positive and celebratory, but I felt it was important to give that acknowledgement.
I start with contributions to the arts and ballet. Dame Ninette de Valois was born as Edris Stannus in County Wicklow, the garden of Ireland, in 1898. In 1905, she moved to Kent, England to live with her grandmother. At 10, she began to take ballet lessons. Her love for dance was apparent early on at a party with other children. Having watched another little girl dance, she demanded that she be allowed to perform an Irish jig. Edris took the name Ninette de Valois at the age of 13 as she began her professional training and made her debut in the west end. The name change reflected a public expectation of the kind of exotic name a dancer should have. In 1919, at just 21, she became the principal dancer for the Beecham Opera, which was at the time the resident company at the Royal Opera House. At 23, she joined the Russian Ballet, where she mentored Alicia Markova who would go on to become prima ballerina assoluta and one of the most famous British dancers of her time.
Ninette became the driving force behind ballet in Britain, establishing dance schools in London and Dublin. In 1956, they were granted the royal charter, so the schools became the royal ballet. She also, quite surprisingly, became very influential in the development of Turkish ballet and helped to establish the Turkish state ballet at the invitation of Turkey’s Government. Ninette is known as the mother of English ballet, despite her Irish nationality. She died in 2001 at the grand old age of 102 and with a legacy most dancers could only dream of.
Another woman who offered much to Britain, although in a different field, is Mary Morris. She left Ireland at 18 to come to London to train as a nurse at Guy’s Hospital in 1939. Mary was a prolific diarist and in her diary recorded much of the war. She dated the “real war” as starting on 31 May 1940, when ambulances came filled with dirty and wounded soldiers from Dunkirk. Mary witnessed the battle of Britain in the sky, and nursed the wounds of pilots hurt in the battle. She also tended to the German prisoners of war.
It was during her time as a nurse that she met a Frenchman named Pierre, whom she described in her diary as
“slim and dark, with beautiful brown eyes and masses of Gallic charm”.
Pierre invited Mary out to dinner and, despite strict rules around the fraternisation with patients, she accepted. She was reprimanded by her matron, but that did not stop Mary from spending more and more time with Pierre, visiting London and witnessing air raids. In 1944, Mary joined thousands of her fellow Irish nurses as a volunteer for the armed forces, where she was posted to Normandy and treated the wounded soldiers of the D-day landings. She described her ward as a
“multi-national microcosm of a Europe at war”.
When the war was over, she settled in Britain with her husband.
Ninette and Mary were two very different women, with two very different stories but a common thread. What they offered to Britain, through their services to the arts or to the war effort, helped form the Britain we live in today.
A little closer to home, the migration of Irish workers to Glasgow and the surrounding towns changed our corner of Scotland substantially. Even before the great famine, fares to Glasgow from Ireland were cheap and there was a lot of work and jobs to be filled: labour jobs, mining jobs and a thriving shipbuilding industry. There were also jobs for skilled workers, too, such as in the handloom weaving industry. The Irish workers were right at the forefront of trade union activity, something often forgotten. The contributions of those workers shaped the city and areas like Lanarkshire where my constituency sits, and that should be recognised.
Most of us will have some Irish roots in our heritage. It is not uncommon and it is something we are all proud of. The Irish who came here contributed to our society in more ways than we can possibly cover. I am pleased that we have this debate today to give it recognition. There is no day more fitting than today, and I wish everyone a happy St Patrick’s day.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for initiating the debate and I look forward to the closing speech from my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who has so often represented the diaspora in this country and done so very well indeed. I am proud to represent one of the largest and longest-settled Irish communities in Britain. The Irish presence in Shepherds Bush, Hammersmith and Fulham goes back many years before the 60 years that I have lived there, so it is not only first and second generation, but third and fourth generation Irish people who continue to make their home in that part of west London.
It goes without saying that despite the difficult times rightly mentioned by the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), this has overall been an enriching and successful coming together of the British and Irish communities, and not just those communities but many other migrant communities. I often feel that the Irish presence in Britain was a pioneer and acted as somewhat of a glue and an enabler of integration across many different cultures. That is certainly true where I am.
I want briefly to highlight two organisations that have not featured much in the debate so far, but they are key to the success of the diaspora. One is the network of community, cultural and social centres across the country and the other is the Government of Ireland and the embassy here. In Hammersmith Broadway, I have the Irish Cultural Centre, which is
“the premier centre in the UK dedicated to the promotion and welfare of Irish art and culture abroad”
and
“the home of its best cultural events and Irish performances, films, music and theatre”,
and I know that is true because I read it on the front of its website only a few moments ago—those are the centre’s words, before Members start intervening on me.
Getting a building as prestigious and beautiful as that was a long struggle for the Irish community and their supporters. It goes back to the mid-1990s—we celebrated the 25th anniversary recently—and the foresight of my predecessor as MP and leader of the council, Iain Coleman, and Councillor Sean Reddin, who put together the funding. They built it, we enjoyed it for 10 years and then we did it all over again because a different council wanted to knock it down and sell off the land for profit. It was only through the intervention of the Shepherds Bush Housing Association, which put up the money for a housing development, that the centre was rebuilt bigger and better than it was before. It has been a huge success as a result of an alliance between the wider community, the council, others and the embassy, with the Government of Ireland putting in money at a time when money was extremely short during the financial crisis.
Above all, it has all been about the local Irish community. I am tempting fate by naming individuals, as inevitably one forgets someone, but there have been many heroes in establishing and keeping that centre and bringing it to life. I must mention Jim O’Hara, who chaired the trustees through many difficult years, and his successor, Peter Power-Hynes, the vice-chair Michael Kingston, Seamus McGarry, Ivan Gibbons and the wonderful centre managers we have had, the cultural director Ros Scanlon, and David O’Keefe who sadly died too young and was replaced by William Foote, who stepped into the breach as the manager. I should also mention—I am namedropping in a big way—that among the patrons of the Irish Cultural Centre are Adrian Dunbar, Fergal Keane, Edna O’Brien, Dara Ó Briain, the noble Lord Dubs and the former President of Ireland, Mary McAleese. That is not a bad list for a local centre, but indeed it is not just a local centre.
Of course, built on the beauty and success of the centre and what it has to offer, we have had a whole procession of Taoisigh and Tánaistí and Government Ministers from both sides as visitors over the years, but something a bit special happened this week when His Royal Highness Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall came to visit. I do not often recommend the Daily Mail website, but if Members go to the website they will see the heir to the throne trying out his hand at Irish dancing, drum playing and drinking a pint of Guinness. That is well worth going to see.
The centre is a great success, but let us pay tribute to all those who have made it a success over many years. I have mentioned the Irish Government, and of course one of the visitors we had for Their Royal Highnesses was Adrian O’Neill, the current ambassador, who is sadly ending his five-year posting quite soon. He and his predecessors, Daniel Mulhall and Bobby McDonagh, have been huge supporters, not just in their presence—Irish diplomats are in a different league, which is one reason why Ireland punches so much above its weight; it has the most brilliant representatives abroad who really engage in that way—but in practical and financial support and encouragement, which has been fantastic over that time.
The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) quite rightly mentioned the Irish Traveller community, and he does a very good job chairing the all-party parliamentary group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. Unfortunately, we have seen in recent legislation, such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, that the Government wish to make things more difficult for Gypsies and Travellers in this country, which is shameful.
By contrast, the Irish embassy supports the Traveller community, by inviting them to the embassy and visiting them around the country. Some years ago, I went on a visit to the Dale Farm site with a secretary from the Irish embassy. I cannot imagine many other countries doing that and extending their hand in that way. The Irish embassy is making sure that the entire Irish population in this country, whatever its roots, is dealt with in that way.
I thank everybody who has come together to make the Irish community in Hammersmith such a success, most of all the community members themselves. Let us not forget those who have enabled and supported them in doing so, including people outside the community, the Irish Government and the Irish embassy. We are grateful for all that they continue to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call SNP spokesperson, Patricia Gibson.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I begin by thanking and congratulating the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) on bringing this debate forward, about which we had an interesting chat in the Tea Room. I am delighted to lead for the Scottish National Party on this debate on the Irish in Britain. I lead as a person born in Scotland of two Irish parents, although both now sadly deceased. I am proud of my Irish heritage and of the fact that I am first-generation Scottish.
Like others who have spoken in this debate, I was reflecting beforehand on the huge and often overlooked influence of the good people of Ireland on the UK. As Irish immigration echoes through the generations, there are a huge number of distinguished people who have Irish ancestry. It is really quite impressive when we think of people such as Daniel Day Lewis, A J Cronin, Matt Busby, Lorraine Kelly and Jim Kerr from the band Simple Minds. There are also people such as the late Sean Connery, Gerard Butler, Tom Conti, Susan Boyle and even Billy Connolly.
There is an impressive list of those who have found success in their respective fields in the UK who, like me, have two Irish parents, such as the singer Morrissey and the late Caroline Aherne, or those who have one Irish parent, such as Steve Coogan, Paul Merton, Julie Walters and Boy George. The list could go on and on. The UK would be a very different place without the contribution of so much Irish influence in a range of important fields. The depth and range of that talent is truly remarkable.
Irish emigration, especially to the UK, has been a feature of Ireland’s society for hundreds of years, so it is no surprise that the influence of the Irish diaspora is woven into the very fabric of life in every part of the UK, as well as further afield. We can see that influence has been hugely positive because of the lists of names that I and others have read out today. We can see it in the fields of singing and song writing, literature, cinema and even, dare I say it, politics.
Many Members of the House have spoken of their pride in their Irish roots. Ireland has suffered the loss of some of its brightest and best to emigration, a sad feature of Scottish society as well. However, emigration from Ireland has reduced. Increasingly we see Ireland becoming an attractive place for immigrants and its population has been growing for some years, albeit slowly.
My own parents came over from Malin Head in Donegal, which is the most northerly part of Ireland yet still in the south of the country, in the 1950s, like so many others in search of work and a better life in Glasgow. They settled in Govan, where I grew up. My father worked as a labourer while my mother devoted her life to raising her eight children, of whom I am the youngest. Sadly, in the 1950s the atmosphere and attitude the Irish encountered was not always as welcoming as it could have been, as the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) and others have pointed out. Thankfully, things have improved. But my mother applied for a council house in 1954, and it was not until 1982 that her patience was finally rewarded.
The poverty in which my parents lived and raised their family was scarring, as poverty so often is. Ultimately, it destroyed their health and led to their premature deaths. My father died when I was 15 months old and my mother died at the age of 54, 32 years ago. My parents could never have imagined that their daughter—the youngest of their eight children—would grow up to have the enormous privilege of securing a university education. They could never have envisaged that I would become an English teacher for 23 years and they could absolutely never have believed that I would be elected to serve the good people of North Ayrshire and Arran—in this, or indeed any other Parliament.
Like the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), I recall going to school with a St Patrick’s day medal and shamrock pinned to my school uniform—a ritual faithfully observed every year. But my story, like those of so many others in this House, is not unusual. Across much of the UK, those with Irish roots have sought to contribute and make their mark on the nations in which their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents settled—whether Scotland, England or anywhere else in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan) said, the strong bonds between Scotland and Ireland are well known. Scotland can look to Ireland—a small, independent country—for both example and inspiration.
This year, 2022, is significant for Ireland as it marks 100 years of an independent, self-governing free state of Ireland. There is no doubt that the first steps of Ireland as an independent nation brought their own challenges, but surely no one can doubt that the journey, despite its challenges, has been worth it. The value of the destination has undoubtedly made the challenges of that journey worth bearing. I say that because, since her independence, Ireland has grown into a confident, prosperous country—one of the richest in Europe. Independent of the UK, it has prospered. It has a real sense of national pride and has found its place on the world stage as a confident, outward-looking, liberal, democratic, modern, prosperous and internationally respected independent nation of a similar size to Scotland. I very much echo the sentiments of the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott): prosperity and freedom are indeed linked. I look forward to her extending that sentiment to Scotland as well.
Those of us in Scotland who believe that Scotland, too, should become an independent nation see this modern island as a beacon—an example of the possibilities and potential that await Scotland when we take our future in our own hands. When Scotland does so, as I sincerely believe it will, we will, like Ireland, cultivate good relations with England, our near neighbour. We will cultivate that relationship as friends, allies and trading partners, I am sure.
Just as my Irish parents could never have imagined that their eighth child would go to university, become an English teacher and be elected to serve in Parliament, so too many would never have envisioned how far an independent Ireland has come in 100 years—how it has grown, prospered and earned the respect of its neighbours in the European Union and the wider international family of nations. Scotland can indeed learn much from Ireland’s economic and social journey to the nation that it has become.
I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale for securing the debate and I wish everyone in Ireland, all those with Irish parentage in this House and beyond, and all those with Irish roots a happy St Patrick’s day.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Minister without Portfolio, Conor McGinn.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Tá áthas agus bród orm páirt a ghlacadh sa díospóireacht seo agus labhairt ar son pháirtí an Lucht Oibre—I am delighted to be winding up the debate on behalf of the Labour party. Normally at this time on St Patrick’s Day I would be up to my oxters in Guinness and beaten dockets, either at Cheltenham or in the Sheephaven Bay pub in Camden. None the less, it is a pleasure to be here in surroundings and company that might be seen as more eminent, but are definitely less craic.
Being Irish is something of which I am very proud and which is very important to me, and being Irish in Britain—this great country that has given me so many opportunities—adds another special and distinct layer to my identity and, I know, the identities of millions of other people. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) understands that deeply, and I thank him not just for securing this debate, but for his decades of work in supporting the Irish in Britain and furthering the cause of good relations between Britain and Ireland. I know that all the Members who have spoken today are similarly committed. Some of the members of the all-party parliamentary group on Ireland and the Irish in Britain—for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan)—cannot be here today, but they also undertake such work.
I know that many of us will be thinking of our friend Jack Dromey today. He would be so proud that we are having this debate, and of course he would be actively participating in it by making what he would describe as “just seven brief points”. We also think today of many colleagues who took up the cause of the Irish in Britain at a time when it was certainly not politically advantageous, and on occasion was even personally dangerous. You and I, Madam Deputy Speaker, talk frequently of your great friend Sir Patrick Duffy, who was one such champion. I know that the whole House will want to send him our best wishes. He is the oldest living former Member of Parliament. At the age of 101, he is still active, and has written the story of his incredible life, from Mayo to NATO, in his autobiography.
Let me now turn to the subject of our community, its place here in Britain, and its role in strengthening relations between the Britain and Ireland. The first thing to say is, like British citizens in Ireland, the Irish in Britain have a special status. That has benefited us greatly, and although paths diverged when the UK left the EU, the maintenance of that unique arrangement is very welcome.
About half a million Irish-born people live in Britain. I use the term “Irish-born” specifically because, of course, many more people here have Irish parents and even more have Irish grandparents, as was mentioned by the hon. Members for Bury North (James Daly), for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar). As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) and the hon. Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), the contribution made to British life by Irish people is enormous—economically, culturally, socially, in sport and, dare I even say it, politically; and also, of course, in public service.
Perhaps the last two years have shown more than ever the role of Irish people in every part of society here as we have come through the pandemic together. I am thinking of the thousands of nurses, doctors, clinicians, porters and cleaners in our national health service. I also think of the academics who researched and created the vaccine, who included an Irishwoman, Professor Tess Lambe, and of the first person to receive it—Margaret Keenan, another Irishwoman. Then there were those in the community groups and centres, from London to Liverpool, who put their shoulder to the wheel to help those who needed that help, from providing companionship for older people to providing food parcels for families. The work of organisations such as our many Gaelic Athletic Association clubs and their volunteers was incredible, and the national charity Irish in Britain was to the fore in creating the Vaccine Le Chéile, or “Vaccine Together”, campaign to encourage take-up. I know that that community campaign was strongly supported and assisted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth).
This week alone showed me the strength, diversity and extent of the Irish community. Last week the British Irish Chamber of Commerce held one of its council meetings here in Parliament. Over the weekend the Taoiseach paid a visit, and was hosted in the City of London by the Lord Mayor, Alderman Vincent Keaveney, the first Irish citizen to have that role. On Sunday, the Liverpool Irish Centre hosted a lunch for Irish pensioners—and there are quite a few of them in Ireland’s 33rd county of Merseyside, including some in my own constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson). On Monday morning I went with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition to the London Irish Centre, which provides welfare support and advice for those in our community who need its help and assistance, while the arts-related and cultural side of its work showcases the best of our music, language, drama and literature.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I could not be here for this debate because I had a debate in Westminster Hall that I had sponsored. I want to add my support for the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and the others who have spoken in the debate and for what they are trying to achieve. I am pleased to be supporting it through this intervention. Could I also ask a question? Would the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) support the request that I and others have made for the Republic of Ireland to join the Commonwealth?
Conor McGinn
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. He tempts me to stray into policy areas that are not mine, so I will pass on his comments to the shadow Foreign Secretary and ask for a response. But it was a nice try!
The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, just on Tuesday, Their Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), visited the Irish cultural centre in Hammersmith. I think they were even persuaded to take up the bodhran and play their part in an impromptu music session. Yesterday here in Parliament I was proud to co-host an event for parliamentarians with the Irish ambassador and CHAMP, the peace and reconciliation organisation. And of course today, on St Patrick’s day itself, we are having this debate.
The position and prominence of our community has arguably never been stronger, but we have come through tough times and the impact of the troubles was felt acutely by the Irish community here. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, many were shunned and subjected to anti-Irish racism, personally and through the press. We know about the prominent miscarriages of justice, but we also remember the treatment of the wider community as a suspect community and the impact of legislation such as the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974.
I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) would agree that, outside Northern Ireland, no group of people have benefited more from, or been more supportive of, the peace process and good relations between the UK and Ireland than the Irish in Britain. We still face challenges, however. We know that many of our fellow Irish in Britain still suffer health inequalities, for example, with higher rates of cancers and increasing mental health conditions. I know that the Minister has a keen interest in this. The Government have a duty to address that in the same way they would for other communities.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
Does the hon. Member agree that the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is a direct challenge to the recognition of the profound issues faced by the Irish Traveller community? This relates not only to Irish Travellers but to Irish citizens who travel through the common travel area. Perhaps he might challenge the Minister on that as well.
Conor McGinn
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I recognise and acknowledge the incredibly challenging work that he does to speak up in this House for Irish Travellers, and I hope he knows that he has my full support in that task, as does the Irish Traveller community.
We know that the impact of the UK leaving the EU has meant that there have been, and will be, testing times for the relationship between Ireland and Britain. The Irish community here has a distinctive role in helping to bridge those gaps and divisions when they arise and in ensuring that all of us in positions of political leadership strive to maintain the forward momentum of strong co-operation between two countries who should always be each other’s greatest allies. In that regard, I want to commend the work of the Irish embassy here, under the stewardship of Ambassador Adrian O’Neill. I am also delighted that new consulates have been established in Cardiff and Edinburgh and in the north of England.
The Irish in Britain, like everyone, feel an affinity and sense of solidarity with the Ukrainian people. We can have no idea of what they are suffering, but many in our community have at least a sense of what it is to leave home, to miss home and to love their country. That is why it was so moving to see the local Ukrainian community take part in a St Patrick’s day event with my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) at the Irish world heritage centre in Manchester as our honoured guests. Our Ukrainian friends also helped to lead the St Patrick’s day parade in London. We will continue to be their strongest allies and supporters.
I conclude by saying what I said in my maiden speech some six years ago, which I feel still holds today despite all the ups and downs, challenges and changes. Where previously there was suspicion and mistrust, today there is friendship and co-operation between the United Kingdom and Ireland. There is no longer any contradiction in being Irish and British, or in having feelings of loyalty and affinity to both countries. The contribution made by the Irish in Britain to society here has helped to make that possible. It is valued and respected and it has helped to make this country the great nation it is. My home, head and heart are in Ireland and England, in south Armagh and St Helens. I am lucky, and all the better for it. Féile Pádraig sona daoibh go léir.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn), who is a friend as well as a colleague.
I thank the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) for securing this timely debate on St Patrick’s day, and I am delighted to respond. Unfortunately, I will perpetuate the stereotype. because I am second-generation Irish and my parents came from Ireland in the 1950s, my dad as a builder and my mum as a nurse. They came here not by choice but by necessity, because times were hard in Ireland. Many people left for Britain, Australia or America, and many never returned home—it was a difficult time.
Many colleagues mentioned that the welcome for the Irish in Britain was not always warm. My parents faced signs in windows refusing entry to Irish people looking for accommodation. They faced difficult, tough times. My dad, as a builder, did not benefit from the health and safety legislation and employment rights that we have today. We have a lot for which to thank the generation who went before us and who created the community here in Britain.
The community in this country takes many forms, such as the county associations that do tremendous work bringing together people from the same county. As young girls, we were all forced to go to Irish dancing lessons whether or not we were any good, and we travelled the country to take part in feises. The GAA’s Gaelic football teams join communities together, as does the traditional Irish music scene, which we missed tremendously during lockdown when we were not able to listen to traditional music in our local communities.
The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned the work of publications such as The Irish Post and The Irish World, which I, too, was forced to read every week. I did not win many medals for Irish dancing, so my picture was rarely in The Irish Post, but we still read it every week.
Every summer holiday we made the annual pilgrimage to Ireland to catch up with grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles. It rained a lot and we did not get much of a suntan, but we enjoyed our visits and would bring home Tayto crisps, Kimberley biscuits and Barry’s tea—other products are available—to take a bit of Ireland with us to keep those memories burning. Things have changed: Tayto crisps now come in more than one flavour. The new generation of Irish in Britain come here for very different reasons. They come not out of necessity but out of choice, and they are able to make a positive contribution to our country in so many ways, as many hon. Members have highlighted today.
The impact and influence of Irish men and women has been woven into Britain for a very long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) touched on the contribution of his family during the second world war, when Irish citizens served in the British armed forces. Irish citizens also helped literally to rebuild this country after the war. They built roads, railways, homes and factories to get this country back on its feet. People like my dad contributed to that and played a huge part in this country’s future.
The Irish have also made a significant contribution to art and culture, whether it is Oscar Wilde and George Bernard Shaw, as the hon. Member for Rochdale highlighted, or broadcasters such as Sir Terry Wogan on the radio and television. My favourite Bond, on Her Majesty’s secret service, was played by Pierce Brosnan.
The Irish have also contributed through sport. We have the captain of the England cricket team, and he is doing a tremendous job, but British talent has also been exported to Ireland in the shape of Jackie Charlton, who led Ireland to that famous penalty shoot-out in the 1990 World cup. As an Arsenal fan, I am ashamed to say that I did not think David O’Leary would score that penalty—we all breathed a collective sigh of relief when he did.
Martin Docherty-Hughes
The Minister has the opportunity to answer the question I posed in my speech about the culture and diversity of language, whether it be a guid Scots Ulster leid in yer tongue or the Irish language Act, which was promised in the St Andrews agreement. Will she say something about the opportunities to build on that and bring it forward?
Maria Caulfield
I was going to touch on that, but I shall come to it now. The Government’s preference is that the Northern Ireland Executive bring forward the legislation in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but in the absence of any progress on that the UK Government have been taking the necessary steps to introduce the legislation in Parliament. The legislation will faithfully deliver what was agreed in the New Decade, New Approach commitments on identity, language and culture. It will provide for the status of the Irish language and the development of the Ulster Scots and Ulster British tradition, and create the two commissioners and an office of identity and cultural expression, as negotiated with the Executive. Therefore, we want the Northern Ireland Executive to legislate, but the Government are committed to introducing the legislation if progress is not made.
With such a broad and significant influence on the fabric of Britain, it is extremely pleasing that we are able to celebrate with this debate today and to acknowledge that our relationship with the Irish Government has been critical in establishing and protecting the hard-won peace in Northern Ireland. I grew up in this country during some of the troubles and it was not easy for my generation either. Here we were seen as Irish people living in England, but when we went back for our summer holidays, we were English people in Ireland. Having an identity was difficult, because we actually belonged nowhere. With the progress made in the Good Friday agreement and the Anglo-Irish agreement, peace, as the shadow Minister said, brought as much resolution for us as an Irish community here as it did to many parts of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. When there are celebrations of the peace agreement, we celebrate the hard work of people such as David Trimble, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, Bill Clinton, George Mitchell, Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair, but we never mention my absolute heroine, Mo Mowlam. She did so much to bring those parties together—people who just would not get in a room and talk—throwing her wig on the table and banging heads together. I want to pay tribute to her, because she is the unsung heroine of the peace process and her legacy definitely lives on.
The Irish Government have remained an ally in maintaining peace and stability in Northern Ireland, and have played important roles as interlocutors in the subsequent agreements, such as the St Andrews agreement in 2007 and the recent New Decade, New Approach agreement in 2020. We greatly value that relationship, and the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach met only last weekend in London, ahead of the Ireland-England rugby match. Perhaps it was best that that meeting was before the match, rather than after it. I have a foot in both camps, so my team always wins, but the loyalty of the SNP may be tested on Saturday when Ireland could win the triple crown if it is successful against Scotland—we await that match with interest.
The Belfast agreement established structures to encourage and foster a strong relationship between the UK Government and the Irish Government. We will see a great example of that next week at the meeting of the British-Irish intergovernmental conference in Dublin, which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will co-chair with Minister Simon Coveney. I want to reassure colleagues in all parts of the House that the UK Government are committed to upholding and promoting the principles of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which has provided the framework for Northern Ireland to prosper and develop. As someone who has seen in my lifetime the changes and challenges faced by the Irish community, in my parents’ generation, my generation and the generation who are coming through right now, I see a bright future for British-Irish relationships and their going from strength to strength. We have shown how, together, we can get through the challenges of the past, and how today we have shared values and connected communities and the aspiration for future peace and prosperity on the island of Ireland. Once again, I want to wish everyone a very happy St Patrick’s Day.
Tony Lloyd
This has been a great debate. It has been a celebration—not simply of people who are very proud of their own claim to part of Ireland but, much more than that, of the role that the Irish have played. As the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who spoke on behalf of the SNP, rightly said: what would we be had the Irish not been here? Ours would have been a very different country.
People have rightly touched on the difficult times—the “No Irish, no blacks, no dogs” signs that were part of my city and my upbringing. Fortunately, we are now a long way from that. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that I have a friend, whose father was Jamaican and mother was Irish, who once said to me, “You know, the Jamaicans and the Irish are very similar—it’s just that on the Jamaican side of me I’ve got sunshine.” The rain in Ireland keeps it green, as it keeps large parts of Britain green.
This is a day of celebration, as St Patrick’s day always is. I will not speak for too much longer, as I do not want to keep my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) away from either the Guinness or the races.
I join the appeal of the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) in respect of the specific problems faced by Irish Travellers. It is an important issue that we should recognise on this day of celebration.
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) that it was of course the Irish who built the Manchester ship canal, which enabled the Guinness boat to travel up from Dublin. That made sure that for a long time we had Dublin Guinness in Manchester, not simply that from London.
My final point is simply this. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made an important point about the role of the Irish embassy, as did my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North. I pay tribute to the current ambassador, Adrian O’Neill. He has had a difficult time with covid and, without getting into the issues of Brexit, it has been a rocky few years since the referendum. It is in all our interests to make sure that we re-establish that good relationship. It is good for the Irish in Ireland, good for the British in Britain and good for the Irish in Britain. On this day of celebration, let us look forward to better times for all.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It has been a real pleasure to be in the Chair for this debate and to hear so many good friends spoken of in such warm terms—especially Sir Patrick Duffy who, as the shadow Cabinet member and hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) said, is the oldest living former MP. He is my constituent and a very dear friend. I spoke to him this morning and he was in fine form. He received a lovely letter from Mr Speaker on his 101st birthday last year. I wish him and everyone else a very happy St Patrick’s day. I also wish Sir Patrick a very happy birthday for his forthcoming 102nd birthday.
That was probably a complete abuse of my position, but nevertheless I wanted to do it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Irish diaspora in Britain.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before we come to the next Backbench Business debate, I reiterate that the statement from the Transport Minister will come immediately after that debate. If the debate finishes before 5 o’clock, the statement will be not at 5 o’clock but immediately after the debate.
Paid Miscarriage Leave
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to introduce paid miscarriage leave; notes that in the UK, two weeks parental bereavement leave and pay is in place after stillbirth, however there is no such support for anyone who has experienced a miscarriage before 24 weeks of pregnancy; believes that miscarriage is an extremely traumatic experience and that more support should be provided to families that experience such a loss; understands that the New Zealand Parliament unanimously approved legislation to give people who experience a miscarriage paid leave, no matter what stage a loss of pregnancy occurs; and further believes that the Government should follow suit and provide paid leave for people that experience miscarriage and allow families to grieve for their profound loss.
I am extremely grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate in the Chamber. I am also grateful to the Members in attendance today, to those who spoke passionately in last week’s Westminster Hall debate and to colleagues from across the House who backed my private Member’s Bill, many of whom have supported this issue for some time. Many thanks also go to the fantastic organisations that advocate for greater support for those who experience the trauma of miscarriage, including the Miscarriage Association, Mumsnet, Sands, the Ectopic Pregnancy Trust and many more. I also put on record my appreciation for the 40,000 people who have signed the petition calling for paid miscarriage leave and for those from all over the UK who have contacted their MPs to ask them to back the campaign.
This is an important issue that has cross-party support. I am only sorry that the debate falls on a Thursday when the Chamber is less populated than usual, but, given that many Members support the motion, I hope that we will see more progress from the Minister today.
One thing that has struck me throughout the campaign is the brave men and women who have told their story of loss to try to help others, and who have campaigned every day so that others do not have to suffer in silence, as they did. I wish to share one such story today. A constituent of mine said that
“it is not just the physical pain of that moment—it is the emotional pain that lingers.”
Those are the words of my constituent from Carluke, who bravely shared her experiences with me last week. When she miscarried, she was the only woman working in her office—all her colleagues were men—and felt totally powerless to talk about her experience. Not only did she not feel comfortable seeking time off work, but she simply did not feel able to tell anyone in her workplace about what had happened to her. She spoke to me not only of the physical loss of the miscarriage, but of the mental impact of that loss. She said:
“You need time to recover from the physical element of what you have experienced. It can take its toll on the body. But I found the mental effects to be much worse. When you get the news that you’re pregnant, it is such a joyous time. You share it with friends and family, and you prepare yourself for the imminent arrival. So when you never held your baby, you still feel that it has been taken away from you. It is a loss and something that I mourned. Before I returned home from hospital, I made sure that my husband got rid of all the baby items that we had bought—clothes, toys, everything. I felt totally unsupported. I took a sick day on the Friday when it took place and was back at work on Monday as if nothing had happened. I don’t understand why there is just nothing in place to support women in these times of trauma.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward. I have always supported her in her objective of trying to achieve this. I was there to support her when she had a debate in Westminster Hall. I am ever mindful of the fact that my mother had a number of miscarriages. She was back at work, as the hon. Lady mentioned, within days. My sister had them as well and was back at work very quickly. I had a staff member who had two miscarriages and she was also back at work very quickly. Does the hon. Lady not agree that the fathers of these wee lives also have a right to mourn, and that any paid miscarriage leave must also recognise the daddy and allow him to know that society does not expect him to carry on as if his whole world has not been completely shaken as well?
Angela Crawley
Absolutely. I thank the hon. Member for his point—a point that I was about to make myself.
The fact is that, for too many parents, the loss of a pregnancy is seen as a woman’s issue. It is seen as something that affects only the mother. Sadly, too often, it is the fathers and the partners who lose out on that recognition of their loss and the ability to take leave. The loss of a pregnancy at any stage can be truly devastating, and, sadly, for some families, this experience may happen to them more than once, compounding the trauma of their loss. Without that recognition, the hopes and dreams that they had for their little life are gone—that is it. There are no legal rights, no forms of bereavement leave or pay, and, quite simply, no recognition that their little life existed.
One in four pregnancies ends in miscarriage and the experience of my constituent is not unique; it is shared by thousands of people every year. In a recent survey on miscarriage in the workplace, Mumsnet reported that there had been an increase in the number of women who labelled their experiences as poor or very poor—21%, up from 17% in 2019. Thousands of respondents cited a lack of support from their employer and a fifth of women said that they would have liked to take time off work following their miscarriage, but that they did not feel able to ask. These are incredibly difficult conversations to have with employers, and, just as my constituent highlighted, many women are simply not comfortable to do so or to share these experiences, and we are hearing the same experiences repeated time and again.
The Minister was right to say last week in the debate that good employers will take the appropriate action and treat the situation sensitively, giving staff the appropriate leave when required. However, the legislation that I propose is not only for employers; it is for the families up and down the country who cannot disclose a miscarriage, who feel pressured into going back to work too soon, and who feel shamed into silence. The Mumsnet survey showed that a resounding 96% of respondents supported the introduction of three days’ paid leave following a miscarriage. I repeat that number: 96% of survey respondents who had recently had a miscarriage said they would support the motion in the House today for paid miscarriage leave. One respondent said:
“I felt pressure to be back and didn’t allow myself any grieving time. It didn’t do me any good.”
Another added:
“You are replaceable at work. Your health and well-being for life should be a priority and workplaces need to change their attitudes and sickness policies, not make us burn the candle at both ends to fit into their policies. It’s pregnancy related anyway and shouldn’t be counted within sickness policy.”
While the updated ACAS guidance recommends that employers should consider offering time off, there is no legal right to paid leave and no statutory requirement for employers to allow it. We are seeing more and more employers implement policies, and that is welcome. Many workplaces have introduced a dedicated policy of miscarriage leave, one of the many ways employers can give meaningful support to their staff at that difficult time. However, leaving the provision at the discretion of employers is driving inequality across the board. Too many workers are left without the support they deserve because paid leave is not statutory.
Comprehensive policies of paid miscarriage leave have been introduced in nations such as New Zealand and Australia, and just last month the Northern Ireland Assembly legislated to introduce paid miscarriage leave, making it the first place in Europe to do so. The Scottish Government have pledged to provide three days’ paid leave following miscarriage, but the right to extend that provision to the private sector is reserved to this place.
While I recognise that three days’ paid leave, or even two weeks, may not be enough, it is a meaningful recognition of the loss and the grief. We should aim to support our workforce adequately and adopt recognised international best practice. A UK-wide policy of paid miscarriage leave would ensure that parents receive the support they deserve in this tragic time, and that no one falls through the cracks of the existing system.
The Government’s much-awaited employment Bill still appears to be some way from Parliament. Ahead of that Bill, the Taylor review of modern working practices has highlighted the changing demographics of the workplace and the need for a comprehensive employment law. There are more women in work now than ever before, and women’s participation in the workplace has been growing quicker than men’s over the past two decades.
Central to the Taylor review is the idea of putting employee health and wellbeing at the forefront of future employment legislation. That must include the provision of paid miscarriage leave. We must ensure that employment law protects and supports employees through such a serious life event. I do not believe the current legislation gives enough support to women and their partners through the experience of pregnancy loss in the workplace.
Indeed, I have asked the Minister when the employment Bill will be brought to the House and received no definitive answer. Families cannot wait for legislation that is not yet on the horizon. There is enough support across the House to bring forward a separate Bill on this issue, and I urge the Minister to introduce paid miscarriage leave.
Last Tuesday in the debate in Westminster Hall I raised the issue with the Minister once again. The response we heard was underwhelming. The Government continue to insist that sick pay or annual leave are acceptable provisions for those who experience miscarriage. They are not. Grief is not a holiday and it is not an illness. That response is offensive and unsustainable.
The Minister highlighted the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 as evidence of action the Government have taken on this issue, but that Act does not make provision for those who experience a loss before 23 weeks and six days. Parents who experiences the loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks have no statutory right to paid leave, and that is wrong.
As many hon. Members will know, I have been campaigning on this issue for some time. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who first introduced the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill. When the Act came into effect, it secured two weeks’ leave for parents who experienced that loss after 24 weeks, but, as I said, there is nothing in place for parents before that time.
The Minister’s sympathy and understanding are welcome, but they are not enough. We must do more to ensure that all parents who experience the loss of a pregnancy are protected with such provision and to extend paid leave to those who experience a loss prior to 24 weeks. A specific statutory provision for paid miscarriage leave should not only cover the women experiencing the miscarriage, but their partners. It would also give a signal to those experiencing pregnancy loss that they have permission to grieve.
This is about more than changing policy; it is about changing workplace culture in the UK to account for real-life issues that affect the workforce. By legislating for this provision in employment law, we can help to tackle the stigma associated with miscarriage and facilitate a wider discussion on improved care.
I thank all the parents who have shared their stories of loss and grief with me in the pursuit of policy change. Pregnancy loss happens all too often, and sadly it ruins and destroys the joy that many expectant parents have. When pregnancy loss occurs, it is not only the loss of the pregnancy but of the hope and the dreams that expectant parents have, and it is an incredibly difficult time.
I urge the Minister to reconsider the Government’s stance and invite him to meet me once again to discuss how we can move this debate forward. It is unacceptable that parents should have to take sick leave or annual leave; they are not sick and they are not on holiday. For too long, parents have suffered without the support they need and deserve. We must recognise the grief and loss that parents who experience pregnancy loss before 24 weeks face. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to introducing paid miscarriage leave across the UK and to support my motion here today.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I welcome the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) and to speak in favour of her Bill.
Currently, legislation exists for paid parental bereavement leave where a baby is stillborn after the 24th week of pregnancy, but no such provision is made where a miscarriage occurs before that time at any stage during the pregnancy. The Bill would right that wrong. Whereas this debate will quite rightly focus on the care and rights of women, there are others who are clearly affected by these circumstances. I therefore wish to speak particularly from the perspective of the father or partnership in the relationship.
In a BBC report in September 2021, a woman who had lost her baby at only nine weeks said about the possibility of paid leave:
“I think a lot of people would find paid leave very useful because it would give them time to be there with their partners who are going through a difficult experience.”
It is understandable, given her traumatic experience, that she sees paid leave for her partner as being useful, essentially, for the mother. I am not suggesting that she was unaware of the shared nature of the trauma, but it reveals a common view that can obscure the suffering of fathers or partners. More recently, in an STV report in January 2022, a woman who had lost 10 unborn babies revealed her awareness of how vital it is for both parents to be allowed the time to understand what they have gone through, and regretted that she and her partner had not had time for themselves because they could not afford not to work. In a recent American research study report based on 386 partners, speaking of the effects of a miscarriage on a partner, an experienced senior social worker commented:
“We often deny and dismiss partners’ vulnerable feelings of loss and sadness. It’s very easy then for partners’ often subtle feelings of grief to get lost in the more obvious and physical experience of loss their partner has experienced.”
There is, regrettably, little research on the emotional reactions of partners after miscarriage. However, a study by University College London in 2014, with 160 partners, found as many as 85% suffering grief, sadness and shock, with nearly half of them saying it had caused sleep problems and had affected their work. Sadly, perhaps because of the need to return to work immediately, a quarter did not talk about their feelings at all with their partners, and nearly half did not share their full feelings for fear, they said, of causing their partner further upset. An earlier American study in 2010 found that couples who did not find the time to openly discuss the loss with each other were more likely to break up as a consequence. Current NHS UK advice on coping with a miscarriage reinforces the importance of partners being able to express their feelings openly, even, or perhaps especially, when they hold a more traditional view that their main role is to support the mother.
More recent research by University College London in 2020 suggests that for some the problems can be even more serious. Of 192 cases studied, 34% of the women suffered symptoms that could be described as post-traumatic stress disorder. While partners do not appear to suffer post-traumatic stress disorder as often as the mother, the research points out that with about 250,000 miscarriages in the UK every year, there could still be many thousands of partners living with it and requiring help and support.
All of this points to a need for greater attention and care for partners, but I feel sure it also points to the importance of paid leave and pay, regardless of the stage of pregnancy in which the miscarriage occurs. That would enable both partners to have the time to discuss fully with each other the shared trauma they have experienced and where necessary make arrangements for further medical assessment and treatment, free of the pressure to return to work.
The Scottish Government are committed to three days of paid leave for parents in the public sector who suffer miscarriage at any point during the pregnancy. While the Bill asks initially for only three days of paid leave, it is hoped that, as we become a more enlightened society, the Government will recognise the benefits not only to the couples and families involved, but to society in general, and in due course consider extending the three days of paid leave even further. However, as the matter is reserved to Westminster, it cannot be imposed on the private sector without UK Government legislation. With full fiscal autonomy, countries such as New Zealand and Australia have already put in place paid leave for all parents affected by miscarriage at whatever point the tragedy takes place. The Northern Ireland Assembly has also recently given a commitment to introduce paid miscarriage leave following a consultation, with the policy due to come into force no later than April 2026.
In conclusion, it is time for the United Kingdom to have the vision to support this Bill, and I therefore urge the Government to do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Just before we start the wind-ups, I would like to say that, as the House knows, there will be a statement following this debate on P&O Ferries. It was anticipated that it would come at 5 o’clock. It is now likely to be way before 5 o’clock, so any Members wishing to take part in that statement should make their way to the Chamber now.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing this debate. I wish we had more time today to discuss this matter, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), too, who made a fine contribution. It will come as no surprise to the House that I will be supporting both my colleagues and what they have done.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East for the petition, which called on the UK Government to introduce at least three days of paid miscarriage leave for parents who lose a baby before 24 weeks of pregnancy. It received more than 40,000 signatures, which suggests that there is support among the wider public. On 21 June last year, she presented a private Member’s Bill to change the law, which has its Second Reading tomorrow. She also secured a Westminster Hall debate on the issue on 8 March 2022, and there have been two early-day motions, one on “Miscarriage leave and employment policy”, and another on “Miscarriage leave in Northern Ireland”, which have been supported by Members from all parts of the House.
Mention has been made of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who led on the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill in 2018, which came into effect in April 2019. That secured two weeks of paid leave for all parents who lost a child up to the age of 18. She also launched a ten-minute rule Bill to make provision about leave and pay for employees where a close family member has died, and that is scheduled for Second Reading. My colleagues have a strong record on this area and I am proud to be associated with them. They have my full support.
Miscarriage is the most common kind of pregnancy loss, affecting around one in four pregnancies. The loss of a baby at any stage of pregnancy is an unimaginable tragedy, and our sympathies are with families who have suffered a baby loss. In the UK, the definition applies to pregnancies up to 23 weeks and 6 days. Any loss from 24 weeks is called a stillbirth. If the baby is born alive, even before 24 weeks, and lives even for a matter of minutes, that is considered a live birth and a neonatal death.
There is no statutory entitlement to leave for anyone who loses a baby before 24 weeks. Will the Minister consider that matter? As he knows, I have pursued him regularly and rigorously in many debates covering his brief about the long-awaited employment Bill—we have waited at least four years for it. It will cover a host of issues, as he will be aware, not just those around the Taylor review, and could help many workers.
Too many workers are left without support due to cracks in the current system, which leaves paid provision of leave at the discretion of employers and can result in discrimination against parents in low-paid and part-time work. That is why it is vital for the Minister to carefully consider the call that my hon. Friends the Members for Lanark and Hamilton East and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock have made today for paid miscarriage leave.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock touched on, the SNP Scottish Government are committed to matching the laws that have been introduced in New Zealand and introducing three days of paid miscarriage leave in the public sector in Scotland. That will be welcome, but as has been said, to introduce paid miscarriage leave in the private sector requires legislation in this place. I think there is support on both sides of the House to ensure that that happens.
The Scottish Government have committed to establishing a dignified and compassionate miscarriage service by the end of 2023, including by ensuring that maternity units have dedicated facilities for women who are experiencing unexpected pregnancy complications. As part of delivering that commitment, a scoping exercise will shortly be issued across all 14 health boards to help to establish current service provision for miscarriage care and the support that is available to women who experience unexpected pregnancy complications.
In addition, the Scottish Government are listening to the voices of those providing miscarriage services, women who have experienced miscarriage and organisations who support them through a series of roundtable discussions. I hope that the Minister has listened carefully to what my hon. Friends have said. I am sure that we will have support from the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I hope that the Minister will look positively at what we think is a sensible measure to introduce a policy of paid miscarriage leave across these islands.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for securing and leading the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I pay tribute to her campaigning on the issue, which has helped to put the matter firmly on the political agenda.
Understandably, it is sometimes difficult for us to talk about such issues, but as we have seen with the now annual baby loss debates, raising these subjects in an informed and sensitive way is a good way to challenge existing rules and assumptions and to make change happen. We know that any change of the type that we are talking about would help the thousands of parents who experience pregnancy loss every year. Of course it cannot reduce the pain and sense of loss that they experience, but by removing one barrier that they will face during the grieving process, I hope that it will prove to be of some use.
As hon. Members have said, pregnancy loss at any stage of pregnancy is a major source of grief and can have a significant impact on the emotional and mental health and wellbeing of women and their partners. We know that women who have experienced baby loss are at a higher risk of post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. As we have heard, a survey carried out by the Baby Loss Awareness Week Alliance in 2019 found that 60% of parents who experienced pregnancy or baby loss said that they would have liked specialist psychological support for their mental health but were unable to access it on the NHS. We need to do better than that. We need to ensure that support is accessible to all women who have lost a baby and that the needs of their partners are also addressed.
Nearly two years ago, the Government introduced parental bereavement leave and pay for employed parents who lose a child under the age of 18 or who suffer a stillbirth from 24 weeks of pregnancy, but current legal provisions cover only those parents who lose a pregnancy from 24 weeks. There is no current entitlement to bereavement leave for a miscarriage, which is medically defined as a loss of pregnancy before the 24th week. If a pregnant person, their partner or a person receiving a surrogate loses a child before 24 weeks, only the pregnant person is entitled to leave, and that is only for the physical illness or sickness that they face.
In a recent debate on this matter, the Government pointed to other statutory provisions such as statutory sick pay for women unable to return to work because of ill health following a miscarriage, but, as we have heard from Members today, that is not adequate and does not provide the right support to women and their partners who experience pregnancy loss. Loss is loss whether it is at week 12, 18 or 24 of a pregnancy. The need to grieve will still be there.
However, looking at this on the basis that loss before 24 weeks is treated at the moment as sickness absence—putting aside whether that is the correct classification for such absence, and I think we can all acknowledge that a powerful case is being made that it is not—we all know that statutory sick pay is woeful. The rate is among the worst in Europe and it is not available to all workers. As we have seen during the pandemic, it is very hard for those on low wages, in insecure work, or the self- employed to access proper support when they are sick. Indeed, the Government have said they know sick pay needs to be looked at, so I hope the Minister can do so.
The Minister has previously suggested that in these situations annual leave could be used for miscarriage leave. The grieving process is of course not in any way remotely comparable to a holiday. For those suffering a loss, it is not something they would choose to do if they could avoid it, so I ask the Minister to think again about whether it is appropriate to ask people who have gone through such a traumatic experience to take a holiday. Is that the correct way to classify their grief?
The truth is that neither of the current statutory provisions is adequate. Bereavement is not an illness and it is certainly not a holiday. That is why Labour has committed to a right to introduce bereavement leave. We know that others support that. The chief executive of Sands, the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity, said that miscarriage leave should be statutory. Indeed, as we have heard, in many places, it is: New Zealand and Australia have recently introduced paid miscarriage leave policies. Closer to home, following a public consultation, the Northern Ireland Assembly has legislated to introduce paid miscarriage leave by April 2026. As has been highlighted, Northern Ireland is leading the way not just in the UK but in Europe on this policy. Several companies including the Co-op and Channel 4 and trade unions such as the GMB have introduced miscarriage policies and periods of leave for all women who have experienced a miscarriage. We all applaud those employers for their forward-thinking policies, but can we all agree that the lottery of who you are employed by should not determine whether you are entitled to such leave? We should also reflect on whether Members, as employers, should be looking to make changes in this area. It is important that we recognise that, while there is some good practice out there, leaving it to employers to decide will lead to inequality and that, without statutory provision or legal rights to back up what is being asked for today, not everyone will receive the support they require.
We also know that there is considerable support among others for this change. Sixty-five organisations, representing 69,000 employees, have signed the Miscarriage Association pregnancy loss pledge, which
“asks that employers endeavour to create a supportive work environment, understand and implement the rules around pregnancy-related leave, have a policy or guidance in place and support people and their partners back to work.”
In a debate earlier this month, which has been referred to, the Minister agreed that those principles sounded like a “very sensible” approach “that employers should take”, but he also acknowledged that not all employers do that. If he acknowledges this support is not available to all, he must surely recognise that it is incumbent on his Government to do something to address that. We hope to hear him say today that there will be a commitment to equalising entitlement to bereavement leave to protect all parents from being forced to go into work when dealing with the loss of a baby, no matter at what stage of the pregnancy it takes place.
I think we can all agree that creating a supportive environment in these situations is important. Without it, parents may not want to disclose their pregnancy loss to their employer. That is a difficult conversation to have at any time with an employer. Parents can do without the added stress and anxiety of having to raise and possibly even negotiate a period of leave with their employer. To compound that feeling, they might have justifiable fears of workplace discrimination and so not raise the matter at all, with the result that they end up suffering alone, in silence, without receiving the support that they need at a difficult time.
I am sure we will hear the Government say they intend to bring in employment measures when parliamentary time allows, but, as the Minister knows, the scheduling of legislation is up to them, so the time is in their gift. In the last couple of years, we have seen dozens of Acts of Parliament and thousands of statutory instruments, so it is a question of priority. The 2019 Queen’s Speech had the promise of an employment Bill, but that was dropped by the time of the 2021 Queen’s Speech. I hope that does not represent a downgrading of the Government’s commitment to tackling the issue. Surely any Government committed to tacking and improving rights at work would want to do so at the earliest opportunity. As we will no doubt hear shortly in the statement on P&O Ferries, employment laws in this country are in desperate need of an upgrade.
To conclude, will the Minister set out when he will bring the employment Bill forward, and whether he will consider putting within it the provisions that we have debated?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) on securing this debate, following the debate that we had in Westminster Hall, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to discuss this important and sensitive issue. It is so important that we hear the examples that she mentioned. We must give our sympathies to people who have lost a much-wanted baby at any stage of their pregnancy, including though miscarriage, and always reach out to them and support them. She spoke with much passion, as she always does on this issue, and I am grateful for her continued work to raise awareness of the significant impact of baby loss at any stage on those parents. I also thank everybody who contributed to the debate and supports the discussions around baby loss.
The hon. Member asked what the Government are doing to support people following a miscarriage. I am pleased to say that we have support in place for both employers and employees, to guide employers to do the right thing by their staff and to protect employees when they need to take time off. I have talked about how losing a baby at any stage is devastating and how those people need their employers to respond with compassion.
I want to set out briefly the wider work that the Government are talking forward on women’s health, including in the workplace, because this is integral to the strategy. In March 2021, we announced the establishment of England’s first women’s health strategy, led by the Department of Health and Social Care. Health in the workplace, fertility, pregnancy, pregnancy loss and post-natal support will be priority areas in that strategy. As we have heard, damaging taboos and stigmas remain around many areas of women’s health, and they can prevent women from starting conversations about their health or seeking support for a health issue, whether through medical help or help from their employers. When women do speak about their health, all too often they are not listened to. We are determined to tackle those issues. Women need to feel supported in the workplace, and those taboos are broken down through open conversation.
Our vision for the women’s health strategy, which was published on 23 December 2021, sets out an ambitious and positive new agenda to improve the health and wellbeing of women across England. We will publish the full strategy later this year.
The Government have an active agenda on work and health more widely. One example of that is our response to the “Health is everyone’s business” consultation published in July 2021, which sets out measures that we will take to protect and maintain progress made to reduce ill health and related job loss and to see 1 million more disabled people in work from 2017 to 2027. Those measures are part of the wider support system that I mentioned and are key steps in our effort to change the workplace culture around health and sickness absence. Changing that culture through opening up conversations in the workplace will benefit anyone who has health issues at work, including those who have lost a pregnancy.
So far I have talked about physical health, but for some people the feelings of grief and loss associated with a miscarriage are overwhelming and have an impact on their mental health. Our excellent national health service is there to support individuals when such feelings are particularly debilitating, or are likely to have a longer-term impact on their mental or physical health. We are expanding access to psychological and talking therapies within specialist perinatal mental health services, with 26 hubs due to open by April 2022. The hubs will offer treatment for a range of mental health issues, as well as bereavement services.
As part of the Government’s commitment to build back better, we published our mental health recovery action plan, which is backed by an additional £500 million this financial year to ensure we have the right support in place. That is in addition to the £2.3 billion of additional funding we are investing in mental health services by 2023-24. We also remain committed to achieving parity between mental and physical health services and reducing mental health inequalities. We are making good progress, with investment in NHS mental health services continuing to increase each year from £11 billion in 2015-16 to £14.3 billion in 2020-21.
I know that the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) is specifically interested in, and always speaks passionately about, a leave entitlement for miscarriage. Parental bereavement leave and pay may not be that entitlement, but it does two important things. First, it supports parents who have suffered that tragic unimaginable loss we have talked about. Secondly, it sets a statutory baseline for employers, sending an important message that the Government expect employers to support their staff following any type of bereavement. That bereavement leave is available to parents who have lost a child under 18 or who have suffered a stillbirth after 24 weeks. That definition of stillbirth is a clinical one.
Miscarriage is undoubtedly a very personal experience and some people affected may want to stay at home, while others may prefer to continue to work or alternatively need time off later. That is why the Government support employers and employees to have those conversations about what is happening in their lives and what support they need, giving them the flexibility to have that approach. Employers are best-placed to understand their own people and to develop a solution that works for the individual.
There are really good examples of companies treating their employees with compassion and going beyond the statutory minimum we set. That is valuable to the employer as well as to the employee. Increased loyalty to employees can improve the retention rate. There is a bottom-line argument for employers, because after investing time in people it seems daft to then not give them the flexibility to keep them within the workforce. Rewarding them well will keep them productive if they feel a valued member of the team.
We heard about the pregnancy loss pledge, which is an excellent example of exactly what I have been saying: encouraging employers to show empathy and understanding towards people experiencing pregnancy loss, and having a supportive work environment where people can openly discuss their needs following a loss.
In this difficult economic climate, the Government are mindful of placing extra statutory burdens on businesses, but for those businesses that can go further we strongly encourage them to do so. We fully expect that in time others will follow that lead. On flexibility, I can give the example of ASOS, which has life events leave. In recent debates we have talked about endometriosis, neonatal care, other caring responsibilities, menopause and now miscarriage. All those things fit partly within the women’s health strategy I was talking about, but in those life event situations it is absolutely incumbent on employers to value their people and show flexibility if they want the reward of their employees remaining productive and loyal in turn.
When it comes to helping employers to be sympathetic and supportive, one of our most important tools is guidance. We recently commissioned a significant update of the guidance on “Managing Bereavement in the Workplace”. That includes a new section on supporting employees after a miscarriage before 24 weeks of pregnancy and offers examples of best practice. The guidance can be found now on the ACAS website. Flexible working is integral to this issue. Yes, it is not a replacement for leave, but having access to flexible working arrangements can be a really important tool to support those in employment who experience a difficult life event. Changing a work pattern can provide individuals with the flexibility they need to balance their work commitments with their personal lives during such challenging times. Having a statutory right to request a temporary or permanent working arrangement could therefore be beneficial to individuals grieving a miscarriage.
We have taken forward our manifesto commitment to consult on making flexible working the default unless employers have good reason not to do it. That consultation contained measures that would increase the availability and support the uptake of flexible working arrangements, including whether to extend the right to request flexible working to all employees from the first day of employment. We have received 1,600 responses and we are going through them now. We will issue our response in due course.
Justin Madders
I just want to clarify: is the Minister seriously suggesting that someone who has had a miscarriage should make a flexible working application, which could take weeks or months to resolve?
Paul Scully
I am saying that it is one of the tools for employers to value their people, which is why we want to ensure that we can have a tailored response to people’s life events. I talked about miscarriage and we have also rightly talked about all the other areas, including women’s health and, indeed, men’s health, whether that is mental or physical. Flexible working can be at the heart of wraparound care for employees, but it is not the only tool.
Chris Stephens
Those of us on the SNP Benches often accuse the Government of stealing ideas from their distant cousin, the Liberal party of Australia. Is this not a case where the Liberal party of Australia is correct and more progressive than this Government on paid miscarriage leave?
Paul Scully
I am saying that we want to work with employers. We want to showcase the very best and to explain to employers—rightly—that any statutory limit we set is a minimum limit. Any sensible employer that values its people understands that very few businesses, if any, are anything without loyal, productive people. They can value them by showing increased flexibility, including through the examples that I gave of compassionate leave for life events.
Our consultation also talked about ad hoc flexible working and we want to explore how non-contractual flexibility works in practice. That can be done far faster than over the weeks talked about by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I have discussed the question with the flexible working taskforce, which will ensure that the role of ad hoc flexible working and the question of supporting women with health conditions are part of its considerations.
We have heard about employment measures and when they are coming to the House. I reassure Members that the Government are committed to building a high-skill, high-productivity and high-wage economy that delivers on our ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to work and grow a business. We will do that by continuing to champion a flexible and dynamic labour market and as we build back better we will introduce new employment measures to make it easier for people to enter and remain in work as soon as parliamentary time allows.
I extend my condolences once again to anyone who has experienced the loss of a baby. I understand and sympathise with the difficulties suffered by parents in this situation. I have highlighted some of the broad range of activity that the Government already have under way to support people in the workplace who experience difficult life events, including those who have lost a baby. It is also the case that employers have an important part to play because they know their employees and that a supportive workplace benefits both employees and employers, including on productivity and wellbeing.
I thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East once again for her contributions to the debate and I thank everybody who has worked hard to raise awareness of the impact of miscarriage.
Angela Crawley
On behalf of everyone who supported the motion, the private Member’s Bill, today’s debate and the Westminster Hall debate, I want to say with no disrespect to the Minister, who I know has a very large brief, that I do not feel he is listening to the volume and weight of the people who have asked the Government seriously to consider miscarriage leave. It is essential, it is important and without statutory provision too many employers will not make provision. It is fine to say that there is a gold standard and best practice, but when there is no statutory obligation too many employers will not do it. That means that too many families and too many parents will still suffer alone and in silence, and that is not good enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to introduce paid miscarriage leave; notes that in the UK, two weeks parental bereavement leave and pay is in place after stillbirth, however there is no such support for anyone who has experienced a miscarriage before 24 weeks of pregnancy; believes that miscarriage is an extremely traumatic experience and that more support should be provided to families that experience such a loss; understands that the New Zealand Parliament unanimously approved legislation to give people who experience a miscarriage paid leave, no matter what stage a loss of pregnancy occurs; and further believes that the Government should follow suit and provide paid leave for people that experience miscarriage and allow families to grieve for their profound loss.
P&O Ferries
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Robert Courts)
With permission Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the developing issue with P&O Ferries. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for having found time for me to make this important statement.
Earlier today, P&O announced its decision to make around 800 seafarers redundant on several routes across the UK. Let me say right off the bat: the way that these workers were informed was completely unacceptable. I will say more on that in a moment or two. While this is fundamentally a commercial decision for the company, I wanted to come to the House today to inform Members about our latest understanding of the situation and what is now being done.
In taking this decision to make seafarers redundant, P&O has also today informed us that it will be suspending services, for approximately a week to ten days, while it locates new crew. The affected routes are Dover to Calais, Larne to Cairnryan, Dublin to Liverpool and Hull to Rotterdam. I know right across the House will share my concern over the loss of these routes, but I should stress that P&O says they are only temporary and that alternative provision will be provided by other operators, to whom I am extremely grateful.
Passengers will still be able to travel to and from the UK, including across the channel, with freight coming in and out of the country. I understand that DFDS is stepping in to provide alternative services for passengers with valid tickets, and I would like to thank DFDS for its swift action.
However, I must warn travellers that they should expect some disruption over the coming days. I have asked my officials to liaise with the Kent Resilience Forum and the Cabinet Office to closely manage traffic in Kent over the coming days while P&O works to restore services. Today, the Dover TAP—the Dover traffic assessment project—has been activated, although as Members will know that is not all that uncommon, and there is some queuing on Jubilee Way, although the Port of Dover expects this to reduce over the afternoon. I have also asked officials to remain in close contact with other resilience forums around the country, as well as the devolved Administrations, in managing this issue.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we of course have long planned contingencies for such situations and disruption, particularly around the channel, and I do not expect the supply of critical goods and services to be impacted as a result of this decision by P&O, although queues on the way to Dover are more likely to occur at times. Modelling suggests we have sufficient capacity to handle the temporary loss of these P&O ferries.
Let me turn now to the issue of the seafarers. These are hard-working, dedicated staff who have given years in service to P&O. The way they have been treated today is wholly unacceptable and my thoughts are first and foremost with them. Reports of workers being given zero notice and escorted off their ships with immediate effect, while being told cheaper alternatives would take up their roles, shows the insensitive way in which P&O has approached this issue—a point I made crystal clear to P&O’s management when I spoke to them earlier this afternoon.
As I told Peter Hebblethwaite, I am extremely concerned, and frankly angry, at the way workers have been treated today by P&O. As a matter of urgency I have asked my Department to liaise closely with counterparts in the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that workers are being signposted to the most relevant support, and I am intending to call the trade unions immediately after this statement to discuss the situation with them.
There can be no doubt that the pandemic has had a devasting impact on the finances of many travel companies, including P&O. But while their finances are matters for them, and them alone, I would have expected far better for the workers involved. We will continue to engage closely over the coming days, and I commend this statement to the House.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The action taken by P&O Ferries today is a national scandal—a betrayal of the workers who have kept this country stocked throughout the pandemic. I have heard directly from the crew throughout the day: their lives upended, the jobs they depended on scrapped.
Workers are now left wondering how on earth they will put food on their families’ tables. The management did not even have the decency to tell them face to face: they were told this life-changing news on a pre-recorded video. Images are circulating of what we are told are handcuff-trained security staff, some wearing balaclavas, marching British crew off their ships. This is not a corporate restructure and it is not the way we go about business in this country. It is beneath contempt: the action of thugs.
It is quite simply a scandal that this Dubai-owned company, which received millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money during the pandemic has, without consultation or notice, upended the lives of 800 British workers, all while the profits of the owners, DP World, soared by 52% in the first half of 2021. We need a clear, unequivocal statement from the Government—no ifs, no buts. An overseas conglomerate cannot be given free rein to sack workers in secure jobs here in Britain at the click of a button and replace them with agency staff. The Government must not give the green light to this appalling practice. They must act now to secure the livelihoods of these workers, not signpost them to the Department for Work and Pensions.
This cannot stand. Will the Minister review any and every contract and licence that the Government have with P&O or DP World, to maximise leverage and force them to do the right thing? DP World runs two of the Government’s freeport schemes. Will he consider terminating those contracts? Will he convene urgent talks with P&O and the unions to look immediately at what steps can be taken to safeguard these jobs? Will he confirm whether the Secretary of State received notification, as required under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992? Given that neither the workers nor their unions received notification, this action is clearly illegal.
Will the Minister act immediately and ensure that all those party to the decision are appropriately proceeded against? Will he join me in condemning Clyde Marine and Interserve for the role that they have apparently played in today’s events and investigate any action that can be taken against them? Will he outline the full extent to which other operators will be able to cover this unacceptable disruption? It is impossible to conceive that we have sufficient capacity to cover a loss of 10 days. Finally, will the Minister look at clawing back every single penny of taxpayers’ money given to P&O over the course of the pandemic?
This situation must be set in context. For far too long, the Government have sat on their hands and chosen to side with bad bosses by failing to take action to outlaw fire and rehire. This is the cruel consequence of a decade of attacks on workers’ rights. No more excuses: it is time for Ministers to keep the promises they have made, deliver workers’ rights and outlaw fire and rehire without delay.
We are an island nation. British seafaring has been, and is, the envy of the world. We are rightly proud of the British sailors, ratings and officers, who make our fleet and whose name is known across the globe. What has happened is a straightforward assault on British seafaring. It cannot be allowed to stand. The Government must stand up, speak out and take action to protect the livelihoods of these proud workers.
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Member for her comments. She is quite right: lives have been upended and jobs scrapped. My sympathy and thoughts are wholly with the people who had this terrible news this morning. She is absolutely right about the video, which I have seen. I agree. This is devastating news, and to be shown a video on a television screen rather than told the news face to face is not how we expect loyal, hard-working workers to be treated. She mentioned crews being marched off; I have heard the same reports. I expect people to be treated with dignity and respect at all times, throughout their employment.
Employment laws apply, of course. It is difficult for me at the moment to comment in any detail on where that might be. I urge anyone affected to consider legal advice. Clearly that is something that they should do, but it is difficult for me to comment on that, particularly as this is a fast-moving situation.
The hon. Member asked me to review contracts that may exist. I have asked my officials to do that. I apologise, but I cannot give her any details at the moment, although I will be able to provide information to the House in due course if required. Conversations about freeports would have to take place across Government, involving, in particular, the Treasury and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. The hon. Lady asked me to convene urgent talks with the unions; I will speak to them this afternoon. It is possible that that will be an initial conversation and then there will be others, but I need no persuading that that will happen. She hon. Lady mentioned illegality. I ought not to go into that, but obviously the Government have a number of concerns, and I urge people to take the advice that they will need.
The hon. Lady asked me to give details of the operations. As I have said, this is a fast-moving situation, but although I am assured that there is not likely to be an operations impact, I will be monitoring that closely. I will give the hon. Lady more details when I have them, and if there are any steps to be taken, I will consider what they should be.
The hon. Lady spoke of setting this in context. I of course reject any suggestion that we have sided with bad bosses. I have made absolutely clear, today and on other occasions, that I expect people to be treated with respect at all times, and that is not the way in which these people have been treated. No one should be treated in the way in which they have been treated today.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about seafarers. We will continue to do everything we can to support British seafarers, and I hope to be able to give the House more details about that in due course.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call the Chair of the Transport Committee.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Thank you for allowing the statement, Mr Deputy Speaker. I also thank the Minister for delivering it so robustly.
P&O, that once great flag carrier of the seas, has made an appalling error. If it does not reverse that error immediately, reinstate the employees and follow proper process, it is hard to see a way back for it commercially. The parent company, DP World, needs to understand that the British public will not do business with companies that treat their employees with such contempt. Will the Government do everything within their power and influence, including tabling emergency legislation if necessary, to ensure that this appalling employment transaction cannot be completed?
Robert Courts
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I repeat that this is a fast-moving situation, and we are reviewing it both as it develops and as it exists. I will certainly review what arrangements exist as we go forward, and I can certainly commit myself to working with all Government Departments to consider what relationships we have with P&O. I will also try to see whether there is anything I can do in the particular circumstances with which we are dealing, although commercial matters affecting a company are primarily a matter for the company itself, within the constraints of employment law. In this country we have high standards of employment law, and we expect those standards to be respected and upheld.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let me add that I agreed with every word that was said by the shadow Secretary of State and the Chair of the Select Committee.
Earlier today I said that the actions of P&O were deeply concerning, but as more information has emerged, it has become clear that those actions were shameful, insensitive and inhumane. The Government responded to the fire and rehire scandal with lip service and warm words, saying that fire and rehire was shameful but stubbornly refusing to back those words up with any legislative action. That inaction has had consequences. What P&O has done today in sacking 800 workers over Zoom with no notice or consultation, and dragging them from their place of work using handcuff-trained private security personnel, is well beyond even fire and rehire. Of course, our primary concern must be for the traumatised P&O staff and their families. People are now jobless, having gone to work as they would on any other day. Will the Minister support the staff who remain aboard P&O vessels, and call on P&O to end its attempts to forcibly remove staff members?
The villain in all this is P&O and its parent company DP World, which is owned by anti-trade union oligarchs in Dubai who have a shockingly bad track record on employment relations. P&O’s plan is for entirely new crews to operate vessels with zero or little time for acclimatisation. Does the Minister not agree that P&O’s aim of resuming shipping with new staff almost immediately is reckless and unsafe? The Prime Minister visited the United Arab Emirates yesterday. Was there any discussion between him and the Dubai Government, the owners of DP World, about P&O?
The Minister said that while this is a commercial decision
“for them, and them alone, I would have expected far better for the workers involved.”
I agree, but I would also expect far better protections for our workers from the Government of the day. Can the Minister tell us if there is anything—anything at all—that the Government can do to intervene and help these workers? If there is not, does that not demonstrate, yet again, just how broken UK employment law is?
Robert Courts
I hear the anger and anguish expressed by the hon. Gentleman, and I know that he speaks on behalf of constituents and others he represents. I would encourage all employers in any event to speak to their hard-working, loyal, long-serving employees. I would certainly urge them to engage with the unions, which I hope would have been spoken to in advance in any such incident that would cause distress to workers and certainly in one such as this. I urge them to do that. On safety matters, this is still an evolving situation and there are clearly safety regulations that have to be applied and complied with in any case, no matter who is crewing a vessel. I would expect that to be the case. Clearly there will be no shortcuts as far as safety is concerned. We will continue to look across Government and speak to colleagues, and to uphold the rights that are clear in law to protect workers.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the way in which P&O Ferries and DP World have acted is shabby, disgraceful and utterly unacceptable? They have mistreated 600 loyal workers in Dover and in addition to this, they have brought traffic disruption and put at risk the economy and the trade routes through it. Will he meet me to discuss what more can be done to hold DP World and P&O Ferries to account for their disgraceful behaviour?
Robert Courts
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking out so powerfully and forcefully on behalf of her constituents, who will be anguished, hurt and distraught at the news they have been given today. She speaks for them and I thank her for doing so. I will of course meet her; I will meet any hon. or right hon. Member from anywhere across the House to discuss any concerns that they or their constituents might have. My hon. Friend asks me whether I agree that the way in which P&O has behaved is unacceptable? Yes, it is unacceptable.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Does the Minister acknowledge that my constituency of Canterbury, and east Kent as a whole, will be particularly affected by today’s shocking news? What urgent support will the Government give to all those affected locally, including the hundreds of P&O workers who have been treated disgracefully, as we have just heard, and who are now facing no pay packet at all in the face of the soaring cost of living? They do not want a work coach; they just want their jobs back. That is not to mention the beleaguered residents of east Kent, who will yet again have to bear the brunt of serious disruption to our daily lives. I am glad to hear that the Minister will meet MPs across east Kent; that needs to be done urgently. Thank you.
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Member for speaking out and making her constituents’ understandable anguish so clear in this place. That has been entirely heard by me and I share it. She speaks with anger, and I have expressed that anger in person to P&O today, because of the effect that this news will be having on people living in her constituency and elsewhere, particularly at a time that is already causing much uncertainty for many people. I would be delighted to meet her and any other Members who would like to meet me to discuss what we might be able to do. I referred earlier to some signposting within the DWP. That support is available, and if there are other things that would be helpful, I would be happy to hear from her. She also referred to disruption. There may be some disruption, but the only happy side of that is that we have good, well-rehearsed procedures in place to deal with that. I totally accept this situation will cause inconvenience to her constituents, but I hope that the well-practised routines we have in place will keep that to a minimum.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
When I was the shipping Minister, I oversaw the maritime growth study that built on the sector’s success. At its heart was the development of skills to build an even stronger merchant navy. This capricious, careless, callous decision by P&O flies in the face of all that.
Will my hon. Friend work with my old friends in the maritime sector, the RMT and others to recover any moneys granted to P&O during the pandemic and to ensure it reverses its decision? I will not let anyone tell me this is the free market. The free market put little girls in factories and boys down mines, and it put both at risk on the high seas. We thought those dark days had gone. P&O is either too dim to see it or too dastardly to know it.
Robert Courts
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about the skills that have been demonstrated by extraordinary British seafarers over many years. This is key to the Government’s vision of what we want to achieve, and it is particularly important to me personally. We remain committed to doing what we can to support seafarers, and all the strategies the House has heard me talk about, from Maritime 2050 onwards, remain the case. Our focus on maritime skills remains. The Government are still determined to do all we can to develop British seafarers and to continue as a maritime nation, as we have always been. He can be assured that determination remains undimmed.
My right hon. Friend rightly speaks about employment rights, which are extensive in this country. They exist for good reason, they continue and the Government support them.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
As the MP for Liverpool, Riverside, I am disgusted by the actions of P&O today. Liverpool is one of the routes that will be affected by this action, and it is another example of fire and rehire by a despicable employer. Why have this Government stood by and ignored it? Actions speak louder than words, Minister, so let us take some decisive action against P&O.
Robert Courts
I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s anger on behalf of her constituents. I am acutely aware that they will be affected. I caution her that we do not know all the circumstances yet. We do not know whether this is a fire-and-rehire situation or something else.
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady is right, and I have been absolutely clear about my view of how that has been done. I am merely making a point about the contractual arrangements that exist. We need to understand that, and I will continue to work with her and others to see what we can do to help.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for coming to the House so swiftly. We are all shocked, outraged and appalled by the treatment of P&O staff, and I welcome his condemnation of these dreadful employment practices. Will he continue to update the House on this unfolding situation?
Robert Courts
Yes. I am acutely conscious that there are some details I have not been able to give to the House today because the situation is evolving, and there are some things that we do not know and I do not know. As and when I do know, of course I will give the required information, either verbally or in some other way.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I speak on behalf of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) and the people of Hull, who stand united tonight in our utter disgust at what has happened to the seafarers who have been sacked by P&O. It is simply a lie that P&O must sack 800 British workers to survive. P&O paid out £270 million to shareholders last year while taking furlough money from taxpayers.
The Government have to be clear about whom they back. They cannot just say this is a commercial decision. This is a choice between predatory employers that are sacking workers on Zoom in their levelling-down race to the bottom and our loyal, hard-working UK workers who are fighting for their jobs. Will the Minister instruct Dubai-based DP World to stand down the replacement crews, send their security muscle home and reinstate immediately those who have been sacked?
Robert Courts
I thank the right hon. Lady for speaking on behalf of Hull and the hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) to make their voices heard. Her question, of itself, shows the importance of the maritime sector to the entirety of our United Kingdom. There are hon. and right hon. Members from every corner of our United Kingdom expressing their anguish on behalf of their constituents and themselves, and she is right that furlough money will have been available to P&O. The Government have supported this company, as we supported the whole economy during the pandemic.
The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) asks whether we are on the side of levelling down and a race to the bottom. No, we are not. I have been clear today that we expect rights to be maintained and supported. She asks whether we are on the side of hard-working workers. Yes, we absolutely are.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
My background is in the travel industry and this is not how the travel industry behaves. P&O is a great British company, but can the Minister make it clear that there is a difference between P&O Ferries and P&O Cruises? P&O Cruises has nothing to do with this disgraceful incident. If the parent company of P&O Ferries has made British workers redundant to replace them with agency workers and then in a week’s time expects to carry on as normal, the British public will not travel with it in any case, but surely the Minister should suspend its licences.
Robert Courts
I thank my hon. Friend for his expertise. He is absolutely right about the values of the wonderful travel industry that we have across the whole of the maritime, aviation, cruise and wider travel sector. His point about the distinction between P&O Ferries and P&O Cruises is accurate; they are separate entities and the two are not connected. He is right to make that absolutely clear and I thank him for doing so. I have made it clear that the behaviour we have seen today is absolutely unacceptable, and I will continue saying so. Not only that, but the British public will have noticed, as he rightly points out.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
We hear a lot of anger and sympathy from the Minister, but he is from the Government and the clue is in the title—they need to govern and take some action. We have not heard about any action whatsoever. It would be helpful to hear more from him on that. We have just been discussing St Patrick’s Day and our relationships with Ireland. Has he had any discussions with the Irish Government or with Members in the Northern Ireland Assembly about the impact on both Northern Ireland and Irish trade?
Robert Courts
I understand the points that the hon. Lady makes. I am also keen to stress that I have come to the House as quickly as I can to make a statement, which means that I have not had that much time to act. I have already spoken to the management of P&O—I made sure I did that—and I have asked my officials to undertake a number of actions so that I understand the wider system that exists. I hope she will bear with me while that work takes place. I have not yet spoken to the Government of Ireland, but if that is helpful, I am happy to do so.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
This afternoon, I have heard people talk about British employment law and discussing this with other Governments overseas. However, the legislation that covers this area is simply the maritime labour convention, an international convention that applies not only to vessels ordinarily engaged in trade, but where a vessel is operating under the flag of a country that has ratified the MLC, which the UK has, or it is operating in the waters of a country that has ratified the MLC. That ensures that there are terms and conditions for seafarers, including those who may not be part of the navigation team on the ship; it applies to everyone, including on issues such as repatriation. Will P&O or indeed DP World be repatriating the crew and everyone on the ship? Will that be paid for by P&O? Alternatively, it can be paid for by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. If it is, will the Minister ensure that that money is repaid back to the British taxpayer?
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend raises a number of important issues. There are different legal regimes applying here, and things depend on which one is applying. One is employment rights, which we have referred to, but he is right to say that there is also the MLC. This will depend upon what circumstance we are looking at. It is not entirely clear exactly what has happened. I will continue to look at that. I would expect that any ramifications that arise because of decisions taken by P&O would be ones that it would put right and not look to the Government to do so.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
P&O Ferries’ actions today, in sacking 800 workers via Zoom, are despicable and disgraceful, as has been said by Members from right across the Chamber. Of course we now need deeds, not just words. Some £270 million was paid in dividends and about £15 million paid in furlough. We need some teeth there. Those workers should be reinstated and that requires ministerial intervention. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) referred to the arrangement with licences—well, let us get on with it and show solidarity with those in the RMT—National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers—and all their families.
Robert Courts
The hon. Member is right that the behaviour we have seen today is unacceptable. I will be meeting the RMT later to hear what it has to say, and I will work constructively with it to see whether there is anything that I can do in support. He asks us to think about those affected and their families, and I of course entirely agree. I will talk to colleagues across Government and speak to the unions and those affected to see whether there are any further steps that we can take.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I join other Members in saying that what has happened today is completely unacceptable. On the face of it, it also seems to me to be potentially unlawful, although I understand why the Minister will not want to say at this point whether he shares that view. I also understand that in the discussions that have already taken place today there has been doubt about what law applies, in relation not just to the individual workers but the company’s obligation to notify the Government when it comes to redundancies. When the Minister has a better understanding of the legal obligations to the workers and to the Government, will he update the House so that we can take an informed view as to whether the company has potentially broken the law?
Robert Courts
The important thing to understand is that maritime contracts can often be quite complicated. Different contracts can apply for different seafarers at different times. I do not want to be in a position where anybody is looking to me for legal advice from the Dispatch Box. That is not my role as a Minister. I urge everybody to obtain their own independent legal advice so that they can take any steps that are necessary. It is for lawyers to provide that assistance, not Ministers.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
For how long are the Government prepared to allow companies such as P&O to treat loyal workers with contempt while they leach off the UK taxpayer? The Minister will know that there is a £146 million deficit in the pension fund for P&O retirees, yet P&O’s owners, DP World, just spent £147 million on sponsoring the European golf tour. After taking £10 million from taxpayers for furlough and demanding a further £150 million from the public purse to keep its operations going, the company paid out £270 million to shareholders in dividends and is now trying to fire 800 loyal workers. Does the Minister accept that P&O is taking him and the Treasury for fools? Does he regret the Government’s failure to back the measures in my private Member’s Bill that would have prevented these 800 seafarers from being treated so disgracefully?
Robert Courts
As I have said, we need to take stock of the situation as we understand it. The hon. Gentleman referred to fire and rehire; this may not be a fire and rehire situation—
Robert Courts
I am happy to look at what the measures in his Bill were, but we need to understand exactly what has taken place. I agree with his wider points about the actions that P&O has taken at the same time as treating its workers this way. Treating long-serving, loyal, hard-working, skilled people in this way cannot be defended.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House to make this statement and compliment him on the tone with which he delivered it, but the Government clearly must do more to protect British workers. He mentioned 800 redundancies, but the jobs are not redundant: the reality is that those 800 British-based seafarers are going to be replaced with 800 overseas seafarers who will work for cheaper rates. It is an absolute and utter disgrace. People anticipate that the Minister and his Government will do something about this to prevent it from happening again in future. If they do not, other employers—such as Heathrow airport or anyone else—could go down a similar route. Did the Prime Minister discuss P&O Ferries’ plans with anyone from Dubai-based DP World during his recent trip?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member is quite right to draw attention to the fact that we have and will continue to have a need for seafarers. We are a maritime nation and we depend on such links for connections in respect of people as well as in respect of freight. The hon. Member is of course right about that. I am passionate about championing British seafarers, about their skills and about ensuring that more people have the ability to benefit from a fascinating, rewarding and enjoyable career. I will continue to work with my colleagues to see what more can be done on that.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I, too, thank the Minister for coming to the House on this matter and for the tone that he has adopted. I am sure that we all share the feelings that this is completely despicable and unacceptable behaviour by the company. Rather than just signposting people to help, have the Government considered taking this company into public ownership, in the way that they have with previous companies, such as railway or aviation companies, to ensure that the jobs are protected and that our vital transport link with the continent is protected? Have the Government considered that and if not, why not?
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady is not drawing direct comparisons. As I understand it, this is not a company that is at risk of immediately ceasing operations, so the parallel she seeks to draw is not entirely accurate. I can be absolutely clear that, while commercial decisions have to be taken by companies, they should engage with people, they should consult, they should discuss things with them, and, at all times, they should treat them with the respect that they deserve.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The news today is terrible for the workers and their families, and I pay tribute to them and to the RMT union. I notice that the Minister did not answer the question of my good friend, the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), regarding the Prime Minister being on tour in west Asia and being in the United Arab Emirates—DP World is based in the United Arab Emirates. Has the Prime Minister had a discussion with DP World or any of the proprietors regarding the situation? If not, why not? Does he also agree that it was short-sighted and unreasonable of the Government to block the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on banning fire and rehire?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member will have noticed that this announcement was made only this morning, so, clearly, this is something that has come as a shock to the entire House. I hope that that clears up that matter for him.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I think that we can all agree that being sacked over Zoom with no notice and no consultation is barbaric. It also shows how broken our employment laws are in this country, because these people are being told that they are being made redundant when there is a group of workers waiting to replace them standing by the dockside. It is the fact that these workers are already in place that shows how pre-prepared and cynical this was. P&O had clearly been working on this for some time, so can the Minister tell us when it first informed the Government of its intentions?
Robert Courts
The hon. Member is probably right that P&O had been considering this for some time. The Government was first informed of this yesterday evening.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Other trade unions will be looking on at this, thinking that it is P&O workers today, and, if this stands, it is their workers tomorrow. Some of us with long memories can remember other flashpoints in industrial relations, such as Grunwick and the miners’ strike, which became very big disputes indeed. We do not want that around our ports. The simple way to avoid that and to avoid seeing workers being forced aside for the police to allow people through so that P&O can continue business as usual is to take business away from P&O at our ports. Have the Government considered that?
Robert Courts
As I said when I answered the shadow Transport Secretary, I have asked my officials to understand what level of contractual engagement Government have with P&O. I do not yet have that information, but that is under way as we speak. None the less, the hon. Gentleman draws a wider point around the importance of engagement. We do not want to see disruption, and we do not want to see any difficulties with industrial relations that cause wider problems. I have been absolutely clear that the way that workers have been treated today is absolutely unacceptable. P&O should have spoken to the unions. I have told it that it should be speaking to the unions. I do not think that it has done so, but I will certainly be doing so later today.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Today DP World has inflicted the ultimate pain on workers by sacking them on the spot. They are safety-critical workers in a safety-critical industry; they cannot simply be replaced. Will the Minister ensure that no ship sails with agency staff crewing it in the future? Will he ensure that he works with Nautilus and the RMT so that our shipping industry is put in a safer space than it is in today?
Robert Courts
I thank the hon. Lady for rightly drawing attention to the critical importance of safety. As I said earlier, there are no two ways about safety: any ship sailing has to be safe. I have total confidence in those at the Maritime and Coastguard Agency who regulate maritime safety. That will continue to be the case and they will continue to ensure safety in the same way they always do. I have total confidence that that is the case, no matter who is crewing which vessel under which company at any one time. She asks whether I will work closely with the RMT and Nautilus. Yes—I am due to meet them after this statement, and I will listen to what they have to say, but of course at any time I will seek to work closely with the unions and all right hon. and hon. Members.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
First, I express solidarity with the RMT and Nautilus workers refusing to leave their ships. Will the Minister properly and fully condemn the use of balaclava-wearing, handcuff-trained security in any forcible removal of workers? It is like going back to Victorian times. Secondly, will the Government use their full powers to prevent P&O ferries from using British waters at all until this matter is justly resolved?
Robert Courts
I have been absolutely clear about my view of the way that workers have been treated today. I cannot comment on specific circumstances until I have had them confirmed—I have seen things reported on social media, as has the hon. Gentleman—but I have been clear that the way workers have been treated is absolutely unacceptable.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House at incredibly short notice and responding to questions from MPs.
Educational Assessments
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
I thank Mr Speaker for allowing me to bring this important debate to the Chamber, and I thank the Minister for being here, particularly much later than expected, to respond.
The Minister will be aware that I have been working on this important issue for some time. It is something that I am passionate about and wrote about in my One Nation paper in summer 2020. It is not just me: we now have five commissions reporting on the reform of educational assessment, so this is a good moment to debate the merits of reforming our present system.
Even before covid, 21st century society was rapidly changing, but our education is still stuck in the 20th century. Even its original architect, Lord Baker, argues that it is due an overhaul. Covid has given us the chance to re-look at various policies, not least how we assess our children. We need to grasp that chance.
As Professor Bill Lucas, co-founder of Rethinking Assessment, states:
“Across the world assessment is not working. We are not evidencing the kinds of dispositions and capabilities that society increasingly wants. Educational jurisdictions are placing too much reliance on high-stakes, standardised testing. They are testing the wrong things in the wrong ways. High-stakes assessment is having a damaging impact on the health and wellbeing of students and it is not giving universities, colleges or employers the kind of information they want.”
Let us unpick those words. What does society want from education? Our assessment system currently dominates our entire schooling, influencing what is taught and how it is taught. As Professor Lucas says, we have a system focused on performance in a narrow range of high-stakes academic standardised testing.
It is important that I say that standards are vital, but increasingly employers do not understand the myriad qualifications and whether they are gold standard or not, especially when GCSEs are reduced to a milepost in a young person’s journey to 18, when they leave for university or work. The House of Lords’ Youth Unemployment Committee states:
“Skills gaps and shortages are clearly a major driver of youth unemployment and damage labour market productivity”.
The Times Education Commission’s interim report has been very focused on asking employers what they are looking for, and they agree that young people are not coming out with the life skills that would help in the workplace.
We have a knowledge-based curriculum, but we also need to build skills into the curriculum. It does not have to be a binary choice of knowledge versus skills; we need to marry powerful knowledge with the skills and attributes needed to apply them to real life. Are we testing the wrong things in the wrong ways? The figures seem to show that we are. A third of all students every year do not get grade 4 and above, which is considered a pass. As 613,000 young people took GCSEs last year, a third of that means that some 200,000 young people did not make the grade—a huge number. They are leaving education without substantive qualifications because our system fails those learners, who are better served by practical, technical and vocational ways of learning and assessment.
The Department for Education says that exams are the fairest way of everyone being tested the same. Really? Is that why girls do so much better? In 2019, 72% of girls received grade 4 or above GCSEs and only 63% of boys—a 9% difference that has not changed over a number of years. Are we saying that girls are much cleverer than boys, or is the reality that this is not a fair way of assessing everyone? We know that girls and boys learn differently.
I became increasingly concerned about the failure of our assessment system when I was the MP for Portsmouth South. I heard how many young people at college were taking their maths and English GCSEs over and over again. That seems ridiculous. Surely there is a better way of engaging pupils in maths and English that makes sense to them and enables them to achieve a certain level, not necessarily through an exam—I stress that I am not against exams, but against what I consider to be unnecessary exams at 16 that are narrowly focused when we are expecting young people to stay in education or training until they are 18. It would make far more sense to assess young people at 18, especially when there is ample evidence that assessment at 16 does not work and is harming our children. Professor Lucas says exams at 16 cause
“a damaging impact on the health and well-being of students”.
Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, professor of psychology and cognitive neuroscience at Cambridge University, has done a huge amount of research into how teenage brains develop. She spoke to us at a fringe event at the Conservative party conference in 2021. She says that high-stakes exams put huge pressure and stress on teenagers, reducing motivation during a critical time during their development. The yearly Children’s Society’s “Good Childhood Report” raises young people’s mental health as an issue. In 2018, children aged 15 in the UK had the greatest fear of failure and the lowest life satisfaction in school of children across 24 European countries. The 2021 report found that school, followed by friendships and appearance, continue to cause the greatest dissatisfaction in adolescence. In the Children’s Commissioner’s Big Ask survey, young people highlighted that stress related to high-stakes exams or assessment remains a significant concern to them.
Not just young people but parents and teachers are concerned. Of course, we all have to cope with stress and deal with it throughout our lives, but not when it is going to have a big impact on the future of a young person. For the record, I do not accept that the term “snowflake” is fair in any way for this generation. It is simplistic and lazy, and makes no allowance for the complexity that young people face today.
The last point in the quote is about education and employers not receiving the kind of information that they want. A YouGov poll commissioned by the Edge Foundation in 2020 found that 92% of teachers agree that the assessment system needs to recognise the full range of a young person’s strengths and skills through more than just written exams, especially as they place an emphasis on rote learning to the detriment of developing the skills and attitudes needed for work.
The Times Education Commission has been very clear that employers would like to see skills as well as knowledge. We are talking about skills of how to tackle and deal with any challenges during a lifetime, as well as other softer skills, including the value of oracy and team work. For example, disadvantaged children’s spoken language development is significantly lower than that of their more advantaged peers, although spoken language is one of the strongest predictors of a child’s future. However, the concentration and time spent on written exams does not allow for this development. That cannot be right or fair. Employers say that personality is more important than qualifications, and those of us whose exams were a long time ago know there is absolute truth in that, so why is it designed out of our present assessment system?
We are not just talking about exams at 16—it starts much younger in primary schools. SATs dominate year 6, and I am afraid there is teaching to the test to the exclusion of a wider curriculum. Pupils are reassessed when they get to secondary schools in any case. People say that SATs are needed as a measure of school accountability—really? We have Ofsted, and there are many ways of judging schools, such as quality of teaching and professional development of teachers for starters.
Parents do not look primarily at results when they are choosing a school—in fact, that is at the bottom of their list. They want a school where their child will be happy, achieve their potential and enjoy learning at the same time, alongside a wide range of activities. That is why so many people decide to pay to send their children to independent schools when they can afford it, but this is ridiculous as it is possible for every state school to do all of this. That is important because the Government’s Industrial Strategy Council highlighted that, by 2030, 7 million additional workers could be under-skilled for their job requirements. The skills gap is costing UK companies £6.6 billion a year.
Some people feel that education should be about inspiring young people through a knowledge-based curriculum only, or, as I would put it, learning information that they may never look at again. That is one argument, but it should be mixed with learning how to learn, learning skills that will make our children lifelong learners because it makes sense, learning because it interests and engages them and learning for the love of learning, rather than for a narrow set of exams. The Department for Education’s employer skills survey and findings from the CBI and other organisations, such as the World Economic Forum, all point to employers looking for skills such as problem solving, communication, self-management, team working, creativity, numeracy and digital skills. Those are not soft skills that come at the expense of knowledge. Knowledge is only useful where individuals have the skills to interpret and communicate it.
So what is the answer? I know this is not going to happen overnight—certainly not under this Government, although we will hear what the Minister says—but we will need to move gradually to a new system to give teachers, parents, young people and employers confidence in the changes. I am not calling for some radical seismic shift, but we must recognise that there is substantial evidence that there is a better alternative and work towards it—one that is multi-disciplined, offers a broad and balanced portfolio of assessment and blends the best of knowledge and skills.
The OECD and the programme for international student assessment, or PISA, are currently developing assessments to be used across the world, for example, in collaborative problem solving and creative thinking. The international baccalaureate model is used in 5,000 schools in more than 150 countries. There is good practice and systems out there that we can look at to design our own assessment at 18. We should have a 14-to-18 curriculum without a break for GCSEs which, as I have said, are no longer fit for purpose. We should have a broad and varied curriculum that enables young people to find their own path, whether that is academic or vocational with exams and/or assessment, be that a final assessment or continual assessment throughout those four years.
We should have a portfolio of achievement that includes English and maths in a format that is relevant to what that student wants to do; taking part in the National Citizen Service or Duke of Edinburgh award scheme and other organisations that bring character and skills; and a transcript that shows what a young person is really like, not just their ability to pass or fail national exams. That is particularly important in terms of equality. Young people from deprived and lower-income backgrounds often require more time and resources to realise their potential, and a more diverse and expansive range of subjects than the narrow curriculum we impose at present. An extended school day would help with that, too.
University technical colleges are already following the 14-to-18 model. They have been remarkably successful in identifying how an education can inspire and engage young people. I visited the Portsmouth UTC, which has been going for five years. Entry is by ballot and it has three applicants for every place. It gives young people the skills for the world of work, and those who do not go to university mostly go straight into higher-level apprenticeships. Time and again, it is a success story for those young people and it is in operation right now in this country.
A good education has the power to change lives and open doors to greater employment and lifelong learning. It leads to better health choices and active citizenship. Good teaching inspires and, crucially, assessment reform must give power back to teachers so that they can do what they were trained to do—impart a love for their subject to the next generation, rather than teaching to the test. If we do not change, we will continue to fail millions of young people in this country, including many from disadvantaged backgrounds. We will continue to struggle against our international competitors because we will lack the 21st-century skills that we need to be global Britain.
With the right focus and commitment, young people from all backgrounds, who are engaged and who know that the point of their assessment is to realise their ambitions, will flourish, but they need time to study the subjects in which they are interested—academic or vocational—in depth, over four years. That would set up many more of our children for a lifetime of work and learning. We need to start working on a system that works for them as we enter the second quarter of the 21st century and as young people face all the challenges of this complex world.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Robin Walker)
I genuinely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) on securing this debate and on the enthusiasm with which she has put her case. She has written extensively about examinations and assessment and she is a passionate advocate for children and young people.
There is a great deal on which we can agree, such as understanding the importance of young people’s mental health, the importance of skills as well as academic rigour in the system, and the importance of balancing opportunities across vocational and academic routes. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want schools to be teaching to the test and that we want pupils to be engaged in activities as well as learning from which they can benefit.
I fear that we are fated to disagree, however, on exams and assessment reform. We stood on a manifesto that promised to ensure that
“every pupil gets the qualifications they need for a prosperous future, while learning in an environment where they will be…fulfilled.”
It is vital to me that qualifications align with our broader vision for education. The Government are clear that young people should be able to access a broad and balanced academically focused curriculum up until the age of 16. We believe that pupils should be introduced to the best that has been thought and said to familiarise them with the essential knowledge that they need to be educated citizens and to ensure that as many children as possible can lay claim to a rich intellectual inheritance.
Key to that, of course, is ensuring that they have the numeracy and literacy skills to access that broad and balanced curriculum by the time they finish primary school. GCSEs provide the basis for an academically focused curriculum from 14 to 16 and it is our ambition that, by 2025, 90% of pupils will sit a core set of academic GCSEs known as the EBacc.
We have taken steps to ensure that pupils have the opportunity to study high-quality vocational and technical qualifications alongside that core from 14 to 16. We have improved the quality of non-GCSE qualifications at key stage 4 by introducing a new approvals process for technical awards. Only those that meet our stretching requirements and are reviewed by Ofqual will be recognised in key stage 4 performance tables alongside academic qualifications.
With that broad grounding, all students, regardless of background, are prepared to fulfil their aspirations post 16. Pupils can specialise by choosing from a range of high-quality academic and technical qualifications and routes that then become open to them. As my hon. Friend rightly pointed out, the academic route is not the only path to success, which is why it is important that a range of assessment types and pathways is available, drawn from our rigorous and evidence-informed blend of qualifications, to ensure that all students can achieve their full potential.
Alongside A-levels, we have introduced T-levels. Our 10 new T-levels are being taught, including digital, construction, education and childcare, and healthcare science. More than 20 will be available from 2023 and they give students a clear path from their studies to their chosen career. We are also streamlining and improving the quality of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Minister is both diligent and thoughtful about these matters. The key thing is that many people’s tastes and talents take them down a practical route, yet we are still labouring under the illusion that the only way to gain accomplishment comes through academic prowess. The simple fact of the matter is that, as he suggested, we need to recognise that fewer people should be studying those degrees that confer neither intellectual rigour nor economic value. People should be studying practical, vocational, technical subjects for their own benefit and fulfilment and for the national interest.
Mr Walker
I do not disagree at all with my right hon. Friend, and he will see that some of the work our right hon. Friend the Minister for Higher and Further Education is doing with the university sector is about recognising precisely that, but I do not think that is an argument for removing GCSEs at the age of 16; it is an argument for ensuring that those vocational routes are available.
As we all know, the past two summers have seen unprecedented disruption to the familiar routine of exams and assessments. Teachers and school and college leaders across the country have coped amazingly well with the pandemic and with its associated disruption to exams—and I want to take this opportunity to again thank them from the Dispatch Box for their herculean efforts—but we know that exams are the best and fairest way of judging students’ performance.
Exams provide a shared understanding of what students know and can do—an even playing field with everyone being assessed on the same thing at the same time, independently. We know that exams and the preparation leading up to them can be motivating and lead to improved learning. Beyond that, exams provide students with an objective and accurate gauge of their progress and understanding of subject matter, which can inform their choices about where to go on to next. Exams are the most objective measure, which is why non-examined assessment and coursework is used only where knowledge, skills and understanding cannot be tested validly by an exam. Examples of this would include coursework in GCSE and A-level art and design. For all those reasons we are committed to exams continuing to play a crucial role in our education system, and we are firmly committed to their reintroduction this summer as we emerge from the effects of the pandemic.
Over the course of the last 10 years our reforms to secondary and further education qualifications have created a gold-standard exam system that is respected around the world. Our qualifications exports in 2018 were worth £3.3 billion to the UK economy; this points to a model of success of which we should rightly be proud.
My predecessors in the Department reformed and strengthened GCSEs from 2013 to address concerns from higher and further education institutions and employers that the previous qualification did not adequately prepare young people for the demands of the workplace and higher studies—points my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley made. Our reformed GCSEs rigorously assess knowledge acquired by pupils in key stage 4 and are in line with expected standards in countries with the highest-performing education systems.
Our reforms strengthened GCSEs in a number of ways. Qualifications became linear, with exams sat at the end of a two-year course so that less time is spent preparing for modules and resits and more time is spent on teaching and learning. My hon. Friend raised the point about teaching for tests. I have frequently discussed that with Ofsted, which takes it very seriously; its new inspection framework encourages schools to keep a focus on the breadth of curriculum, particularly at key stage 3 and earlier, and discourages teaching to the test.
Ofqual was formally established as the new independent regulator in 2010, with a statutory responsibility to maintain standards. It put in place robust arrangements to maintain standards, which led to year-on-year stability in grades over a long period. Ofqual also introduced a new grading scale, from 9 to 1, with 9 the highest and 1 the lowest grade, in place of A* to G, to signal that the standard of qualifications had changed and to allow greater differentiation of performance at the top end. In 2017 Ofqual also introduced a national reference test to capture improvements in attainment in English and maths so that these could be reflected in grading.
GCSEs serve a critical function as a measure of attainment and a vehicle for progression, and they do so because they are recognised and trusted. They have strong public recognition, with support from 75% of those surveyed as part of Ofqual’s most recent public perceptions and confidence study. That trust stems from a long history in this country of assessment at age 16, which has existed since at least 1918 when the school certificate was introduced, through to the introduction of O-levels in 1951, CSEs in 1965 and GCSEs in 1988.
Mrs Drummond
That was fine when young people were leaving at 16 because they needed some qualifications to take into the workplace, but we are now expecting all young people to stay in education or training until 18, so does it not make more sense to shift that exam at 16 to 18?
Mr Walker
That training can of course include the workplace, such as through apprenticeships and the vocational route, so I have to disagree fundamentally. It is important that young people have those opportunities to continue studying in school or, for those who are not suited to school, to go on to a vocational route to pursue further study and development of their careers in the workplace.
We know that half of students change institution at the age of 16, and it is because they have a shared and recognised qualification that they can transition easily post-16. GCSEs equip students to move directly into employment or apprenticeships at that age with a qualification in hand. GCSEs are long-standing, credible and well respected. At the same time, as I mentioned, we have worked with higher education providers and employers to reform A-levels to ensure that they better meet the needs of higher education. That includes decoupling the AS-level to reduce the assessment burden and enable A-level students to spend more time learning and developing their depth of understanding of subjects. Reformed GCSEs support reformed A-levels, and reformed A-levels support higher graduation rates in three-year degrees from our internationally recognised universities, with four British universities currently in the top 10 globally and 17 in the top 100.
I turn to vocational and technical qualifications, which we all recognise are important. From our reforms to the way in which grades have been awarded in the context of the covid-19 pandemic, we have sought to ensure parity between those receiving vocational and technical qualifications and those receiving GCSEs and AS and A-levels. As I mentioned, the new T-levels have been developed in collaboration with employers so that students can get the specific training, knowledge and skills required for their chosen career. Not only that: they include a nine-week high quality placement in a relevant industry, giving students first-hand experience of work during their studies.
Alongside the introduction of our T-levels, we are streamlining and strengthening the quality of all other post-16 qualifications at level 3, making the system easier to navigate and more responsive to employers’ needs. The changes that we are making will give students a clear route map to the high-quality technical and academic choices available—choices that they can trust to lead to rewarding careers.
My hon. Friend mentioned the role of UTCs. The Government are committed to providing young people with technical skills and knowledge to progress into further and higher education, apprenticeships and employment. Indeed, strong university technical colleges such as the outstanding UTC in Portsmouth to which she referred are succeeding in equipping their students with those vital skills.
I turn to the immediate arrangements for qualifications. We recognise that students taking exams this year will have experienced disruption caused by the covid pandemic, so we have rightly worked closely with Ofqual to put in place a package of measures to recognise that. The measures will include unprecedented support to ensure that students can fairly demonstrate what they know and can do. They offer the right balance to account for the disruption students faced while providing students, teachers, schools and colleges with the consistency and independence of assessment and familiarity that exams deliver. The package of measures this year includes advance information on the focus of exams in most subjects for GCSE and AS and A-level students; a choice of topic or content in some GCSE exams where advance information is not provided; exam aids for use during some GCSE exams; and a range of adaptations for students taking vocational and technical qualifications depending on the purpose of the qualification.
In balancing public confidence in qualifications with fairness, Ofqual has also confirmed that 2022 will be a transition year to reflect the fact that we are in a pandemic recovery period and that students’ education has been disrupted. In 2022, the aim will be for grades to reflect a midway point between 2021 and 2019, with national results likely to be higher than pre-pandemic levels, providing a safety net for those of this year’s students who might otherwise have missed out on a grade. We are confident that those measures, alongside the direct investment of nearly £5 billion in education recovery, provide a pathway for a successful return to normal exams and assessments in the academic year 2022-23.
My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the importance of mental health. Exams and other assessments are an essential part of ensuring that young people have acquired the knowledge and skills that they need to study. The Government are clear that education providers should encourage pupils and students to work hard, but not at the expense of their wellbeing. I recognise that exams, like other things in life including job interviews, moving house or having a first child, are by their nature stressful, but when pupils receive the right support, many find the level of stress from exams manageable—and actually a certain level of stress can be a motivating factor. Schools and colleges should be able to identify signs of exam-related stress whenever they emerge and be in a position to respond appropriately.
Research shows that there is a clear difference between exam stress, which is not necessarily a bad thing, and anxiety, which is a cause for concern. Clearly, we do not want young people to be in a situation where pressure tips over into mental health problems. That is why we have provided schools with a wide range of training and resources to help them support pupils and students’ wellbeing. Our recent £15 million wellbeing for education recovery and wellbeing for education return programmes have provided free expert training, support and resources for education staff, helping to promote and support the wellbeing and mental health of pupils and students as they recover from the impacts of the covid pandemic. Ofqual has also issued guidance on coping with exam pressure. The information provides some techniques that students can use to help to alleviate or lessen anxiety they might have about exams, and it can be accessed through Ofqual’s website.
My hon. Friend mentioned primary assessments. We think it is vital that primary assessments go forward this year, not least because we want to ensure that that data is available to look at the impact on learning from the pandemic and that we can work across the system. However, I can confirm to her that we will not be publishing comparative data between schools this year, which I know has been a concern for the sector. Recognising that school tests and assessments will be returning for the first time since 2019 without the adaptations we have in secondary, the results will not be published in league tables.
Mrs Drummond
If that is successful, will the Minister continue it in future years? One of the problems that make the stakes high is that schools are put in league tables. That is why they are teaching to the test, because, obviously, they want to appear higher up in the league tables. If it is a success this year, will it be carried on so that we do not have league tables anymore?
Mr Walker
The specific measures we are taking this year are in recognition of the pressures the sector has faced. We will, of course, review their impact as we go forward.
I am grateful to have had the opportunity to debate this very important issue this evening. I must be clear that there are no plans for new wholesale reform of GCSEs and A-levels, which are internationally respected and enjoy high levels of public support. I am proud of the strides that this Government and previous Governments have taken to boost the quality of our technical and vocational qualifications. Our reforms since 2010 have already made a lasting improvement to qualifications, ensuring that they reflect the knowledge and skills pupils need to progress. Our GCSE and A-level reforms were substantial and designed to last, but some of the reforms to qualifications were quite new when the pandemic started. I am determined to continue the great work of my predecessors and embed them into our system. I am also acutely aware that schools, colleges and our brilliant teachers will benefit from a period of stability as we recover from the effects of the pandemic.
As we gear up for the return of exams this summer, I will close with a reflection on what that will mean for students across the country who are preparing for them. For the first time in two years, students in my constituency of Worcester, as well as in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Meon Valley and along with those up and down the country, will have the chance to demonstrate what they have learned through public exams. I am pleased that through their hard work and the hard work of their teachers, they will have the opportunity to secure the valuable qualifications they need to progress to the next stage of their careers.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Food and Feed Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Draft Food and Feed Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2022.
It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. It is also a pleasure to serve opposite the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge. Over a number of months, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and I regularly debated European Union-related statutory instruments in Committee, to the extent that we could almost finish off each other’s speeches by the end of it. I suspect the same was true for the hon. Member for Cambridge and the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), in a similar context. It is a pleasure to serve opposite him today.
This draft instrument, which concerns food and feed law, is made under powers in the Food Safety Act 1990 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It follows on from the 18 EU exit instruments on food and feed safety made during 2019 and 2020—probably many of them etched on the hon. Gentleman’s mind. The Government’s priority is, as always, to ensure that the high standard of food safety and consumer protection we enjoy in this country continues to be maintained now that the UK has left the European Union.
The draft instrument is technical in nature. None the less, I am sure that hon. Members will welcome a brief summary of the regulations and the changes that we are making. The measure serves three key functions. First, it will ensure that emergency powers can be applied equally to all food and feed entering Great Britain. Retained EU regulation 178/2002 on the general principles of food law provides Ministers with emergency powers to suspend or restrict the placing of food or feed on the market. That can be used where food or feed presents a threat to human health. Legal analysis of article 53 of that regulation identified that, as worded at present, it is not possible for a Minister to exercise those emergency powers over third-country food and feed entering Great Britain via Northern Ireland.
I emphasise that that operability issue is confined only to third-country goods entering Great Britain via Northern Ireland. Emergency powers to restrict third-country products that present a risk to health having access to the Northern Ireland market are already in place. To correct that identified issue, the draft regulations include a technical amendment that will enable all Ministers to apply, equally, the same emergency controls to all food and feed destined for our market, regardless of their place of origin or route of consignment. The amendment does not extend the remit or gravity of the controls that may be introduced, but will ensure that emergency controls are exercisable equally across all parts of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the draft instrument ensures that authorising provisions for feed additives and for genetically modified food and feed authorisations will be made by legislation. Again, legal analysis of fixed and retained EU law identified that retained EU regulation 1831/2003 on feed additives and retained EU regulation 1829/2003 on GM food and feed contained a number of omissions. The regulations did not sufficiently make it clear that the authorisation decisions for those products must be prescribed in legislation. While that does not prevent Ministers from taking decisions to authorise those products, provision for those decisions to be implemented through legislation makes certain their enforceability in law and, of course, the role of this House. The proposed amendment therefore clarifies the fact that decisions on authorisations for feed additives and for genetically modified food and feed will be prescribed through legislation, thus ensuring consistency with other retained EU law in this area.
Thirdly and finally, the draft instrument provides a period of adjustment for changes to labelling requirements made necessary by EU exit legislation. In preparation for EU exit, changes were made to the legislation on extraction solvents and quick-frozen foods to reflect the fact that the UK would no longer be part of the EU. As a result, relevant food placed on the market on or after 1 January 2021 is required to be labelled with the name and UK address of the legal person responsible for it, rather than an EU contact and address.
The draft instrument provides for a period of adjustment in those sectors, allowing for the continued use of labels with an EU contact and address until 30 September this year. The adjustment applies to England only. The Food Standards Agency has worked with its counterparts in Wales and Scotland to ensure a co-ordinated approach, and similar measures are already in place in those Administrations. Through the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, I put on the record my gratitude to all the devolved Administrations for the constructive engagement that we have had with them on these matters. The regulations will support food businesses in England that source products from the EU, or from outside the EU, through an EU distributor. They are also in line with the approach being taken by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to labelling changes within its remit.
Let me make it clear that the SI does not introduce any changes that will impact on the day-to-day operation of food businesses; nor does it introduce any new regulatory burden. The essence of the legislation is unchanged, but it provides benefit for certain businesses by enabling a period of grace in the introduction of the labelling changes.
To the point that I just made to the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, it is important to note that Scotland and Wales have provided their consent for the SI. The Northern Ireland Department of Health has been briefed on the amendments, and we have engaged positively with the DAs. I welcome their engagement on that and the constructive relationships that officials of the Scottish Government and others have with my officials and officials in DEFRA.
I want to take the opportunity to reassure hon. Members that the overarching aim of the regulations is to provide continuity for business and to ensure that high standards of safety and quality for food and feed regulation continue across the UK. As I said, the changes do not affect the essence of existing legislation. They are simply technical in nature and ensure that emergency provisions that allow for controls on food or feed identified as presenting a serious risk to health may be applied equally to any goods destined for the market. They will ensure that appropriate legislative provision is in place to enable decisions taken to authorise feed additives and GM food or feed to be enacted through legislation. Finally, they will provide for a smooth transition through the transition period, to allow businesses to adjust to the new labelling requirements.
Having effective and functional law in this area is key to ensuring that the high standards of food safety and consumer protection that we enjoy in this country are maintained in the immediate and longer term. I therefore ask hon. Members to support the SI before us.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I echo the comments made by the Minister at the beginning. I have spent many a happy hour in dialogue with the Minister for Farming, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Banbury. It is always a pleasure to speak to her, and it is great to have the opportunity to hear another voice.
It is also a pleasure to deal with anything brought forward by the Food Standards Agency—a great achievement of the last Labour Government—which was established in 2000 to ensure food safety after the problems of the previous decade. Those who have followed the history of the agency will note with interest that it is a health Minister responding today. I could not possibly comment on why that might be, but many of the Food Standards Agency’s powers were moved elsewhere under the coalition Government. However, it is a fine agency.
The statutory instrument deals with a number of significant issues, although they are largely technical, as the Minister said. We absolutely agree that they need to be resolved, and you will be pleased to know, Ms Rees, that we will not oppose the SI. Some of the regulations touch on the very challenging issues posed by the Northern Ireland protocol, and I am grateful to the Minister for his clear explanations in spelling them out. I am also very impressed by the explanation in the explanatory memorandum. Those of us who are now becoming aficionados of statutory instruments will note the different styles from different Departments, and I was delighted to hear the Food Standards Agency’s positive account of the current set-up. In fact, I am so impressed that I will read it into the record. Paragraph 7.4 states:
“Before IP completion day, relevant EU food and feed law provided a high level of consumer protection with regard to food and feed hygiene and safety. In particular, relevant EU food and feed law set out the general principles for the safe and hygienic production of food and feed. They also prescribed effective and proportionate controls which must be applied by food business operators and feed business operators throughout the food chain, from primary production through to the sale or supply to the final consumer.”
That is absolutely right, and it is a very good system.
I hope that one or two of those in DEFRA who, as I have been saying to the hon. Member for Banbury, are a bit more negative about it will note the reasoned and sensible approach that the Food Standards Agency takes. If we look at paragraphs 7.7 and 7.9, however, where the first two items referred to by the Minister are set out in detail, I have to ask whether this has been a paper exercise in which potential problems have been identified, or whether any of the situations that could have occurred actually occurred. If they have occurred, how have they been dealt with? Will the Minister tell us whether any such situations have actually occurred, and explain how they were dealt with?
I welcome the clarification that the GM and feed additive authorisations will be done through an SI. Will the Minister clarify which procedure is to be used, whether negative or affirmative? There is considerable public interest in some of this. Will he also spell out how that sits with the Government’s longer-term strategy for GM products, given the recent statutory instrument that changed some of the rules on research and gene-edited crops?
Another issue is that of labelling and the length of any grace period as existing labels are used up, which paragraph 7.11 states will be through to 30 September. The Minister may or may not be aware of the many issues facing the food production sector at the moment, but labelling is one of them, ironically—there is a real shortage of labels, frankly, and that is a significant problem, as we can all imagine. An article in The Grocer last week highlighted that that is one of the most pressing issues. I wonder whether that date is still considered appropriate in these circumstances, not least because some of the consultations referred to go back a long way. Back in 2018, the world was a very different place. Much has changed since then.
I was struck by the consultations—nerd that I am, I’m afraid I read some of them, and they make interesting reading. One of the complaints or observations by the sector, referenced a little in the explanatory memorandum, was about the expectation that the changes to the regulations could be read through in under an hour, with businesses, regulatory agencies and councils able to work out how to apply the changes to their organisations. Frankly, a lot of people thought that that was optimistic. I wonder whether any further thought has been given to it.
Some of the observations, although from a while ago, were quite prescient. The National Pig Association, the National Farmers Union and the Food and Drink Federation all raised questions. In particular, the NFU asked about the relationship with the European Food Safety Authority. My noble Friend in the other place, Lord Rooker, has frequently asked that question. Back in the consultation, the NFU said:
“The NFU is also concerned that the approach the government plans to take depends on the UK’s relationship with EFSA. We would very much support close collaboration with EFSA but we need reassurance that this will happen…Given the trade flows between UK and EU, it is essential that the exchange of information and collaboration…on the same terms is achieved.”
I could make many more points, Ms Rees, but you will be glad that I am not going to. I have raised the ones I wanted to explore this morning. If the Minister could comment briefly on the relationship with the EFSA in the context of the draft statutory instrument, it would be much appreciated.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.
I echo most of the contribution of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge, save for a few brief comments. While the draft SI covers necessary changes post Brexit, as laid out by the Minister, it highlights the need for a proper discussion about the introduction of genetically modified organisms and genetically engineered products. I wonder whether the Minister will assist the House in enabling that to happen.
Any introduction of GMOs or GE products into the UK market must come only with the consent of each devolved Government. As the Minister laid out, that has been forthcoming from Holyrood, and discussions with the Senedd and Stormont are ongoing. The UK Internal Market Act 2020, however, must not be used as a way to introduce GE or GM products into the Scottish market through the back door. We will be keeping a close eye on that.
The changes in the draft regulations are in reality for the protection of all our citizens and to ensure that our high standards of food safety are maintained. That collaborative approach by the UK and Scottish Governments will continue whenever it is required in the interest of all citizens.
Edward Argar
I will be brief, but will endeavour to respond to the shadow Minister and to the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill.
If I may, I will turn first to the SNP spokesman’s comments and then come to the shadow Minister’s comments. At the risk of creating a challenge for us in respect of GM—I know that that issue attracts considerable attention across the House—I say, with slight hesitancy, that of course it is open to the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill to choose it for an Opposition day debate. I am sure that the relevant Minister would be delighted to respond. That is obviously a matter for the hon. Gentleman and his party, but there are and will continue to be opportunities in the House for an issue of that public interest to be debated.
More broadly, the hon. Gentleman made the point about the relationship between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. I have worked throughout the pandemic and through the Brexit period, leading on a number of issues in the relationship with the Scottish Government and others, and I am certainly grateful for the constructive approach. There will be times when we have political differences of opinion. That is in the nature of a democracy and of the stances that we are all elected to espouse. But I certainly have found the relationship to be constructive and open, particularly in the context of the current legislation on health that we are putting through, and I look forward to continuing that open and constructive relationship, at both official and ministerial level, on issues such as this and more broadly.
Turning to the shadow Minister’s comments, I am, as ever, grateful both for his support and for his tone and his reasonable questions. I am always happy to give credit where it is due, and quite rightly he highlighted the creation of the FSA under a Labour Government. That is a matter of fact, and I am certainly happy to give him, on behalf of his party, the credit for that achievement and for what he did there.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the paragraphs in the explanatory memorandum that set out the Northern Ireland protocol, and the impacts on how the current system or the previous, EU-led system works and how that will transition. I, perhaps like him, always ensure that I read through explanatory memorandums before taking part in a delegated legislation debate. Indeed, I make a point, when it is in my policy area, of actually reading them, given that it is my signature as a Minister on the bottom of them. In this case, it is the signature of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup), who sadly is not able to be here today, but I know that she takes the same approach. I will take this opportunity, if I may, to thank all the exceptionally talented and hard-working officials who have worked on this statutory instrument, got it to this stage and done the due diligence to ensure that we can have this debate and that we have the right materials to make it an informed debate. I am always grateful for the work of incredibly talented officials, who serve not just me as the Minister but this country, whoever is in government.
We continue to maintain the high standards of food and feed safety that the hon. Member for Cambridge highlighted, as set out in the explanatory memorandum. He touched on paragraphs 7.7 and 7.9. I am not aware of any practical events that have been a cause; I think that this is about tidying up and making the legislation fit for purpose. I am not aware of any specific ones. However, should I be informed that I am incorrect, I will of course write to the hon. Gentleman to correct what I have said. But I am not aware of any. The hon. Gentleman asked what procedure would be used. It would be the negative procedure for delegated legislation, in respect of that.
On labelling and the timescale, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, both about the challenges faced by the sector overall—in recent months, we have seen that manifesting itself in a variety of ways—and about the challenges, potentially challenges we do not yet fully know, coming out of the international situation. But I believe that the labelling deadline, the grace period till September 2022, provides a proportionate and reasonable amount of time to enable industry to adapt. I am very conscious, through my work on the Northern Ireland protocol in the context of medicines and medical devices, of the different lead times that industry needs, depending on the nature of what it has to do to its logistics networks, supply chains or compliance regimes, but in this context I believe that the six-month period is reasonable.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that of course in 2018 we were in a very different place—I think that is something on which he and I would agree. We may disagree about what has happened since and whether it is for the best or not, but I cannot disagree with his statement of fact that 2018 was a very different place and certainly felt like it.
A common thread running through all the work that we are doing in this space is that we seek to make the relevant regulations and put in place the relevant compliance regime, to protect safety, to protect the consumer and to protect high standards, but, at the same time, to ensure that that is proportionate and does not place an undue burden on business. I believe that with these technical amendments and what they pertain to more broadly, we have struck an appropriate balance.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the NFU. I suspect I share his view. I have a good relationship with my local branch of the NFU and I pay tribute to the work that it does and that nationally the NFU does to highlight issues relevant to our agriculture and food production industry in this country. We always carefully consider any representations that they or others in this space make.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about the relationship with EFSA. We have no plans to deviate from the current relationship, and that relationship is broadly characterised by close collegiate working. We recognise the importance of data sharing and working in a co-ordinated and, as I said, collegiate way in this space.
As I said, these are technical amendments, but I hope that we have also had the opportunity to explore a little more widely some of what sits behind them. With that, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 17th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 View all Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 March 2022 - (17 Mar 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings, but I have no guidance on jelly babies.
We now begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows how the selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause to which the amendment relates.
The Member who has put their name to the leading amendment in a group is called first. Other Members are then free to catch my eye to speak on all or any of the amendments in that group. A Member may speak more than once in a single debate. At the end of debate on a group of amendments, I shall call the Member who moved the leading amendment again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate if they wish to withdraw the amendment or seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment in a group to a vote, they need to let me know.
Clause 1
Power to specify security requirements
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) so as to specify security requirements which make mandatory each of the first three guidelines in the Code of Practice for consumer IoT security published by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport on 14 October 2018 (“no default passwords”, “implement a vulnerability disclosure policy” and “keep software updated”).”
This amendment would set out the three security requirements expressly in Part 1 of the Bill rather than it being defined in future regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.
New clause 3—Report on security risks to UK consumer connectable products—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must prepare a report on the security risks to UK consumer connectable products—
(a) within the period 3 months beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, and
(b) every 12 months thereafter.
(2) Any report prepared under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a report on the security risks to UK consumer connectable products.
Chris Elmore
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.
This important legislation establishes, through regulations, three core security requirements for “connectable products”. The requirements derive from the voluntary 2018 “Secure by Design” code introduced by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The inclusion of these three requirements is, without doubt, a step that the Opposition welcome. However, we believe that the legislation can be improved, and that the three security requirements, rather than being defined in future regulations at the discretion of the Secretary of State, should be expressly set out in the Bill. That would be beneficial for two reasons. First, it would give manufacturers and distributors a greater understanding of the legal obligations that they face, thus speeding up the entire process. Secondly, it would ensure that the consumer was better protected, which I am sure we all agree would be a good thing. The consumer rights group Which? emphasised that when it gave oral evidence on Tuesday.
New clause 3 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the security risks to UK connectable products. On Tuesday, Madeline Carr, professor of global politics and cyber-security at University College London, said that she does not have an Alexa in her house because of the security risks that those devices, and others like them, pose. Tellingly, she also said that the Bill as constituted would not give her sufficient confidence to purchase one. Given that, and given the tragic scenes unfolding following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the willingness of that rogue regime to engage in state-sponsored cyber-warfare, the Opposition believe it is in the public and national interest to understand how secure our connected products really are. We are becoming more reliant on smart devices in our daily life, both professionally and personally. It is imperative that the security of these devices is routinely monitored and reported on.
As I stated on Second Reading, the Opposition support the Bill, but believe it can be strengthened. Amendment 6 and new clause 3 would ensure that consumers were better protected and more aware of the threats facing their connected devices. As such, I believe that all Committee colleagues should support amendment 6 and new clause 3.
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I apologise for giving you a dilemma about the advice on jelly babies. I will start with a few words about the importance of the Bill. As we heard from our panels of witnesses this week, and as we know from our increasing dependence on technology, improving protection for consumers and networks from a range of harms associated with cyber-attacks is incredibly important. In the first half of last year, there were 1.5 billion attempted compromises of internet of things devices—double the 2020 figure for the same period. Voluntary standards, such as the 2018 code of practice for consumer IOT security, are not being adopted quickly or consistently enough. That is why we need legislation to progress security in the design of consumer connectable products.
Before turning to amendment 6, I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore for the constructive and helpful way that he has approached the legislation and for the Opposition’s broad support of it. As this is the first Bill that I am taking through the House in its entirety, I am particularly grateful for that constructive approach. It may reassure him that the Government are committed to introducing security requirements based on the first three guidelines through regulations at the earliest appropriate opportunity. We have consulted on those security requirements and have communicated them extensively.
We have not been vague on the matter. In April 2021, we published our response to the call for views on consumer connectable product security legislation. We stated in detail how the three security requirements would work. When the Bill was announced by Her Majesty at the start of the Session, we repeated that commitment. Indeed, as hon. Members will see in the Bill’s explanatory notes, we have again committed to those three requirements. We made that clear from the start for an important reason: we need industry to act and prepare for implementation. We do not want surprises for manufacturers, importers or distributors. They know what they have to do.
Amendment 6 is unnecessary, but might also be dangerous. We are keen to ensure that the legislation retains flexibility, so that it can adapt to and reflect the changing threat landscape, and the security requirements needed to address it. What might seem like a no-brainer security requirement today might become a security threat or barrier to security innovation in years to come.
Amendment 6 reaches back to 2018, when our code of practice was first published. Security requirements have developed since then. When the Bill is implemented, we do not think it should be constrained by what was appropriate five years ago. The requirements we will introduce are based on the first three guidelines in the code of practice, but they also contain necessary improvements. They are up to date, more detailed and have been translated into practical requirements that businesses can implement to get the right security outcomes without unnecessary burden. Stakeholder engagement and impact assessment work conducted since 2018 ensures that the guidelines are nuanced, and are in a robust and enforceable statutory framework that delivers optimal security outcomes.
Finally, hon. Members may not be aware that because this new legislation will impact on manufacturers globally, we have given notice of the Bill to the World Trade Organisation. We invited comments on our proposals two years ago, and when the Bill was introduced to Parliament, we gave notice again. We have worked to ensure that all manufacturers understand our intentions. Amendment 6, if accepted, would cause confusion by taking us back to 2018, and away from the more developed position we have reached on the three principles. That would cause market confusion, require new notification to the WTO, and potentially delay this vital regime from coming into force. With those reassurances, I hope the hon. Member will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Clause 1 is needed to provide the Government with the necessary powers to specify and mandate security requirements, through secondary legislation, that businesses must comply with. There is a common notion that Governments are behind the curve when it comes to regulating technology. not in this case. By establishing a flexible and futureproof regulatory framework in this way, the Government can be agile and proactive in amending and introducing security requirements through regulations, in lockstep with tech innovation. Parliament will be able to scrutinise any future security requirements designated through the secondary legislation process and, as new threats emerge and international standards develop, we can act and set new security requirements, keeping consumer connectable product security up to date and fit for the future.
The purpose of clause 2 is to provide further detail about how the Secretary of State’s power to specify security requirements can be used. Clause 3 is essential because it provides the Secretary of State with powers to specify circumstances in which a person is deemed to have complied with the security requirements. The clause, when exercised, would provide more than one route to compliance and would provide the necessary flexibility to accommodate and recognise international standards and mutual recognition agreements where appropriate.
I turn to new clause 3. In practice, it would commit the Government to reporting on a fixed basis on the security risks posed by products affected by the Bill. Those reports would be laid before Parliament. Cyber-security is definitely not an area where the Government hold back on publishing information. If we are to raise the cyber-resilience of the nation, we need to ensure that everyone is clear about the threat. In December, we published our national cyber strategy. The Government will continue to publish regular reports on our progress on that strategy, as we did with regard to the previous strategy. The Government also publish an annual report that surveys cyber-breaches across the economy. This report, together with others, forms a key part of the evidence base used to inform organisations about action to take to raise security standards. Indeed, the breaches survey meets the quality threshold to be managed as a set of official statistics.
Our National Cyber Security Centre is also a model of transparency. It is there to advise businesses, and guide them towards better managing cyber-threats. It publishes an annual report, and for those who want to focus on consumer connectable products, it provides specific advice on those, too. Parliament is already regularly kept informed of cyber-security matters; our regular publications are placed in the Library. Our national strategy, implemented with £2.6 billion of investment, is overseen by the Public Accounts Committee. The Intelligence and Security Committee and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy provide further oversight. Also, there are mechanisms for holding the Government to account in the manner intended by the provision, such as regular parliamentary debates and questions.
Cyber-security is a fast-moving and sensitive topic. A fixed-period reporting clause that imposes an obligation to report on security risks may duplicate existing activity. Such a system would also lack the agility necessary to enable us to report quickly when threats are identified. It may reassure the hon. Gentleman to know that the Secretary of State will be required to review the effectiveness of the Bill’s enforcement regime; they, or the designated enforcing authority, will be required to report on that to the relevant departmental Select Committee after Royal Assent. The enforcement authority will also report its activity and findings, where appropriate. The measures already in place will likely meet the intention behind new clause 3. For the reasons that I have set out, I do not accept the need for the new clause.
I turn to the points that the hon. Gentleman raised about Dr Carr’s concerns about Alexa, which I also found eye-catching. A lot of secondary legislation comes with this Bill, and that will hopefully reassure Dr Carr. I also note the comment made by a lot of our witnesses: we can never have 100% security with those devices. I therefore commend clauses 1 to 3 to the Committee.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Good morning, everybody. Happy St Patrick’s day to everyone. I congratulate the Minister on her first Bill. I have been through the process many times, and it is an exciting and proud moment to lead on a Bill for the Government for the first time. When I did it, my father, who was from West Cork, said, “Not bad for someone from the peat bogs of West Cork.” I am sure that the Minister’s family are equally proud of her achievement.
I want to raise a couple of general issues, as we are debating the first three quarters of the Bill in this grouping. I congratulate the Minister for providing such a comprehensive impact assessment on the Bill. I was slightly confused by the figure for the cost of business, which is set at net present value, and is put at “£1,246.9.9” million. That figure looks like a typo. I wondered what the correct figure was, and if the Minister could provide it. I suggest it is just the one “point nine”.
This is a very significant piece of legislation, given the impact it will have on consumers and business. It is very technical. Page 8 of the impact assessment details the Government’s key assumptions about how the Bill will impact on businesses. Businesses will have to dispose of devices that no longer satisfy the criteria that the Minister is likely to set. The impact assessment’s optimistic assessment of what percentage of devices will have to be disposed of is 5%. Its working assessment is 45%. The figure it is using, however, for the impact on business is that 10% of devices will have to be disposed of by businesses.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West for his contribution and his kind comments. I will have to get back to him on the precise figures that he identified in the impact assessment. However, in relation to the breadth of the impact assessment, he will know from this legislation that we are taking a broad range of powers. As we debated earlier, that is very deliberate because this is a fast-moving area. Technology is developing faster than Parliament can regulate it, which is a major challenge for Governments around the world. The Bill will help us to be nimble and agile in how regulate that technology.
A lot of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has concerns about will be something for secondary legislation, which we will be developing hand in glove with businesses so that we understand what is changing in the technological world and what impact that will have on matters such as the disposal of devices. I share his concerns about the environmental impacts if we get the regulations on that wrong—none of us wants to see a lot of technology become redundant.
We are trying to help consumers have more information so that if someone buys a device, they do not necessarily have to dispose of it simply because the period for which the manufacturer says it is covered has expired. It will be up to the consumer to decide whether to keep that device if they think it is less secure than it otherwise might be. It has been controversial to take these broad powers. We understand the concerns that any Parliament would have about the level of scrutiny it will have. However, the Government think that this is right because, as I say, we have to maintain that agility.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West referenced the points raised by Dr Carr. As I said earlier, I share those concerns. What we are trying to do is raise the level of security overall; we want to help consumers and manufacturers to understand this as an issue. This was initially a voluntary code, which did not do enough to make manufacturers take the cyber obligations seriously. There was an interesting discussion on the panels earlier this week when one contributor—I cannot remember who it was exactly—said that the legislation will give boards the spark or impetus to discuss and get funding for these kinds of cyber-security requirements for their products. If it is voluntary, it is very hard for anybody to make the case within their company that they need to take cyber-security seriously.
We hope that the secondary legislation will allay some of Dr Carr’s concerns. We will never have 100% security, but we hope that these provisions will raise the bar overall and help to raise consumer and manufacturer awareness of cyber as a whole. I hope that those comments will reassure the hon. Gentleman. I also assure him that we will look at how to get the balance right in the secondary legislation, and we will be in close contact with businesses as we do so.
Chris Elmore
I listened to what the Minister had to say, in particular in relation to amendment 6. I take her at her word; it is a probing amendment, so I will withdraw it on the basis that she will bring forward secondary legislation in relatively short order. As she mentioned, cyber-security is a fast-paced and changing environment, so it is important that we do not wait a number of years for additional improvements to legislative competence.
On the basis of what the Minister said, I am also happy not to move new clause 3. However, I wonder whether she could write to me setting out the reporting periods that she mentioned, particularly in terms of the DCMS Committee, following Royal Assent—assuming that the Bill gets Royal Assent, which I am sure it will—as well as the other reporting obligations that she says the Secretary of State or reporting officer will have. The new clause seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State specifically in this new legislation. If the Minister feels that those things are already in train or are part of the reporting process, that is fine, and I am happy not to move the new clause. However, it would be good to have that list for future understanding—particularly if reporting does not take place, in which case the Opposition will hold the Government to account.
Julia Lopez
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and offer those assurances. A new body will also be set up, which will probably have its own reporting requirements in relation to this legislation. These things will be developing, but I am happy to offer him the assurances he requested.
Chris Elmore
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Relevant connectable products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Julia Lopez
Clauses 4 to 6 define the products to which the new regulatory regime will apply. Clause 4 introduces the terms “internet-connectable product”, “network-connectable product” and “excepted product”. Clause 5 defines the terms “internet-connectable” and “network-connectable”. It is a pivotal clause in capturing the necessary products that make up a huge part of the internet of things threat landscape. Any network is only as secure as its weakest link, and that could be a single consumer connectable product.
Focusing on a product’s capabilities—instead of attempting to exhaustively list all consumer connectable products—is part of our agile, future-proof approach. We are ensuring that the Bill will remain relevant and effective by capturing new consumer technologies that come to market, based on their capabilities and the risks they present.
Many products captured by the Bill are capable of connecting to the internet, exposing them to remote access and attack. Those are “internet-connectable products”, such as routers, smartphones and certain smart appliances. Some products captured by the Bill are not able to connect to the internet directly, but can connect to other products. In doing so, they can form, and contribute to the formation of, networks, meaning that vulnerabilities in those products can open the door to cyber-attack. Those are “network-connectable products”, such as certain smart lightbulbs, smart home products, and headphones.
Clause 6 defines the term “excepted product”. It allows the Secretary of State to except products from the scope of the Bill via regulations. The Government intend to except products from the scope of the Bill where inclusion would subject them to double regulation or be disproportionate to their risk profile. The Government have consulted on that approach. Products such as electric vehicles, medical devices and smart meters will be excepted from scope because they are already, or soon will be, covered by alternative regulation. I therefore commend clauses 4 through 6 to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Relevant persons
Chris Elmore
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 7, page 5, line 24, at end insert—
“(5A) A person who provides an online facility through which a distributor makes a product available in the United Kingdom is also a distributor.”
This amendment would ensure that online marketplaces are considered to be distributors and are thus subject to the security requirements of the Bill.
Chris Elmore
The amendment itself is fairly self-explanatory. However, I will take the opportunity to speak briefly on it in the hope of persuading Conservative Members—and indeed the Minister—to support it.
Clause 7 defines the relevant persons subject to the security requirements as being manufacturers, importers and distributors. Crucially, however, online platforms such as eBay and Amazon are not defined as falling under any of those categories. To my mind, that is both deeply concerning and preposterous, given that, under any definition, online platforms such as the two I have just mentioned are without doubt distributors themselves.
I am sure everyone in this Committee has either sold or bought something through eBay or Amazon. The oversight in the Bill has real-world consequences, as products sold on those online platforms will not be policed in the same way. That is problematic, as research by groups such as Which?—which we heard evidence from earlier this week—has consistently shown that online marketplaces are flooded with insecure products, while the Bill would do nothing to increase the legal responsibility online marketplaces have for the safety and security of products sold through them.
In tabling the amendment, we are merely expanding the number of organisations that the security requirements would apply to, in order to better protect all our constituents, which is the expressed aim of the Bill according to the Minister’s opening remarks and indeed those of the Secretary of State at Second Reading. I therefore urge the Minister and all Committee members to support the amendment.
Kevin Brennan
I support my hon. Friend in pressing the amendment to a vote. As we heard from the Minister, the Bill covers quite a lot of different devices. The examples given by the Government in their impact assessment include the following:
“Smartphones; connectable cameras, TVs and speakers; connectable children’s toys and baby monitors; connectable safety-relevant products such as smoke detectors and door locks; Internet of Things base stations and hubs to which multiple devices connect; wearable connectable fitness trackers; outdoor leisure products, such as handheld connectable GPS devices that are not wearables; connectable home automation and alarm systems; connectable appliances, such as washing machines and fridges”
and, as we have heard, “smart home assistants”, including things such as Alexa-type smart speaker products.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Members for Ogmore and for Cardiff West, and I am happy to address their concerns. The Bill covers obligations on manufacturers, importers and distributors, but I will provide a bit more detail.
Clause 7 specifies which relevant persons will be responsible for ensuring that the security requirements are properly complied with. In that regard, a “relevant person” is defined as a manufacturer, importer or distributor of a relevant connectable product. As a result, amendment 7 is wrong to suggest that online marketplaces are exempt from this new legislation. Online marketplaces do not just offer products on behalf of third parties, but are often acting as the retailer, so in those cases the full security requirements apply. I accept that there may be instances in which the online marketplace is not the distributor. None the less, it is necessary for the third party operating in the marketplace to comply with the security requirements, and it is not just that one party who carries liability under the Bill: the manufacturer and importer also have responsibility. We think we have taken a belt-and-braces approach in that regard.
We have also worked closely with industry to make sure the regulation is proportionate and fits the wider regulatory environment for product safety. Manufacturers care a great deal about these regulatory requirements. On Tuesday, we heard from a representative of Google, who described how it works to comply with requirements in many different jurisdictions. Over the past three years, hundreds of manufacturers have engaged with my Department through the many public consultations and industry discussions we have had. The hon. Member for Ogmore gives the impression that amendment 7 would provide consumers with a vital line of defence, but that is not the case: there are already multiple lines of defence in this Bill.
It is also worth noting that consumers can never be 100% protected by regulation—a point that we have already discussed this morning. We need to have a broader approach to raising national cyber-resilience, which is why in December we published our national cyber strategy. The Cyber Aware campaign is ongoing—hon. Members may have seen the advertisements last weekend, or the ones on the radio and online this week. We also have a range of school programmes designed to reach parents and teachers in order to raise cyber-security awareness, and the Home Office, the police and the NCSC run regular campaigns at a local level in every region of the country. In relation to the comments made about Ukraine, the point is even more important because of the context in which we are operating.
Kevin Brennan
Just to be clear, if, for example, I purchased a connectable baby monitor online through Amazon, but it came from a third-party supplier—which is quite common when customers are given that list of products to buy—how would the Bill impact on that device and its availability in the UK?
Julia Lopez
As I say, we are putting requirements on not just manufacturers, but the importer. The importer would be under an obligation to check whether the product fulfilled some of the requirements we would have for it, as would the distributor. I would hope that, along the chain, that product would have been checked several times to make sure it complies.
We have done a lot of work on general cyber-resilience. I will take this opportunity to add that it is also important that we as Members of Parliament try to make our constituents aware of the increasing challenges we face with cyber-resilience, and that we all need to have our own cyber-hygiene in that regard.
The amendment is well intentioned—we understand where the hon. Member for Ogmore is coming from—but it is drafted in a way that would have a much broader reach than just online marketplaces. It would impose security requirements on businesses that cannot comply with them, such as advertising platforms and website hosting services. Distributors use many online facilities offering a vast array of cloud services to support e-commerce to make their products available. As drafted, the amendment would extend duties beyond what is intended.
The Government have carefully considered the amendment. It is clear that our intention is to secure consumer connectable products in the most effective and proportionate manner, without hindering business growth and the online retail facilities enjoyed by consumers. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept the amendment. I hope the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing it.
I turn now to chapter 2 of the Bill and clauses 8 to 25. These clauses place duties on businesses in the supply chain of a consumer connectable product to comply with security requirements. Compliance is fundamental to the operation of the regulatory regime. Under these clauses, manufacturers, distributors and importers must prepare, or ensure the presence of, a document to accompany the product that states that, in the opinion of the manufacturer, it has complied with the security requirements, before that product is made available in the UK. I note the point that was made about baby monitors. I hope that, in that process, there would be clear information and a record provided with the product that stated compliance.
The clauses in chapter 2 also require that businesses take all reasonable steps to investigate a compliance failure or potential compliance failure. That is vital to hold businesses accountable for complying with their security requirements and to mandate investigation of potential compliance failures. If compliance failure has occurred, businesses in the supply chain must take all reasonable steps to prevent the product from reaching UK customers and remedy the compliance failure. The measure is needed to ensure that insecure products do not remain on the market and that those that have not yet reached UK customers are prevented from doing so.
Finally, the clauses in chapter 2 require manufacturers and importers to retain records of compliance failures and investigations for at least 10 years. The Secretary of State is able to request this information to investigate and to enforce the legislation. These duties encourage ongoing compliance and accountability. The records will allow a clear audit of the importer’s and manufacturer’s activities, so that we can have effective enforcement.
Chris Elmore
I have listened to the Minister. The Opposition are not in any way suggesting that the Government do not do an awful lot on cyber awareness-raising. All Governments could do more—that is the nature of teaching and learning and of being able to get our constituents to understand the cyber-security space and the impact that it can have on their homes.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, the Minister mentioned the belt-and-braces approach. However, organisations such as Which? say that there is an exemption for online marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay. The Online Safety Bill has of course been published today, and there are economic crime impacts linked to this. If this is a belt-and-braces approach, as the Minister says, surely another level of protection would be to include the online marketplaces. She says there are three stages that could be protected—importer, product design and distribution—but there is this gap through which some products could come. Therefore, I am not minded to withdraw the amendment and would ask the Committee for a decision.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Julia Lopez
Clause 26 gives the Secretary of State responsibility for enforcing the product security provisions in the Bill, and clauses 27 to 52 create the regime. This allows the Secretary of State to authorise another person, and pay them, to carry out enforcement functions. The provisions provide powers to issue enforcement notices—including compliance notices, stop notices and recall notices—as well as powers to forfeit products and issue monetary penalties.
Additional enforcement powers include the power to seize and detain products, publish information about compliance failures and the details of the enforcement action taken, recall products, and disclose information as necessary to conduct enforcement activity. The Bill includes two offences—the offence of failure to comply with an enforcement notice and the offence of purporting to act as authorised to exercise enforcement function—as well as adopting within the PSTI regulatory regime the offences found in schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 27 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53
Guidance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Julia Lopez
Clauses 53 to 56 cover guidance and interpretation of the Bill. They allow for guidance to be issued to support relevant operators to meet their obligations. They also set out the technical terms and interpretations of the commonly used terms throughout the Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 53 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 54 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 57
Meaning of “occupier” in relation to land occupied by an operator
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Julia Lopez
It is crucial that, where telecoms operators have apparatus installed on land, they can request new or additional code rights, allowing them to maintain, expand and improve their existing networks, improving service and connectivity, to the direct benefit of consumers. I hope we all wish to see that. At present, this is not always possible. There are some specific scenarios in which operators with apparatus already installed on land, such that they occupy the land, are unable to obtain new code rights or follow an existing statutory process to have an agreement that has run its course replaced by a new agreement, which I will refer to today as a renewal agreement.
For example, in some cases the parties might have an existing agreement that, for whatever reason, proceeds on a more informal basis and is not set out in writing, or otherwise does not meet the necessary criteria for it to be renewed under an existing statutory process. The operator is therefore still authorised under the existing agreement to keep their apparatus on the land, but under the current legislative framework cannot pursue a renewal agreement through an existing statutory process.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister says that the Government might revisit the clause, perhaps in the other place. If somebody who is operating equipment on the land is potentially deemed legally to be the occupier, under the provisions in the clause would the person who would then be asked to consult about further extending any arrangements be the landowner? Is that the assumption in the clause, in most instances?
Julia Lopez
As I said, this is a very complex and technical area. I do not want to provide the hon. Member with an incorrect answer, because this is one of the issues on which we are still in discussions with industry to ensure that we get it right. I believe that is the intention, but I will have to get back to him.
Kevin Brennan
Some inspiration might come to the Minister during the course of the debate. It seems to me quite an important question. I thought that what she meant was that, in an instance where somebody is deemed to be the operator on the land, because they have the equipment there, they obviously cannot grant themselves an extension of permission, and so it would be sensible for there to be a way to go to the landowner in order to achieve that further agreement. If that is not the case, that is quite important, because who will they go to in that instance? She said that if the landowner or interested party could not be identified, it would be people with a principal interest. What sorts of people would that be? Would it be the local community, or neighbours of the land involved? Even if she cannot offer an explanation now, it is quite important that the Committee at least has a grasp of what is intended by the clause.
Julia Lopez
This is tricky, because I wish I could provide greater clarity, but I cannot, which is obviously an unsatisfactory position to be in. In this case, I think the court would be approached to make a decision if the landowner was not in a position to grant those rights and they could not get a position out of the landowner. The intention, I think, would be for it to be decided at a legal level. I apologise that I cannot provide clarity.
Without the clause, there is a gap in the legislation that prevents operators who need code rights from being able to obtain them. This has potentially adverse consequences for consumers and businesses, with the risk of service disruptions and unnecessary delays in the delivery of improved capacity and enhanced services. As we all increasingly rely on digital services, it is important to address this situation. This is an area of active discussion, because we want to make sure we get it right. I believe it would be the case that, if the landowner were not in a position to offer the rights, the operator would go to the court to seek redress.
Kevin Brennan
I understand the difficulty the Minister faces, but it would be helpful if there was official support for her at times when technical questions are asked. It is important that the Committee gets a full explanation before agreeing to a clause. The sensible thing to do in this instance would be for the Government to revisit the clause—possibly on Report. It would certainly be of help if, by then, a clearer view as to the intention could be given to Members of the Committee and people interested in the Bill. I am sure there is a fairly straightforward answer to the question, so we should make note of the fact that it needs to be dealt with at some point.
Julia Lopez
I acknowledge that this is legally a very complex area. It is something that we have not entirely settled on, and it is under active consideration. We will come back to the Committee if we believe we have not got the policy intention correct. I am sorry that I was unable to address the hon. Member’s point in greater detail, but I am reluctant to provide information that might not be correct.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58
Rights under the electronic communications code to share apparatus
Julia Lopez
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 58, page 41, line 25, at end insert—
‘(4A) In paragraph 13 (access to land)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a), for “paragraph 3” substitute “paragraph 3(1)”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for “paragraph 3” substitute “paragraph 3(1)”.
(4B) In paragraph 38 (right of landowner or occupier of neighbouring land to require removal of electronic communications apparatus), in sub-paragraph (3), for “paragraph 3(h)” substitute “paragraph 3(1)(h)”.’
This amendment is consequential on the amendment made by clause 58(2)(a) to paragraph 3 of the electronic communications code.
Julia Lopez
Clause 58 deals with the sharing of telecommunications apparatus between operators within the electronic communications code. It inserts a right to share apparatus into paragraph 3 of the code, which sets out a list of rights that are statutory “code rights.” The code rights in paragraph 3 must be conferred on an operator by an occupier or imposed by a tribunal. The 2017 code reforms introduced paragraph 17 automatic rights, allowing operators to upgrade or share their apparatus without the need for an agreement. Those automatic rights are separate from the paragraph 3 code rights and are subject to strict limitations.
Since their introduction, there has been confusion about the interaction between the paragraph 17 automatic rights and the paragraph 3 code rights. In particular, while “upgrading” is a paragraph 3 code right, sharing is not. Clause 58 addresses this by making apparatus sharing a paragraph 3 code right that an operator—the “first operator”—can request to be included in an agreement to which the code applies. Clause 58 also amends the statutory purposes in paragraph 4 of the code to include sharing activities.
Apparatus sharing is a cost-effective way for operators to extend their networks without having to build extensive infrastructure themselves, helping to deliver greater coverage, capacity and consumer choice, while reducing impacts on the environment and disruption caused by installation works. As with the other code rights, if agreement on rights to share cannot be reached consensually, an operator may ask a tribunal to impose the requested rights. In those circumstances, the tribunal will apply the public benefit test and the statutory valuation regime, as it already does for other code rights.
If the right to share is a statutory code right, the factors that a tribunal will consider in deciding whether such a right should be imposed—and if so, on what terms—will be the same as those for all other code rights. Including a right to share apparatus in the paragraph 3 code rights will therefore provide greater certainty for all parties and support smoother negotiations.
Code rights can only be obtained in relation to land. Consequently, the new right to share apparatus can be requested only by the first operator that is keeping apparatus installed on, under or over land. A second operator that wishes to share the use of that apparatus will not be able to request from an occupier a paragraph 3 right permitting them to do so. Instead, once the occupier has conferred such a sharing right on the first operator, the second operator will need to negotiate the sharing of the apparatus with the first operator.
The first operator’s right to share their apparatus will, like other code rights, be exercisable only in accordance with the wider terms of the agreement. It will therefore be important for the first operator to consider carefully any terms that it may need included in its agreement with an occupier, such as additional access rights, to enable any subsequent sharing of the apparatus with other operators. To that end, clause 58 inserts corresponding code rights for the first operator to enter and carry out works on the land for the purpose of such apparatus sharing.
Finally, it should be emphasised that the new right to share introduced by clause 58 is entirely separate from the automatic rights to share that are currently available under paragraph 17 of the code, and to the rights introduced by clauses 59 and 60. Those are automatic rights—subject to specific conditions—that do not need to be agreed with a landowner or imposed by the courts. The rights in clause 58 cover situations where the operator wants rights to share over and above those automatic rights.
Government amendment 1 is a consequential amendment that reflects the restructuring of paragraph 3 provided for by clause 58(2)(a) of the Bill. It replaces cross-references to paragraph 3 of the code with cross-references to sub-paragraph 3(1).
Clause 58 introduces rights to share apparatus to the menu of code rights that is currently set out in paragraph 3 of the code. In doing so, new sub-paragraph 3(2) will be inserted into the code, setting out who can obtain a right to share apparatus. The current paragraph 3 will therefore become sub-paragraph 3(1) of the code. As there are references to paragraph 3 in other parts of the code, consequential amendments are necessary so that anyone reading the code is referred instead to the new sub-paragraph 3(1).
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Upgrading and sharing of apparatus: subsisting agreements
Chris Elmore
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 59, page 41, line 42, after “agreement” insert
“other than with a private landlord”.
This amendment, together with Amendments 10, 11 and 12, would apply a different regime under the Electronic Communications Code to private landlords, giving automatic upgrade rights for operators to properties owned by private landlords subject to the condition that the upgrading imposes no additional burden on the other party to the agreement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 59, page 43, line 26, at end insert—
“5B (1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) an operator (‘the main operator’) keeps electronic communications apparatus installed on, under or over land, and
(b) the main operator is a party to a subsisting agreement in relation to the electronic communications apparatus.
(2) If the conditions in sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (6) are met, the main operator may—
(a) upgrade the electronic communications apparatus, or
(b) share the use of the electronic communications apparatus with another operator.
(3) The first condition is that any changes as a result of the upgrading or sharing to the electronic communications apparatus to which the agreement relates have no adverse impact, or no more than a minimal adverse impact, on its appearance.
(4) The second condition is that the upgrading or sharing imposes no additional burden on the other party to the agreement.
(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) a burden includes anything that—
(a) has an adverse effect on the person’s enjoyment of the land, or
(b) causes loss, damage or expense to the person.
(6) The third condition is that, before the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the day on which the main operator begins to upgrade the electronic communications apparatus or (as the case may be) share its use, the main operator attaches a notice, in a secure and durable manner, to a conspicuous object on the relevant land.
(7) A notice attached for the purposes of sub-paragraph (6) must—be attached in a position where it is reasonably legible,
(a) be attached in a position where it is reasonably legible,
(b) state that the main operator intends to upgrade the electronic communications apparatus or (as the case may be) share its use with another operator,
(c) state the date on which the main operator intends to begin to upgrade the electronic communications apparatus or (as the case may be) share its use with another operator,
(d) state, in a case where the main operator intends to share the use of the electronic communications apparatus with another operator, the name of the other operator, and
(e) give the name of the main operator and an address in the United Kingdom at which the main operator may be contacted about the upgrading or sharing.
(8) Any person giving a notice at that address in respect of that electronic communications apparatus is to be treated as having been given that address for the purposes of paragraph 91(2).
(9) Any agreement under Part 2 of this code is void to the extent that—
(a) it prevents or limits the upgrading or sharing, in a case where the conditions mentioned in sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (6) are met, of any electronic communications apparatus to which the agreement relates that is installed on, over or under land, or
(b) it makes upgrading or sharing of such electronic communications apparatus subject to conditions to be met by the operator (including a condition requiring the payment of money).
(10) Nothing in this paragraph is to be read as conferring a right on the main operator to enter the land which the main operator would not otherwise have, when upgrading or sharing the use of the electronic communications apparatus.
(11) References in this paragraph to sharing electronic communications apparatus include carrying out works to the electronic communications apparatus to enable such sharing to take place.
(12) In this paragraph—
‘the relevant land’ means—
(a) in a case where the main operator has a right to enter the land, that land;
(b) in any other case, the land on which works will be carried out to enable the upgrading or sharing to take place or, where there is more than one set of works, the land on which each set of works will be carried out;
‘subsisting agreement’ has the meaning given by paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 2 to the Digital Economy Act 2017.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 9, 11 and 12, would apply a different regime under the Electronic Communications Code to private landlords, giving automatic upgrade rights for operators to properties owned by private landlords subject to the condition that the upgrading imposes no additional burden on the other party to the agreement.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 11, in clause 60, page 43, line 38, after “land” insert
“not owned by a private landlord”
This amendment, together with Amendments 9, 10 and 12, would apply a different regime under the Electronic Communications Code to private landlords, giving automatic upgrade rights for operators to properties owned by private landlords subject to the condition that the upgrading imposes no additional burden on the other party to the agreement.
Amendment 12, in clause 60, page 44, line 47, at end insert—
“17B (1) This paragraph applies where—
(a) an operator (‘the main operator’) keeps electronic communications apparatus installed on, under or over land owned by a private landlord,
(b) the main operator is not a party to an agreement under Part 2 of this code in relation to the electronic communications apparatus, and
(c) the electronic communications apparatus was installed before 29 December 2003.
(2) If the conditions in sub-paragraphs (3), (4) and (6) are met, the main operator may—
(a) upgrade the electronic communications apparatus, or
(b) share the use of the electronic communications apparatus with another operator.
(3) The first condition is that any changes as a result of the upgrading or sharing to the electronic communications apparatus to which any existing agreement between the operator and the landlord relates have no adverse impact, or no more than a minimal adverse impact, on its appearance.
(4) The second condition is that the upgrading or sharing imposes no additional burden on the landlord.
(5) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (4) a burden includes anything that—
(a) has an adverse effect on the person’s enjoyment of the land, or
(b) causes loss, damage or expense to the person.
(6) The third condition is that, before the beginning of the period of 21 days ending with the day on which the main operator begins to upgrade the electronic communications apparatus or (as the case may be) share its use, the main operator attaches a notice, in a secure and durable manner, to a conspicuous object on the relevant land.
(7) A notice attached for the purposes of sub-paragraph (6) must—
(a) be attached in a position where it is reasonably legible,
(b) state that the main operator intends to upgrade the electronic communications apparatus or (as the case may be) share its use with another operator,
(c) state the date on which the main operator intends to begin to upgrade the electronic communications apparatus or (as the case may be) share its use with another operator,
(d) state, in a case where the main operator intends to share the use of the electronic communications apparatus with another operator, the name of the other operator, and
(e) give the name of the main operator and an address in the United Kingdom at which the main operator may be contacted about the upgrading or sharing.
(8) Any person giving a notice at that address in respect of that electronic communications apparatus is to be treated as having been given that address for the purposes of paragraph 91(2).
(9) Nothing in this paragraph is to be read as conferring a right on the main operator to enter the land which the main operator would not otherwise have, when upgrading or sharing the use of the electronic communications apparatus.
(10) References in this paragraph to sharing electronic communications apparatus include carrying out works to the electronic communications apparatus to enable such sharing to take place.
(11) In this paragraph ‘the relevant land’ means—
(a) in a case where the main operator has a right to enter the land, that land;
(b) in any other case, the land on which works will be carried out to enable the upgrading or sharing to take place or, where there is more than one set of works, the land on which each set of works will be carried out.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 9, 10 and 11, would apply a different regime under the Electronic Communications Code to private landlords, giving automatic upgrade rights for operators to properties owned by private landlords subject to the condition that the upgrading imposes no additional burden on the other party to the agreement.
Clause 60 stand part.
Chris Elmore
These amendments would apply a different regime to private landlords under the 2017 electronic communications code, giving operators automatic upgrade rights for properties owned by private landlords, subject to the condition that the upgrading imposes no additional burden on the other party to the agreement.
When we talk of the digital divide in our telecommunications infrastructure, we often speak of it in terms of a divide between rural and urban areas. Indeed, it is true that a divide exists between rural and urban areas in levels of connectivity, and the Bill has been designed to help reduce the rural-urban connectivity gap, which the Labour party wholeheartedly supports.
However, a division also exists within urban areas themselves. Catherine Colloms, the managing director of Openreach, said in evidence that it is particularly difficult for Openreach and similar organisations to upgrade properties that are owned by private landlords to full fibre. Openreach alone currently has 55,802 multi-dwelling unit premises on hold. Based on this, it is forecast that 1.5 million MDU premises could be unserved by the end of the commercial roll-out.
Julia Lopez
I thank the hon. Member for tabling these amendments. I represent an urban constituency and, as the Minister for digital connectivity, I am very alive to any concerns about the digital divide. I have tested the legislation to make sure that we are not exacerbating that. The amendments relate to circumstances in which an operator can upgrade or share the use of their apparatus without specific permission from a landowner or a court order. Crucially, the amendments relate to rights that the Bill grants retrospectively to agreements that are already in place. The amendment seeks to expand those rights in circumstances where apparatus is situated on, under or over land owned by private landlords.
Retrospective legislation must take particular care to strike a balance between impacts on individual rights and any public benefit that the legislation aims to deliver. The Government believe at this time that expanding retrospective upgrading and sharing rights in the way these amendments suggest would not be justified. Upgrading and sharing electronic communications apparatus offers a wide range of substantial benefits. Those are benefits that the Government specifically recognised in their 2017 reforms, when limited automatic rights were introduced for operators to upgrade and share their apparatus. The exercise of the new upgrading and sharing rights was made subject to certain conditions. Those conditions were intended to strike the right balance between the rights of individual landowners hosting apparatus and the public benefits delivered by operators upgrading and sharing their apparatus.
The changes made in the 2017 reforms therefore permit upgrading and sharing to take place without a landowner’s specific consent only where any impacts on that individual will be limited. However, it was recognised that any use of those rights could have some impact, albeit very limited, on individual landowners.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
I remind the Committee of the declaration of interest that I made: I have worked for a number of providers, including BT and techUK, that will be affected by the legislation, and I carried out cyber-security consulting for MHR last year. I agree with the Minister about the need to seek a balance between the rights of landowners and the rights of operators. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact—this is a point she has been making powerfully—that we must get behind upgrading our digital infrastructure as fast as is practicably possible.
I am aware that we are about to debate amendment 8, which would make it more expensive for operators to access land, and put them at a disadvantage compared with other utility companies. Does the Minister agree that adopting amendments 9 to 12—and then 8—would risk sending a mixed signal to the market? On the one hand we are making it more expensive and difficult for our operators to access land, but on the other hand we are rolling back the scrutiny that they have to access private property at the moment.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I will take this opportunity to say that interventions should be relatively short and to the point. It will not be difficult for hon. Members to catch my eye to make points in a debate if they wish to.
Julia Lopez
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that she has considerable expertise in this field. It is a difficult balance to strike, ensuring that we are protecting landowner rights while making sure we are giving telecoms operators the powers they need to make sure all of our constituents have the digital connectivity that they demand—and will increasingly need—going forward.
For the reasons I have set out and will be setting out in further detail, I do not think the amendments will have the desired effect. It was interesting to hear the oral evidence this week, because there was no consensus among the telecoms operators about what powers are required. We have to ensure that we do not give commercial advantage to one player or the other, as that would also trample over some landowner rights.
The changes made in the 2017 reforms permit upgrading and sharing to take place without a landowner’s specific consent only where any impacts on that individual will be limited. However, it was recognised that any use of those rights could have some impact—albeit a very limited one—on individual landowners. The new rights were not applied retrospectively and had no effect on landowners who had entered into agreements before the legislation was passed. The key difference is that agreements made after that date would be completed in the knowledge that the upgrading and sharing rights would apply. Since the 2017 reforms, however, the public need for robust and up-to-date digital services has continued to grow, and was thrown into sharp relief by the recent pandemic, when many of us were reliant on access to those services at unprecedented levels.
Upgrading and sharing apparatus has a more important role to play than ever before. In the light of this and other market developments, we have revisited the position on upgrading and sharing where the rights introduced by the 2017 reforms do not apply. Introducing specific upgrading and sharing rights for such equipment can play an important role in improving coverage and capacity, and amendment 9 appears to agree with that conclusion. However, we need to ensure that the rights of individual landowners are adequately protected. As I said, agreements after the 2017 reforms will have been concluded in the knowledge that they will give rise to automatic rights for apparatus to be upgraded or shared. That is not true of apparatus that is not covered by an agreement concluded after the 2017 reforms. As such, it is only right that any automatic rights to upgrade and share those types of apparatus should be subject to different conditions.
The amendments suggest introducing specific conditions for retrospective upgrading and sharing rights where private landlords are concerned, and those conditions partly reflect those contained in the rights established by the 2017 reforms and those set out in the Bill. However, the conditions in the new rights that we are proposing have been carefully developed to work as a whole; they are intentionally more restrictive and give rise to more limited rights than those available for agreements reached before the 2017 reforms. Taken together, the conditions mean that the operator will have automatic rights only to carry out upgrading and sharing activity that will have no adverse impact on the land or that will put no burden on a relevant individual, but this will still allow activities, such as crucial upgrading work, to be undertaken in relation to historical copper cables installed underneath land.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I wonder if the Minister could provide some clarity. Underneath the ground, there are ducts that operators can run cables through. We heard in this week’s evidence session about telegraph poles. Operators can go to the bottom of the telegraph pole, but will the Minister provide some welcome clarity on whether they can go up to the top and across? It is really important that they can use existing infrastructure and not have to pay to go around because they cannot use the overhead.
Julia Lopez
We are looking at rights that will provide easier access to underground and over, but not on. These are very techy points. If my hon. Friend feels that that does not answer her question precisely enough, I would be happy to ask officials to get in touch with her.
The measures in the Bill as drafted ensure that apparatus installed under agreements concluded prior to 2017 can be upgraded and shared quickly and cost-effectively. At the same time, the specific conditions that we are introducing will ensure that the right balance is maintained between the interests of private individuals and the wider public benefit, which is a difficult balance to strike. We are concerned that the amendments would not maintain that balance. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Ogmore assurance that the provisions in the Bill regarding retrospective rights to upgrade and share represent a balanced approach, and I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Clauses 59 and 60 are vital clauses that support and encourage greater upgrading and sharing of existing apparatus. The 2017 code reforms provided operators with limited automatic rights to upgrade and share their apparatus, subject to certain conditions. However, the 2017 changes did not introduce paragraph 17 upgrading and sharing rights for subsisting agreements, which are agreements completed before the 2017 reforms came into force. This means that a significant proportion of the UK’s existing networks cannot be upgraded or shared without specific permission, despite the fact that apparatus can be upgraded and shared in many situations with no adverse impacts on any individual or private land.
Clause 59 therefore inserts new paragraph 5A into schedule 2 to the Digital Economy Act 2017 in order to introduce rights for operators to upgrade and share apparatus installed under a subsisting agreement. These rights differ from those contained in paragraph 17. They are available in more limited circumstances and will be subject to stricter conditions and specific notice requirements. Taken together, the measures in the clause will ensure that apparatus installed under a subsisting agreement can be upgraded and shared quickly and cost-efficiently, and do so in a way that takes into account both the interests of individuals and the wider public benefit.
Clause 60 deals with the same issue of upgrading and sharing apparatus, but in this case in relation to apparatus installed before 29 December 2003 where there is neither a subsisting agreement nor an agreement concluded after the 2017 reforms. It is right that upgrading and sharing rights should be available for all apparatus installed before the 2017 reforms came into effect. Clause 60 therefore inserts proposed new paragraph 17A into the code, conferring rights to upgrade and share apparatus installed under land before 29 December 2003, where the operator who owns that apparatus is not a party to an agreement under part 2 of the code.
Kevin Brennan
I have listened carefully to the Minister and I do not agree with the Government’s position on rejecting the amendment. She is right that large swathes of the Bill are about the difficult balancing act between private property rights and the public interest. It seems to me, in the case put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore in support of the group of amendments, that this is an instance where the public interest is overwhelmingly clear, while the private property interest that the Minister defended in her response is not.
My hon. Friend put forward the problem that has been received by the Committee in evidence, which is that many blocks of flats are not updated with their internet connections and so on. There is a huge public policy interest in the digital divide, which we all know about across the country, and in ensuring that the people who live in those kinds of premises have excellent access—as good as someone living with the best infrastructure available in an urban setting. He mentioned the rural-urban divide, but I am talking specifically about the case he made about blocks of flats.
I think what the Minister was saying was that because what is being proposed represents a retrospective change, a higher standard should apply to protecting those private property interests than would apply in the case, for example, of equipment that was installed post 2017. That, however, does not make a jot of difference to a poor child living in a block of flats who does not have good internet access to do their homework. That is a pretty clear judgment for the Government to make, because they have made no real or clear case that any compelling property rights are being imperilled, or that there is any compelling cost—other than minor inconvenience, perhaps—to the landowners who might be affected by the amendment.
There is, however, an overwhelming public policy case for wanting to do everything possible to assist children living in such block of flats. There is an overwhelming public policy case that a child in that block of flats with pre-2017 infrastructure should not be treated any less equally or favourably than a child who lives in a neighbouring block of flats that happens to have equipment that was installed post 2017. I urge the Minister and the Government to rethink their position for those reasons, unless I have misunderstood their case.
Julia Lopez
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that we do not disagree with the ambition. We all want children in such blocks of flats and other difficult-to-reach premises to have excellent digital infrastructure. As the Member for an urban constituency, I certainly want that. We have been testing this extensively, from legal team to legal team of operators. Some operators tell us that the additional rights are not necessary to be able to access buildings in the way that they hope; others say that they are. As I say, we have been testing this. Some of the suggestions would give greater legal access to property than law enforcement has. We have to get the right balance and we have to test whether this proposal will ultimately speed up the roll-out.
Kevin Brennan
That seems to be rather a weak argument. If law enforcement were entering someone’s property, it would probably be to search it, make an arrest or something like that. A telecoms operator entering a property to install some cable is a very different proposition, is it not?
Julia Lopez
It is a difficult balance to get right, between having a roll-out and ensuring that somebody’s property rights are respected. If we are considering giving greater powers to an operator than to law enforcement, we have to ask whether that is necessary. Operators have told us that that is not necessary to get access and to increase roll-out. On balance, therefore, we are not minded to support the amendment.
Chris Elmore
I have listened to the Minister and the debate that followed her speech. The argument is slightly confused, because in the oral evidence sessions, CityFibre and Openreach were in agreement on the need to address the issue. They were also in agreement on the huge deficit in meeting the Government’s targets because of issues in gaining access to flats and properties through leaseholders and site owners.
In answer to the question about the response of tenants or property owners inside the flats, the providers said that it was overwhelmingly positive; they wanted to gain fibre roll-out. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, nearly 56,000 MDU premises are on hold through the roll-out, so what is the plan? What is the solution to deal with the digital divide that is forming in cities and towns across the UK? It was mentioned in evidence that my Ogmore constituency has only 3% MDUs. If I recall correctly, the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye’s constituency was above 13% or 14%—higher again, she is indicating. The numbers increase depending on the area. How will we solve that problem?
Equally, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West. We cannot simply say that, as we move to more online learning, and more remote working or working from home—business is supportive of that following the pandemic, even if the Government are asking everyone to come back to the office—people now have far greater understanding of their broadband, including its bandwidth, who installed it, who runs it and the costs, than they ever did before the pandemic because everyone needed to use Zoom and Teams; although, personally, there are days when I would rather not use them ever again.
I am minded to press the amendment to a Division, for the reasons that I and my hon. Friend set out. I am not hearing from the Minister what the plan is to rectify the problem. According to Openreach and other providers, the figure for premises on hold is going up year after year, and therefore the target will be missed, despite the Government reducing it at least twice since 2019.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 17th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 View all Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 March 2022 - (17 Mar 2022)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 61, page 45, line 37, at end insert—
“(4A) Where the assumptions in subsection (4) cause the market value of a landlord’s agreement to decline, the rent payable under a new tenancy granted by order of the court under this Part of this Act shall not decline by more than 40%.”
This amendment would provide a legal guarantee that site providers’ rents fall by no more than 40% under any new agreement.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clauses 62 to 65 stand part.
Chris Elmore
The Government introduced the electronic communications code in 2017 and promised at the time that reductions in rent would, in reality, be no more than 40%. However, as we heard from Protect and Connect during Tuesday’s evidence session, there have been thousands of cases in which small tenant farmers, sports clubs and community organisations that host masts have seen their rents fall by vastly more than that, with many facing reductions of more than 90%. That was confirmed during the evidence session, when a question was asked about the average, followed by questions from other Members, including me. That clearly showed that there had been far higher reductions for some organisations and owners. One such case is James, a 71-year-old sheep farmer who has maintained a mast on his farm for 15 years, normally receiving £2,900 a year in rent. In 2020, James received a letter informing him that he was now being offered £200 a year under a new agreement. That was a reduction of 93% and a huge overnight shock to his personal and professional finances.
The average reduction for contracts negotiated by Cellnex UK, as Mark Bartlett informed us on Tuesday, has been 63%—a decrease that would cause a huge dent in the finances of all the kinds of organisation I have referred to and a figure well above what the Government promised in 2017. I am sure that members of this Committee would not be best pleased if a significant stream of their income fell by 63%.
I know that the Minister said at Second Reading that valuations pre 2017 were much too high, but surely she must recognise, after the oral evidence we heard on Tuesday, that the race to the bottom that we are seeing is not sustainable and that the level of reduction in rent that is occurring will deter other landowners from agreeing to host infrastructure in the first place, thus slowing the roll-out that this very legislation is designed to speed up.
Rather than leaving reductions to chance, the Opposition have tabled amendment 8, which would enshrine in law that rents under any new agreement fall by no more than 40%. That would strike a much fairer balance between operators and site providers by ensuring that what is a significant income stream for many individuals and community groups is not wiped out overnight. It would also contribute significantly to a faster roll-out of telecommunications infrastructure, as site owners would be more willing to engage. Speeding up the roll-out of new telecommunications infrastructure is the express desire of the Bill. I hope that Members from across the Committee will stand squarely behind their constituents by supporting this amendment.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend in pushing the amendment, in order to hear what the Minister has to say in response. The amendment goes to the heart of what a lot of the Bill is about: balancing the rights of private property owners and the policy requirement to speed up the roll-out of digital infrastructure.
This morning we debated an instance in which there would be no real financial cost to the private property owners from doing the right thing. In that instance, the state was ensuring that their properties could be accessed to put in the necessary infrastructure to roll out digital infrastructure in an urban setting—big blocks of flats, where lots of people might not have very good access to the internet and so on. In that instance, the Government were not prepared to accept our amendment, even though it would not have had any significant detrimental impact on the private property owners. In other words, they took the view that in that instance the private property owners, even if they would be only marginally inconvenienced, had to have their property rights protected, because this was a retrospective imposition and they would not have given permission.
In this instance—in fairness, I think this was not intended in 2017—private property owners have suffered, or might suffer, significant detriment to the income they can acquire through somebody else’s use of their land with the state’s assistance. In those circumstances, it is not unreasonable to say that the balance should be to ensure that they are not affected in a way that causes a massive reduction in the income they can earn from the use of their land.
If that was not a strong enough argument in itself, which perhaps it is not, the way the market has reacted to what happened after 2017 and the problems that there have undoubtedly been, with people reluctant to get involved with rolling out the infrastructure we need for the future, which we all want to achieve through the Bill and by other means, is further evidence that an adjustment perhaps needs to be made. The Minister could discuss with the Committee whether that adjustment is exactly what is contained in the amendment, but whether something should be done to address the arguments and concerns that have been expressed to us by those who own land on which such infrastructure is sited is certainly worth further consideration.
The Minister for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure (Julia Lopez)
I thank the hon. Members for Ogmore and for Cardiff West for their contributions and for the amendment. I acknowledge that this is a tricky issue. There have been problems between both parties since the 2017 reforms, but we maintain that the 2017 valuation provisions created the right balance between the public need for digital communications and landowner rights. I think there is agreement that the prices being paid for rights to install communications apparatus before that date were simply too high. With digital communications becoming an increasingly critical part of our daily lives, that needed to be addressed.
The new pricing regime is more closely aligned to those for utilities such as water, electricity and gas. We think that that is the correct position. As I said earlier today, we are not seeking to take sides. We are on the side of good digital connectivity for our constituents, and we firmly believe that landowners should still receive fair payments that, among other things, take into account any alternative uses that the land may have and any losses or damages that may be incurred. I was alive to the concerns expressed to me by the Protect and Connect campaign, but also to those raised by individual Members about tricky constituency cases. When I came into my role in September, I met individual Members to discuss those cases. I also met Protect and Connect.
I tested the cases that were brought to my attention and asked for further details, which often were not forthcoming. There was a catch-all excuse that a lot of them were under non-disclosure agreements and the precise amount of rents settled at could not be disclosed. My broad view is that there were initial concerns and difficult cases where the mobile network operators were too aggressive in their negotiations—I think that was effectively acknowledged in the panel discussions earlier in the week—but we seem to have found an equilibrium now, helped partly by some of the cases that have gone through the courts.
We now have a body of case law that can be referred to in some of these tricky negotiations. We are also trying to deter people from going to the courts in the first place, by introducing more alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. I say that to reassure Members. There were problems initially. As far as I can tell from my case load, the correspondence coming in, the discussions that I have had with Members and the lack of additional noise on the subject in the Chamber, a better equilibrium has now been found between the mobile network operators and the landowners. If that is not the case, I am happy to look at those cases again, and we are introducing mechanisms to provide better negotiations between parties via the legislation.
Turning to the amendment, I am not sure why the hon. Member for Ogmore thinks that a specific limit should be imposed on the percentage by which rent can be reduced when the rental payment is determined by a court. Further, it is unclear why he has chosen arbitrarily to apply a figure of 40%. We have strongly resisted specifically regulating the amount of rent payable under a code agreement. Our preference has been to allow the parties to freely negotiate the amount payable under an agreement, based on a statutory framework either in the code, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 or the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996. Even where the parties cannot reach an agreement and the court has to impose its terms, including the rent to be paid, the court has the freedom to reach its own conclusions using that framework, rather than having its discretion restricted by statutory rent controls. As I said, my understanding is that we now have a much better equilibrium, in that we have amounts of rent that both parties are much more content with.
I understand the concerns about whether this has stymied roll-out. If operators cannot get their infrastructure on to land, I imagine that they would start paying more to try to incentivise landowners to take it on. I think we have also seen cases where it has been in the landowner’s interests to try to drag the process out so that they are on the old rents, rather than the reduced, new rents. I think that has also contributed to some of the delays.
If the amount of rent is controlled in the way suggested in this amendment, we will be heading closer to a regime that will apply reductions on a blanket basis, rather than take into account the broader range of relevant circumstances, as permitted by the legal framework. I suspect that that is something that both site providers and operators would be keen to avoid.
I am aware that it has been alleged that the Government expected rents to fall by in the region of 40% following the 2017 reforms. It is unclear whether it is on that basis that the hon. Member for Ogmore chose the statutory cap of 40% in his amendment. At the time of the 2017 reforms, which I confess predate me, the fact is that the Government were unsure what the level of rent reductions would be. We were clear that that was the case. Independent analysis contained in the impact assessment that accompanied those reforms predicted that reductions could be 40%, but that was never a Government prediction nor a target.
Chris Elmore
I did say in my opening remarks where the 40% comes from. Just to help the Minister, it does relate to the 2017 change, but also the Government’s own analysis from the time. I do of course accept that she was not the Minister, but her party was in government, and those are her own Government’s figures.
Julia Lopez
That certainly is a fair point to make, and I apologise for not picking that up in the hon. Member’s comments.
A cap is likely to be even more detrimental to constituents in rural communities, who will benefit from the increased connectivity and reliability that we hope the Bill will bring.
As I have explained, agreements to which the code applies can currently be renewed in various ways, depending on the type of agreement and where in the UK it was entered into. The intention of clause 61, along with clause 62, is to create a clearer and more consistent legislative framework under which agreements are renewed. Central to that is ensuring that, no matter where in the UK an agreement is renewed, the financial terms are calculated in the same way. That will help to ensure that there is not a digital divide across the UK, with one country receiving additional investment at the expense of others because operating costs are cheaper.
The amendment suggests limiting any reduction in rent that may be imposed by the court when agreements are renewed under the 1954 Act. While that proposal is well intentioned, we do not believe that it should be allowed to proceed. It is vital that there is fairness throughout the UK. The Bill as drafted provides a clear framework, which will not only result in all payments being calculated in the same way, but in the ability to renew agreements quickly and cost-effectively. We think that will expand the digital network.
Kevin Brennan
I take what the Minister said about the figure of 40%, but it was contained, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore said, in a previous Government’s impact assessment. I remind her that, when Ministers issue impact assessments, they sign them, as she did with this one, saying:
“I have read the Impact Assessment and I am satisfied that, given the available evidence, it represents a reasonable view of the likely costs, benefits and impact of the leading options.”
When her predecessor signed the impact assessment on behalf of the Government to say, “This is the Government’s official view of what is likely to happen,” their official view was that rents would drop, probably by 40%.
Julia Lopez
I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I also accept that in some cases rent reductions were much greater than expected. As we discussed earlier in the week, some of those were the result of overly aggressive behaviour by mobile network operators. We need to address some of the challenges that were raised by some of the changes that were made. In the body of case law, we now have a better equilibrium between landowners and operators, which should help to address some of those cases.
On some of the more emotive cases that have been raised with me over my tenure, I have sought to understand the details. Those cases are not always as has been presented, and I am led to believe that, in terms of a lot of the initially very difficult cases that came after the 2017 reforms were initially introduced, we are now in a very different place.
It is vital that there is fairness throughout the UK. As drafted, the Bill provides a clear framework that will not only result in all rental payments being calculated in the same way, but in the ability to renew agreements quickly and cost-effectively. We hope that will help us expand the digital network across the whole of our country. In those circumstances, I ask the hon. Member for Ogmore to withdraw his amendment.
I will now turn to clauses 61 to 65, which deal with the renewal of agreements to which the code applies that have expired or are about to expire. There are several ways in which such agreements can be renewed, depending on the type of agreement and where in the UK it was entered into. The aim of the clauses is to make all the routes to renewal as clear and consistent as possible, so that the process is the same across the UK.
Chris Elmore
I listened to the Minister’s remarks, and she acknowledges some of the historical cases, but I refer her to this Committee’s first sitting, where I asked Eleanor Griggs of the National Farmers Union about reductions in recent cases. Ms Griggs said that in in recent times, the NFU had made representations in cases in which farmers had received 90% decreases. Later, she referred to a farm in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay where there was a significant reduction, from £3,500 to £17.50 a year.
We have to acknowledge the impact on many organisations, including farmers, churches, and particularly community groups. I have examples in my constituency of community groups that run scout halls or guide huts losing 60%, 70%, 80% or 90% of the income they use to balance their budgets and ensure that they can run services for children and young people throughout the year. The Minister has committed to review even more of the cases that come through for her personal intervention, but I think there should be a minimum threshold of 40%, which the Government committed to previously in their impact assessment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West pointed out. I am therefore not minded to withdraw the amendment. I also hope that their lordships will consider it as part of any future scrutiny in the other place.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 2 to 4.
That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Julia Lopez
I am afraid I have to tell the Committee that this does not get any more inspiring.
The clause creates a bespoke process for telecoms operators to seek access to certain types of land where a person repeatedly fails to respond to requests for access to install apparatus under or over land for the purposes of providing an electronic communications service. The clause sets out that process by inserting into the electronic communications code new part 4ZA, which makes provision for a court to impose an agreement where the operator needs that person, “the landowner”, to confer or be bound by code rights. Part 4ZA will apply in situations where an operator intends to provide an electronic communications service and to achieve that must install electronic communications apparatus under or over, but not on, relevant land. “Relevant land” is defined as land that is not covered by buildings, and that is neither a garden, a park nor a recreational area. The provision also takes a power for the Secretary of State to specify through regulations further types of land that may be “relevant land”, but may only do so following consultation.
The provisions will require an operator to have given two warning notices, followed by a final notice. Those three notices all follow an initial request notice, giving a total of four. The Bill sets out that there must be a period of 14 days between the giving of each notice. For the landowner to fall out of scope of proposed new part 4ZA, all that is required of them is to respond to any of these notices in writing, before the operator applies to the court under part 4ZA. If any response is received, the operator will no longer be able to apply for a part 4ZA order and must either negotiate for a code agreement or apply for rights to be imposed by the courts in the normal way.
If granted, a part 4ZA order will impose an agreement between a landowner and an operator, conferring the rights requested in the initial notice. The terms of that agreement are to be specified in regulations. It may reassure the Committee that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Furthermore, before the regulations are made, the Bill expressly obliges the Secretary of State to consult with a range of parties.
Importantly, the provisions impose a six-year maximum time limit on the period for which rights conferred under a part 4ZA order may last. I emphasise that detail, because it forms an important part of the Bill’s safeguards for landowners’ property rights. This clause provides a much needed process that will play a large part in ensuring that homes and businesses benefit from the national gigabit broadband upgrade and are not left behind.
I will now turn to the amendments tabled in relation to clause 66, all of which are technical amendments. Amendments 2 and 3 have been tabled in order to make a minor clarification to the text of the electronic communications code, to avoid any possible unintended interpretation of the legislation. Amendments 2 and 3 clarify that the right mentioned in paragraph 26(8) and paragraph 27G(4) of the electronic communications code to require the removal of apparatus applies in relation to apparatus placed under or over land. By inserting the words “under or over” into paragraph 26(8) and paragraph 27G(4) of the code, these amendments clarify that part 6 of the code may be used by a landowner to require the operator to remove apparatus installed “under or over”, as well as on, the land.
Without amendments 2 and 3, paragraph 26(8) and 27G(4) as currently worded may be interpreted to mean that while equipment installed on land under the “interim rights” or “unresponsive occupier” process could be removed via the part 6 process, equipment installed under or over land under these processes might not. That is not the policy intention, and as such this amendment is being introduced to clarify the policy position.
Amendment 4 makes a minor amendment to remove a provision which has been found to have no effect. The provision in question—paragraph 3(9) of the schedule to clause 66 in the Bill—was intended to ensure that part 5 of the code does not apply to the process created by clause 66 in the Bill. Part 5 of the code sets out that code rights may persist even after the agreement which underpins them expires. It was never intended that part 5 should apply to rights gained through part 4ZA, due to the importance of the time limits I have mentioned. The Bill provision that this amendment removes was intended to ensure that part 5 did not apply to rights gained through part 4ZA. However, we are satisfied a different part in the code already ensures this. As such, paragraph 3(9) in the schedule of the Bill has no real effect and ought to be removed.
In practical terms, there is no legal or policy change effected through this amendment, beyond increasing the clarity of legislation. This amendment simply removes a provision which had no effect in the first place, and thus tidies the legislation. I hope that everyone will accept that that is beneficial.
Chris Elmore
I want to make clear the Opposition’s support for clause 66. From all my conversations with industry, it is quite clear that where there is an unresponsive landowner, it is extremely complicated to then meet the public’s demands. If the Bill is about improving digital activity for all our constituents, particularly in some of the most rural and hard to reach communities—I find it hard to believe that includes my own constituency, but it does—then this is an important and welcome change.
Kevin Brennan
Despite the very thorough explanation that the Minister gave of what is a technical clause, I understand what the difference is between something being placed over or under land, but I am not sure what the difference is between something placed over or on land. There must be a technical reason why it is there; does she know the answer to that?
Julia Lopez
I think it being on land is a much more intrusive process. For instance, we could be talking about a cable that happens to be going over somebody’s land, and therefore to do something to it would not require a great deal of intrusion. Similarly, if it was the matter of being able to dig at the side of a road, it is technically access land, but only underneath the surface of the land—I hope this makes sense. It is much less intrusive process. I think it is a process that could be objected to far less by a landowner; they are not being asked if somebody can drive over their land, put something unattractive on it or inconvenience them in any way. We are talking about underground works and cabling works that objectively would have no real impact on their land.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule
Unresponsive occupiers: consequential amendments
Amendments made: 2, in the schedule, page 66, line 17, at end insert—
“(c) in sub-paragraph (8), after “placed on” insert “, under or over”.”
This amendment clarifies that the right mentioned in paragraph 26(8) of the electronic communications code to require the removal of apparatus applies in relation to apparatus placed under or over land.
Amendment 3, in schedule, page 66, line 18, after “sub-paragraph (4)” insert—
“(a) after “placed on” insert “, under or over”;
(b) ”
This amendment clarifies that the right mentioned in paragraph 27G(4) of the electronic communications code to require the removal of apparatus applies in relation to apparatus placed under or over land.
Amendment 4, in the schedule, page 66, line 20, leave out sub-paragraph (9).—(Julia Lopez.)
This amendment removes the amendment to paragraph 30(3) of the electronic communications code. The amendment to paragraph 30(3) is unnecessary because paragraph 30(2) would not in any event apply to a code right conferred by virtue of an order under new paragraph 27ZE of the code.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67
Arrangements pending determination of certain applications under code
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Julia Lopez
The clause deals with situations where once an agreement to which part 5 of the code applies has run its initially agreed course, one of the parties wants it to be terminated, modified or replaced by an agreement with different terms. In those circumstances, the matter can be referred to a tribunal if the parties cannot resolve matters themselves. It can take time for such disputes to be dealt with, and paragraph 35 of the code deals with the circumstances in which an interim order can be requested, which will apply until the full dispute is heard.
Our policy intention for interim orders is to allow any specific priority aspect of a dispute to be looked at, so that temporary arrangements can be imposed where appropriate. At present, however, paragraph 35 of the code is restricted, so that only a site provider can ask for an interim order, and they can do so only in relation to the consideration paid by an operator. The clause widens that provision so that either party can ask for an interim order and can do so in relation to any term of the former agreement. That will enable specific issues to be dealt with at a much earlier stage of the dispute. In particular, it will mean that operators are given the same opportunity as site providers have to ask for the financial terms of an agreement to be reviewed on an interim basis. This will help ensure that once an agreement to which part 5 of the code applies has run its initially agreed course, there are no unnecessary delays to the valuation framework of the code being applied to new financial arrangements.
It will also provide the courts with greater flexibility to look at situations where a party needs an urgent change to any term of their agreement. We think that will be particularly helpful where an operator needs urgent changes to terms so that they can upgrade or continue using an existing site. There are likely to be situations where this will also benefit site providers. However, the clause is not to be used as a way of circumventing the usual negotiation process. Parties will be expected to negotiate in the usual way before making an application to the court, and to comply with the ADR requirements that the Bill introduces.
We think the clause will help many operators benefit from the full code framework at a much earlier stage, which will allow them to take advantage of provisions to upgrade and share apparatus and the code valuation framework as introduced in 2017. That will result in more investment in the expansion and upgrading of digital networks, ensuring that consumers receive the best coverage and connectivity possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 67 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 68
Use of alternative dispute resolution
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Julia Lopez
I will now speak to clauses 68 and 69, which introduce measures on alternative dispute resolution and complaints relating to the conduct of operators. The purpose is to encourage more collaborative discussions between landowners and telecoms operators, and to ensure that litigation is used only as a last resort where an agreement cannot be reached.
Clause 68 sets out two new requirements for operators and one new requirement for courts. Together, they will encourage the greater use of alternative dispute resolution processes. The requirements are as follows. First, when a request notice is sent for access to land or other rights under the electronic communications code, all operators must inform the landowner of the availability of ADR processes if the landowner is unhappy with the offer made. Secondly, in cases where an agreement cannot be reached operators must consider using ADR processes before applying to the courts. If the matter relates to modification of an expired agreement, either party must consider ADR before applying to the court. Finally, when awarding costs, the courts will be required to take into account any unreasonable refusal to engage in ADR by either party.
Some landowners and their representatives have told us that they find negotiations for code rights difficult. In some cases, landowners have felt pressured to accept any terms offered, to avoid the risk of being taken to court—this relates to the David and Goliath situation that we discussed earlier in the week. The measures in clause 68 address this issue by encouraging the use of ADR in order to minimise the risk of landowners feeling such pressure, and to facilitate co-operative discussions between landowners and telecoms.
Clause 69 inserts new subsection (ca) into paragraph 103 of the electronic communications code, which lists the issues that Ofcom’s code of practice must deal with. Subsection (ca) adds to the list
“the handling by operators of complaints relating to the failure of operators to comply with the code of practice”.
Landowners and their representatives have reported to the Government that, in some cases, they are reluctant to enter into code agreements because they are concerned about how the operator or their contractors will behave when they access the relevant land. The clause works to address the issue by requiring Ofcom to prepare guidance, following consultation, regarding operators’ handling of conduct. To complement that, we will bring forward secondary legislation to introduce a new statutory requirement for operators to have a complaints process for code matters, enforced by Ofcom.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 68 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Power to impose time limits on the determination of code proceedings
Julia Lopez
I beg to move amendment 5, in clause 70, page 60, line 15, at end insert—
“, and
(b) amend or repeal any of the following provisions (which provide signposts to those regulations)—
(i) paragraph 2A of Schedule 3 to the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991;
(ii) section 107(1A) of this Act;
(iii) paragraph 97 of Schedule 3A to this Act;
(iv) section 69(5A) of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009;
(v) section 27(6A) of the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010.”.
This amendment ensures that the power conferred by the new section 119A of the 2003 Act includes power to amend or revoke certain signposts in primary legislation which might otherwise be rendered otiose by the exercise of that power.
Julia Lopez
It is clearly desirable that legal disputes relating to code rights be dealt with as quickly as possible; that will minimise delays to network deployment and expansion in a number of ways.
Fast dispute resolution will make sure that, where the public interest test is satisfied, operators can get the rights they need for network deployment and expansion as soon as possible. It also means that where that test is not satisfied, that is identified promptly, so that operators know they have to explore different options. Finally, fast dispute resolution is in the best interests of all parties. Protracted legal proceedings take time, cost money and harm ongoing stakeholder relationships.
However, while we recognise that fast dispute resolution has a lot of benefit, it is important that there be no undue interference with the judicial process and the ability of courts to deal with cases justly. Time limits should not, for example, interfere with a court’s ability to provide the parties with sufficient opportunities to identify, locate or produce evidence. Any statutory provisions relating to the time within which disputes must be determined therefore require careful consideration and close scrutiny.
Legislation already makes limited provision for certain applications relating to new code rights to be heard within six months, but this provision sits outside the code; it is in the Electronic Communications and Wireless Telegraphy Regulations 2011. It was introduced in the course of our transposing European legislation, rather than as a specific element of the domestic code framework.
The new power in clause 70 will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations that are broader in scope, and can specify a period within which a full range of code-related disputes must be determined. As the clause makes clear, regulations made under it may amend or revoke provisions made under the 2011 regulations. That gives the Secretary of State flexibility to consider a full range of approaches, including having no time-limited period at all, if appropriate.
Other, wider measures that we are introducing in the Bill, and potentially in subsequent secondary legislation, will affect court resources. In many cases, the changes will ensure that caseloads are more evenly distributed, particularly between the first-tier and upper-tier tribunals. Rather than seeking to make changes relating to dispute time limits now, we are therefore putting in clause 70 a power permitting the Secretary of State to make regulations on this issue in future. That will enable the Government to revisit the measures as a whole, once the other measures in the Bill come into force, so that their overall impact can be assessed when considering whether changes are appropriate. We will, of course, work closely with the Ministry of Justice and the Northern Ireland and Scotland Governments before making any further proposals on this issue.
Amendment 5 provides a very limited power for the Secretary of State to amend a specified list of provisions in primary legislation. The provisions signpost to regulations about time limits for disputes on code rights. It is clearly desirable that legal disputes relating to code rights be dealt with very quickly. Any statutory provision relating to the time within which disputes must be determined requires careful consideration. The amendment ensures that, if changes are made to the existing regulations, corresponding amendments can be made to legislation that signposts those regulations.
Chris Elmore
This point also relates to previous clauses, but I think links best to clause 70. The Minister mentioned that the Secretary of State would review dispute resolution at a later date. Throughout the oral evidence sessions, there were calls from the NFU, Protect and Connect and other organisations for the dispute resolution to become compulsory. If resolutions were slowing down, and decisions were not being reached, would the Minister consider introducing, through secondary legislation, a compulsory element, so that we can avoid some of the concerns raised by the witnesses, particularly those representing landowner and club groups and so on?
Julia Lopez
I think it is implicit in what I said that we will keep all of this under close review, because we do not want any of the changes we make to slow the roll-out. We hope that the changes have their intended effect, which is ultimately not about any particular group’s interests, beyond their getting better digital connectivity. We are always happy to keep this under close review. We do not think a mandatory ADR would serve our overall goal. If problems come up over the next few years, these powers will enable us to make changes.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Rights of network providers in relation to infrastructure
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Julia Lopez
Sharing infrastructure in the roll-out of gigabit-capable networks can greatly reduce the cost of deploying networks, increase the pace of roll-out and reduce the frustrating need to dig up streets, preventing unnecessary disruption to the local populations we represent and reducing carbon emissions. The Communications (Access to Infrastructure) Regulations 2016 enable sharing of information about access to physical infrastructure across the utility, transport and communications sectors. They include the right to access that infrastructure on fair and reasonable commercial terms and conditions. The 2016 regulations were implemented in the UK, following the European broadband cost reduction directive, to reduce the cost of deploying high-speed electronic communications networks.
We recently published our response to a call for evidence on a review of those regulations. We set out that there may be areas where the 2016 regulations could be made easier to understand and use. We said we would legislate to allow future changes to the 2016 regulations via secondary legislation, rather than having to rely on primary legislation. This legislation would be subject to a further consultation with Ofcom and such other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate. It would also be scrutinised in the Parliament through the affirmative procedure.
Clause 71 grants the Secretary of State the power to make provisions, through regulations, conferring rights on network providers in relation to infrastructure for the purpose of developing communications networks. These provisions include the power to amend, revoke or replace the 2016 regulations. The clause details the areas in which provisions may be made by the Secretary of State through regulations. These areas include: provisions relating to grants of access to relevant infrastructure; the carrying out of work as specified; procedures and forms of request by network providers for rights conferred by the regulations; and disputes under the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
Power to make consequential amendments
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Julia Lopez
Clause 72 confers on the Secretary of State a power to make any changes to other legislation that are required as a consequence of part 2 of the Bill coming into force. By way of example, changes may be needed to ensure that legislation that references the electronic communications code continues to work correctly after the Bill is passed. The power can be used to amend any legislation. In the case of primary legislation, it is limited to legislation passed or made before the end of the parliamentary Session in which the Bill is passed.
Clause 72 requires that any regulations made using this power that amend or repeal primary legislation be subject to the affirmative procedure. The negative procedure will apply to any other regulations made using this power. Where any changes are required to devolved legislation, the UK Government will work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the wider legislative framework operates as intended. Clause 73 provides a straightforward explanation regarding references in this Bill to the electronic communications code.
Kevin Brennan
As the clause impacts the devolved Administrations and gives Ministers the right to interfere with primary legislation that is being passed by the devolved Governments, what consultation there has been with the Senedd, Scottish Parliament and Northern Ireland Assembly about this power of the UK Government?
Julia Lopez
We have official-level contact frequently, in case something has to be changed. I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have met my counter-parts in the Scottish and Welsh Administrations, including one of his colleagues in the Labour Administration. I will continue to have those meetings, in case changes that would have any meaningful impact are required as a result of the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 72 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Power to make transitional or saving provision
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Julia Lopez
Clause 74 allows the Secretary of State to make transitional or saving provisions. This is required to provide for a smooth introduction of the new legal framework by, for example, specifying grace periods before the legislation comes into force. Clause 75 makes provision about a number of technical matters that regulations made under the Bill address, and enables such regulations to be exercisable by statutory instrument.
Clause 76 sets out the extent of the provisions of the Bill. Both cyber-security and telecommunications are reserved matters, and, for the most part, the Bill extends across the UK. Clause 77 sets out the commencement. Clause 27, on matters of enforcement, comes into force on Royal Assent, and the remaining clauses come into force via commencement regulations made by the Secretary of State. Clause 78 is the short title of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 75 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, that further consideration be now adjourned.—(Steve Double.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Gender Specific Religious Persecution
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered gender specific religious persecution.
It is always a pleasure to speak in Westminster Hall, and I am very pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. We often seem to be in these two roles in such debates; you as the chairperson and me as a participant. I am also very pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), in her place. I am not sure whether this is the first time that we have been in this type of debate together. It is always a pleasure to see the Minister in his place, because he understands these issues. We are always assured that he will positively and helpfully deliver the response that we seek.
I am always mindful that Thursday afternoon is sometimes what we refer to as the graveyard shift. The fact is that from Tuesday there has not been the same level of whipping, which indicates that many people are away. It does not lessen the importance of the issue. We had sought to have the debate earlier to tie in with International Women’s Day, but the opportunity did not arise.
I am very pleased to see my two colleagues and dear friends, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who is the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief. We know the great work that she does. We say that because it is true, not for any other reason. She works energetically on these issues and we are very pleased that she is in that post. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow and I requested the debate jointly, so we are particularly pleased to be able to speak in it. I thank her for her continued advocacy for vulnerable women and girls around the world.
The debate is incredibly timely. Earlier this month was International Women’s Day, which offers time to take stock of how far we have advanced the rights of women; all of us in the House are committed to that goal. It is also an opportunity to reflect on the advances that need to be made—where we have got to and where we need to be. Sadly, the strides that we need to take to ensure freedom of religion or belief for women and girls are significant. There is a lot more to do, as others will illustrate when they have an opportunity to express themselves. It is a time to look back at what has been achieved and to look forward to what we want to achieve.
Although violations of freedom of religion or belief can affect any member of a minority religious community, religious persecution is not gender blind. Women and girls from communities suffering from persecution based on religion or belief face a double vulnerability: not only are they at greater risk of freedom of religion or belief abuses, but those abuses often have a greater impact on the lives of women and girls than on men. Everyone present will be aware of the Christian advocacy organisation Open Doors, which describes how gender specific religious persecution is hidden, violent and complex. Unfortunately, it is too often ignored by policy makers, non-governmental organisations and local authorities.
I will give a couple of examples; unfortunately, they are sometimes hard to listen to because of the graphic detail, even without getting into all the things that have happened, but these are the experiences of young girls. The first case is that of Meera Bhat, a 14-year-old Hindu girl from Mirpur Khas, Pakistan, who just a few days ago was abducted and forced to marry her abductor and to convert from Hinduism. Just this week, we had a chance to meet some Hindu representatives and to discuss some of the things that are happening to them. We in the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief intend to take those matters forward. There will be further engagement between us and them, and we will collectively try to act on what is happening to some Hindus in Bangladesh, in particular—that young girl, Meera, however, is from Pakistan.
Meera was abducted, forcibly married and forced to change her religion. When any child is abducted, there should be outrage, but in this case, there did not seem to be. To say that she was forcibly married is to put it politely; in reality, this 14-year-old girl was brutally raped. Do we hear about such abuse of power, abuse of religion and abuse of human dignity in the news? No, we do not. That is why this debate is so important and why the three Members present—the hon. Members for Congleton and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, and I—as well as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North, and the Minister, have a duty to respond to, highlight and deal with these issues.
All too often, these cases are flagrantly ignored by the international media, just as they are by the local authorities where the crimes take place. A culture of impunity seems to prevail. The recent report from Aid to the Church in Need, “Hear Her Cries”, found that up to 1,000 Christian and Hindu girls are abducted in Pakistan each year, many of whom are forcibly converted and “married”. I say “married”, with inverted commas, because it is certainly not a marriage that is agreed to and certainly not when that person is an underage girl. To make matters worse, that number is likely to be a conservative estimate, so it could be even more than 1,000, which greatly worries us.
Very few of these girls’ names ever make it out of Pakistan, although we might hear of it through the APPG, as will the special envoy, the hon. Member for Congleton. For us, it is incredibly difficult to hear of the grief, pain and agony of vulnerable young girls and parents unable to respond. Early reports in Meera Bhat’s case state that when her parents approached a judge, he sided with Meera’s abductor, because he had recorded a video of her renouncing her faith. That was under duress, but if the courts are sympathetic to the case, they seem to turn a blind eye to some of the things that happen.
Much of Meera’s case is uncertain and we do not know what the future holds for her. However, her parents are worried for her, as we in this House are, and I am putting the case forward for wee Meera Bhat. All too often, confessions such as Meera’s are manipulated, coerced or forced; those involved are abused, sometimes violently. At the end of the day, she is a 14-year-old girl, taken from her home and family, and violently and repeatedly abused.
To highlight the importance of responding to such cases, I will also draw the attention of the Minister and all Members present to the abduction of Farah Shaheen, a 14-year-old Christian girl whose abduction shares many similarities with Meera’s. Farah was kidnapped from Faisalabad on 25 June 2020 at the age of 12. That is hard to take in, particularly for me, as a grandfather—my oldest grandchild is a wee girl of 12—when I look at the innocence of Katie and think of the 12-year-old girl in Pakistan who was abducted, kidnapped, and abused. How would I feel, as a grandfather, a parent, or as one of the family members? Farah was forcibly married—which basically means that she was raped—and forced to convert to Islam.
During months of sexual enslavement, she was shackled and forced to work long hours cleaning animal dung in the yard of her abductor, a man named Khizar Ahmad Ali. Farah stated:
“I was chained most of the time...It was terrible. They put chains on my ankles”—
on a wee 12-year-old—
“and tied me with a rope.”
She tried to cut the rope and escape. She tried to get the chains off, but could not manage it. She prayed every night, as a Christian girl would do, asking God to help her—a desperate plea, a plea for help, when there is a society that seems to think that Hindus and Christian girls do not have rights, but they do.
Her father, Asif Masih, highlighted the impact that this time had on his daughter, saying:
“Farah has told me she was treated as a slave…She was forced to work all day, cleaning filth in a cattle yard. They repeatedly raped my daughter.”
Her father must have been beside himself with anxiety and concern. He continued:
“She was in trauma after being subjected to physical and medical torture.”
Eventually—thank goodness—on 16 February 2021, after a lengthy court process, Faisalabad district and sessions court ruled that her marriage was unlawful on the grounds that she had not been registered properly. She was allowed to go home, at long last, but the abuse, kidnapping and physical torture had all taken place.
This case illustrates how authorities often turn a blind eye to gender specific persecution. After Farah’s abduction, it took the police three months to even file a first information report, which starts off any police investigation in Pakistan. It was three months before they even got off their chairs to do something, while Farah’s parents and family were desperate to know what was going on. The investigation was dropped, with no action taken against the three men who were involved in Farah’s kidnapping and abduction. Even the eventual court ruling was a civil matter rather than a legal one. Where is the legal support in Pakistan for young Hindu and Christian girls? It does not appear to be available.
Despite the horrors that Farah endured, her abductors were let off with absolute impunity, which I find incredibly difficult to take. If I feel like that not as a family member but as a concerned person and Member of Parliament who wishes to raise these issues, how much more did her parents feel that? Not only was Farah denied justice for the atrocities committed against her but the groundwork was laid for further abductions, because others will say, “They got off. We can do the same, because ultimately we can get away with it,” and the evil men who consider such cruelty know they will not face repercussions.
I should have declared an interest at the beginning of the debate, Ms Rees, and I apologise for not doing so. I am very pleased and privileged to chair the all-party groups on international freedom of religion or belief and on the Pakistani minorities; indeed, it is humbling to do so.
I remind the House that these are not isolated issues, but two cases of 1,000 girls such as Farah and Meera who endured this abuse in Pakistan last year. As I said, I think that is just the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, such tragedies are not unique to Pakistan. Open Doors reports that of the top 50 countries featured in the world watch list for 2022—it was just released in January; the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) sponsors it every year—88% cited the forced marriage of women and girls as a form of religious persecution. Tellingly, no country reported its use against men, because, more often than not, it is men who abuse young women and young girls.
In Afghanistan, the rights of women are severely limited because of the Taliban’s extreme interpretation of sharia law. However, some women experience further challenges, especially those belonging to religious or belief minorities. Men may suffer from verbal and physical abuse in public places due to their external identity—perhaps because of a turban or a beard—but women also fear abuse, and women and girls from minority religions remove themselves from the male gaze or keep themselves under the radar, either by remaining indoors or covering themselves entirely in a burqa when they are in public. It is also no secret that women suffer sexual violence. As we see so often with sexual violence in today’s world, men seem to think they can do what they want. We need to have strict, hard laws to make sure that they know they cannot.
The nature of religious dress for women of some religions leads to them facing greater difficulty in exercising their right to freedom of religion or belief. At least 11 states in Europe, Africa and south Asia impose public restrictions or bans on Muslim head coverings, despite the fact that some women regard them as an integral part of their faith or identity. It is about protection and what their religion tells them to do. Women may also feel under great pressure to conceal or perhaps underplay their religious identity to make themselves less identifiable as belonging to a religious group or being more moderate in their outlook.
Religious dress may seem a trivial form of infringement on freedom of religion or belief, but wherever violations of that nature take place, grave examples of forced marriage and sexual exploitation are not far behind. Forced marriage, and the sexual exploitation of women and girls, is a tactic to stem the growth of religious minority communities and is under-reported and under-recognised, despite its enormous scale. In 2020, at the peak of the covid-19 outbreak around the world, Open Doors reported that the No. 1 pressure point for women was forced marriage. When people say, “I do,” it is a commitment by both parties, but in the cases that we are discussing here, there is no choice for the young girl at all, regardless of whether she is a Hindu or Christian. It seems that the law of the land in Pakistan and other countries is biased towards the male part of the marriage.
Forced marriages, and the weaponisation of sexual violence, is a tactic that devastates religious minority communities. Children born of forced marriages and forced conversions are often made to take on the religious identity of their perpetrator, and they are left with a legal religious identity that is difficult or even impossible to change. Sadly, in many cases around the world, survivors of rape and sexual violence face ostracisation from their community, often leaving such women either unable to marry and have children or forced to leave the community and be cut off from support networks. Heartbreakingly, in some cases that has resulted in survivors returning to their abusers, as there is no safe place for them to go. How sad it is that they have to go back to an abusive relationship because no one else will take them—none of their family members will reach out, and no one in society will say, “Can we help this young girl and make life better for her?”
The tactic is seen in many countries, but perhaps the starkest recent example—it is still fresh in my mind and those of hon. Members—is the 2014 atrocities committed by Daesh against religious minorities, including Yazidis and Christians. When I think about the brutality that we witnessed, I have an ache in my heart for the Yazidi women and young girls who were abducted and have never been seen again. Daesh specifically targeted religious minority women and girls through the use of abduction, exploitation, rape, sexual violence and forced marriage in an attempt to annihilate religious diversity and establish its caliphate. Many of the women and girls abducted by Daesh in northern Iraq in 2014 are still missing, and one of my requests to the Minister is to find out what has happened to those 2,763 Yazidi women and children. Unfortunately, no real effort has been made to locate them or to ensure that they have been rescued and reunited with their families, despite the collapse of the Daesh caliphate in 2019.
According to survivors, girls abducted by Daesh fighters were trafficked to Syria and then to Iran by Iranian soldiers. What can we do to help? How can we make inquiries or carry out investigations to see whether we can return the Yazidi women and girls to their families and reunite them with those who love and miss them? If it is true that Yazidi girls were trafficked abroad, they could now be in a range of possible countries—perhaps a dozen countries or more. I am grateful to Lord Alton of Liverpool for calling on the UK Government to investigate the situation and engage in a dialogue with the Iranian Government to clarify the issue and to ensure the safe return of the Yazidi girls, if they have indeed been trafficked to Iran.
I welcome the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others. I put on record my thanks to the Minister, the Secretary of State and all the civil servants who worked industriously hard behind the scenes. Sometimes things do not happen at the speed we would wish, but we are greatly encouraged by the release of Nazanin. We saw on TV this morning her reunion with her husband and daughter, with all the family. We must put on record our thanks to her husband for his perseverance in highlighting this issue through hunger strike. We also thank the Government for working in the background. I saw the Minister speaking about it on TV this morning. The deal is a confidential deal, and we understand that, but we have got her home, and there has been great rejoice.
We are still waiting for answers on the Yazidi girls in Iran. Other states must follow suit and engage the Iranian Government in seeking the truth about the whereabouts of the Yazidi women and girls. The Yazidi girls and others like them need to be reunited with their families. I remember meeting some of them here in the House back in 2015, I think, and their stories were hard to comprehend—the violence, cruelty and complete disregard for their rights. They were abused physically and emotionally.
States must do much more to ensure the safe return of trafficked women and girls. International organisations need to support and guide states through this process or, indeed, accommodate it. It is imperative that women and girls who have endured horrific abuse are found, rescued, and allowed to go home. There will be rejoicing when the 2,763 Yazidi women and girls are returned home, reunited with their family and able to have the joy of the life they once had, if possible.
The vast majority of Daesh fighters are only prosecuted for terrorism-related offences. They need to be charged with more. It is important that we seek justice for these women. Daesh fighters must be prosecuted for their other crimes, which include murder, kidnapping, forced marriage, trafficking and other forms of sexual violence. That was one of the recommendations of the 2019 Truro review, which our Government have pledged to enact in full. Unfortunately, we have not seen much of that yet. Perhaps the Minister can give us an indication of where we are with that. It is important that the review’s recommendations are delivered.
In many parts of the world, the acts constituting human trafficking, and the subsequent enslavement and abuse, are not investigated and prosecuted. In cases where domestic courts are not equipped to prosecute, the international community needs to come together to ensure that courts can fulfil their legal duties, even if that means resorting to the establishment of international tribunals. I believe that if something is necessary, we should do it. We all share in the duty to deliver justice for these women.
Last year the UN found that ISIS committed genocide against the Yazidis, including through the abduction, forced marriage and conversion of Yazidi women and girls. In November 2021 a German court found that Taha al-Jumailly was guilty of crimes against humanity and genocide, citing the abduction and killing of a five-year-old girl. I have five grandchildren: three girls and two boys. How could anybody do that to a young girl? The court also cited the forced trafficking of her mother. They killed her child and then sold her into slavery. These crimes do not bear thinking about, but we must highlight the issue. Sadly, we too often do not. Today we have the opportunity.
Let us not deceive ourselves into thinking this is a matter for countries to deal with internally. The UK has an obligation under the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide to prevent such crimes from escalating. The Truro review recommends that Her Majesty’s Government seeks to prosecute Daesh members not only as terrorists but as perpetrators of sex crimes against Yazidi and Christian women. This has not been done. I encourage the Minister and my Government to address this before the report’s third-year review this summer, which is only a few months away.
I welcome the commitments that Her Majesty’s Government have made to promote gender equality and address discrimination around the world, including the Foreign Secretary’s announcement of the creation of a summit focusing on preventing sexual violence against women. We welcome that really significant step, as well as the proposal to build a new consensus on viewing sexual violence in conflict as a red line. The more we become aware of it, the more we want to stop it. I cannot stop it myself—none of us can individually —but our Minister and our Government can take steps to make it happen.
More needs to be done. Victims of gender specific religious persecution are so often overlooked, and I am sorry to say that the compounding elements of religion and gender are too often ignored by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. I urge Her Majesty’s Government to make defending women and girls in religious minorities a core value that should encompass all areas of foreign affairs, including our trade policy. We should ensure that all new trade agreements—indeed, all existing trade agreements—include human rights provisions that consider any religious or belief-based persecution and its gender components.
We need to ensure that UK overseas aid and development programmes include safeguards to recognise the signs of gender specific religious or belief-based persecution. They should be aware in particular of the risk of abduction, forced marriage and the conversion of girls from religious minority communities. I gave two examples earlier, one of a Christian girl and one of a Hindu girl. Wherever that is happening, we need to do something. That is particularly important for Pakistan, where abuses are rife, yet it is the largest recipient of UK overseas development spending. I believe it is time to make that aid conditional; it is time to add protections that make sure that religious minorities—be they Hindu, Christian or any other ethnic group—have protection. Aid spending can be a method to do that.
More needs to be done to help find and rescue the 2,763 Yazidi women and children who are still missing. There is an ache in my heart when I think of them, and I know there is an ache in other Members’ hearts as well. We have a duty to help them, to find out where they are and to try to bring them home to the place where they once lived in safety. Survivors need to receive adequate assistance, including medical and psychological help, financial support to set up their homes again, and access to justice. Those who abused them must face justice. That is needed to help rebuild their lives. Impunity for those crimes must be tackled; there has to be accountability in that process. I believe we owe it to those religious communities around the world. I believe we owe it to women and girls for what they have endured. It is time to bring it to an end.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate. I hope the Minister will forgive me for repeating several of his points. However, given that millions of women around the world are suffering those abuses, those points bear repetition.
Freedom of religion or belief is a fundamental human right, extending to everyone, everywhere, without distinction of any kind, be it race, ethnicity, gender, political or other opinion, or economic or social status. The three main components of FORB are the right to have a religion or belief; the right to change it; and the right to practice it. Unfortunately, millions of people around the world are not able to do those things freely.
While religious persecution against men tends to be focused and often public, such as killings during conflict, religious persecution against women is more likely to be complex and hidden. However, it too can be very violent. Global FORB violations against women, as women, can be characterised in three words: complex, violent and hidden.
Despite the often distinctive nature of FORB abuses of women, which are often sexual, until recently much of the research and data on FORB has been gender blind, possibly because the majority of official representatives of religion and belief communities across the world are men, and because their experiences have been used as a default reference. Yet, in many societies, men and women live very different lives. Women all too often do not have the same access to resources. They are assigned different roles. Many women do not exercise the same autonomy as men, even in relation to religion or belief practices in their local communities, let alone in other ways.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the factors that result in religious persecution against women are many and complex, and we all, including those of us who work on FORB much of the time, need to better understand those factors. Some work has been done by the FCDO in response to recommendation 5 of the Truro review, but not enough. I put that on the record, as the three-year deadline for reviewing the independent Truro review will be upon us at the beginning of July. But not enough work has been done.
That is why I am grateful to Aid to the Church in Need and Open Doors for their recent reports, “Hear Her Cries” and “The Persecution of Christian Women and Girls”. They are moving and critical. When I read “Hear Her Cries”, as a woman, I cried. I brought a copy for the Minister and I implore him to read it. It is heartrending.
Recommendation 5 of the review, which was accepted by the FCDO, states—I read it into the record, as we, fortunately, have the liberty of time in this debate:
“Bolster research into the critical intersection of FoRB and minority rights with both broader human rights issues (such as people trafficking, gender equality, gender based violence especially kidnapping, forced conversion and forced marriage) and other critical concerns for FCO such as security, economic activity, etc. recognising the potential for religious identity to be a key marker of vulnerability.”
The particularly important part is its final sentence:
“Use such research to articulate FoRB-focussed policies to address these issues.”
That sentence poses a critical question, one I hope will be considered by the independent reviewers of the Truro review. How has any such research done by the FCDO been used to augment, amend or develop Government policies over the last two and a half years, so that the UK can better help tackle the tragic global phenomenon of widespread FORB violations against women and girls? What changes have been made to FCDO policies?
Some good Government-funded work has been done by the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development. It states four reasons why women from religious minorities may be especially vulnerable to FORB abuses. I will summarise them briefly. First, when women are poor, and they belong to religious minorities in societies where people from a different faith are often viewed as “other”—someone different or alien—they can be particularly powerless. They can expect very little support from society as a whole. I will give an example later of a migrant woman from Qatar.
Secondly, CREID says that in some societies the bodies of women who belong to religious minorities are being used as battlegrounds in wider political and geostrategic struggles. That can lead to them being targeted for ideological reasons. Their vulnerable position in society makes them even more vulnerable. An example, as we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford, are the Yazidis in and around 2014. We also know of the Uyghurs in China; we have heard terrible stories about them being sexually abused and undergoing forced abortions.
Thirdly, some forms of sexual grooming of girls and women can be motivated by ideology. This was demonstrated in the example given by the hon. Gentleman, which I will refer to later, of forced marriage and forced conversion being justified by ideology from other faiths.
Finally—although not finally in terms of my speech, Ms Rees—women can face stigma and discrimination in their own communities. Tragically, women who have been subjected to sexual violence are often seen as bringing shame on their community and they can be targeted for honour-based violence from their own families and community. That is why it is critical to work with whole communities, including religious leaders, to challenge the acceptability of religiously motivated violence against women and bring about social change.
We have to make more explicit the links between gender, religion, marginality and poverty. Women in many countries appear to be victims of not just double but triple forms of persecution: they are women; they are of a particular religious or belief group; and they have low socioeconomic status and live in the margins. Those different layers reinforce each other, making women particularly vulnerable.
It is insufficient for us to say that we must raise awareness of the intersection of those vulnerabilities—we must be moved to action. Otherwise, religiously marginalised, economically excluded women will continue to fall through the cracks, experiencing appalling inequality, discrimination, persecution and violence, which will continue to be overlooked, ignored or minimised. I hope that the conference the UK is hosting on 5 and 6 July 2022 on freedom of religion or belief will promote some practical steps as to how we can address that issue and, working together with the international community concerned about FORB, encourage both Governments and civil society to do so.
I will unpack those thoughts a little. I am grateful to Stefanus Alliance International for providing an example of the complexity of the causes of FORB abuses against women by way of a migrant woman in Qatar. There is already a lack of legal protection for Qatari women in general. Christians are a minority group in Qatar; they do not enjoy the same level of rights and freedoms as the majority Muslim population. A foreign Christian woman working as a maid in Qatar can often have her immigration papers confiscated by her employer; she therefore has little or no hope of legal protection should he abuse her. That is just one example of the multi-layered intersectionality of human rights violations for women, and why women can be particularly vulnerable to FORB abuses.
Another example of the differences between men and women in terms of FORB violations is that when they occur against women, they are often hidden. Tragically, the abuses are often perpetrated within a woman’s own home, which is, of course, where women spend much of their time—in the private sphere. Sadly, such abuses may even be perpetrated by her own family or community. Practices such as female genital mutilation, sex-selective abortion, female infanticide, forced marriage, child marriage, sexual violence, marital rape, honour killings and the denial of access to work can all fall into the category of religiously motivated FORB abuses.
If a woman converts to another religion, she may well face additional challenges from her own family, such as physical or emotional torture to persuade her to deny her new faith. She may be excluded from family social networks, which can have severe consequences for a woman when they are her main—and sometimes only—social contacts. Leaving the family will not be an option. When a woman’s educational opportunities, and therefore her job opportunities, may also have been limited, she is financially dependent on her family. Sadly, any chance of recourse to justice can also be severely limited for her. Too often, we hear of the police taking no action, or of local courts taking no action at all when a young woman who has been forcibly married, for example, applies for justice.
Sadly, perpetrators of sexual violence often receive no evident public repercussions. In too many places, the impunity related to such crimes makes the continued targeting of women by others for their religious beliefs a low-risk activity. The sexual violence experienced by many women often remains unreported because of stigma and shame. Sadly, it is one of the most common forms of FORB violations against women and many underage girls. The female body becomes a battlefield used by perpetrators to control a woman’s personal faith or faith communities at large.
I am aware of one young woman who has been in hiding for well over a year as she is in fear of her abductor, who forcibly married her—by which we mean rape, and often continual rape. She is too frightened to come out of hiding for fear of the whole community. Rape is widely used as a weapon of armed conflict, as we heard and saw in 2014, as the Syrian conflict affected the Yazidis. Thousands of Yazidi women were abducted and held as sex slaves by ISIS soldiers. I heard of a young woman called Ekhlas, who was captured by ISIS soldiers. When she asked them, “Are you going to murder me?”, they said, “Oh, no. We’re going to make you suffer much more than that.” They took her as a sex slave.
Those women have faced challenges if they have tried to flee captivity or reintegrate themselves into their communities, which have practices and regulations on pre-marital intercourse or interreligious marriages. As we now know, some 2,700 such women, many of whom have children, remain missing to this day. I would appreciate it if the Minister could update me—perhaps not today, but in due course—on what practical support and resources have been applied to help those women since the answer I received on 26 October last year, when I last raised this issue.
Rape can even be used outside conflict in disputes between religious groups. As the Coalition for Religious Equality and Inclusive Development says, sexual grooming of girls and women can be motivated by ideology. Shockingly, it can sometimes even be used with the appearance of respectability. Each year, hundreds of Christian, Hindu and Sikh girls are reportedly abducted and forcibly married, and it is justified by ideology.
“Hear Her Cries”, a report by Aid to the Church in Need, relays brave women’s accounts of their kidnapping, forced conversion, sexual victimisation and unimaginable suffering. I, too, was going to read out the account of little Farah, aged 12, who was abducted from her grandfather’s home in that way, but the hon. Gentleman has already done so. That report should do more than just move us to tears; it should move us to action.
Tragically, although men are more likely to be killed as a result of religious persecution, they are also more likely than women to be celebrated as martyrs, whereas women, who are more likely to be subject to sexual abuse, are not rewarded the same honour. Their complex trauma is often additionally burdened with re-traumatisation in the form of isolation and rejection from their own faith communities. The blame falls on the victim, suffering continues long after the event, and counselling is unavailable.
What can we do to address all that? I will ask the Minister to consider a few things. We must ensure much wider humanitarian assistance for such women, and more extensive training in specialised trauma counselling. There need to be targeted programmes of aid for women and girls who face vulnerabilities as women of faith or belief, with those factors clearly recognised as criteria of vulnerability by UK aid. Women need to be involved in designing and implementing aid and other support programmes. There needs to be strengthened dialogue and co-operation between women’s rights activists and FORB activists to help to overcome a perception that achieving FORB for all women is incompatible with women’s rights.
We need to call out authorities in countries, including Governments, at the highest level. I implore the Minister to do so whenever the opportunity occurs. We need to call out abuses when authorities turn a blind eye or, tragically, even at times condone action, such as where local policing or the country’s legal system fails to protect women subject to FORB abuses. We must ensure that steps are taken against perpetrators to hold them to account and end cultures of impunity. We must learn to better identify early warning signs to avert atrocities and work with others in the international community to do so. We must challenge those Governments who have put FORB in their constitutions or signed up to international treaties, such as article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, but do not apply them.
We must gather data to better understand the double or triple jeopardy of women who are members of religious minorities—often also among the poorest and most vulnerable in their societies. More dialogue must be promoted within and across religious communities, including women at all times, to reflect on traditional practices, such as patriarchal ones, that have a negative impact on FORB. We must help women in local communities to voice their concerns. We need to look at how we can use the declaration of humanity, which was launched by Lord Ahmad, our Human Rights Minister, during the pandemic. It has not, perhaps, had the profile and subsequent impact that it could have. There is more to do. Will the Minister say how the UK Government, which commissioned it, could help to take that forward? The three-year deadline for implementing the Truro review, which was a manifesto commitment, will shortly be upon us, but that is no reason not to continue working on recommendation 5 and all the others. We must not stop just because the three-year period of the Truro review ends this July. Much more needs to be done.
From my experience of working on FORB in depth and detail over the past year and three months or so, as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, I do not believe that championing FORB and calling out its abuses across the world is sufficiently embedded in the culture of the FCDO. Experience has shown me that the FCDO, both at desks here and at posts in countries, needs to be bolder and more public in calling out specific cases of FORB abuses—not least those relating to some of the women we have heard about today. Inadequate advocacy is being provided for individual cases of concern. I am not being appropriately encouraged to undertake it. Tailored responses are not being provided to me when I raise individual cases of concern. Generic remarks in response to my raising such cases, such as, “FORB is a key human rights priority for the UK,” are simply not good enough.
Nor is the argument that it is better to raise such cases in private good enough. I have been concerned about one such case for almost a year and a half, and officials are aware of it. Still the poor girl continues to suffer. Arguments that raising a case by name could put an individual woman in danger, when she is already effectively being imprisoned under risk of mob violence, are unacceptable, particularly when so-called “in private” advocacy appears to yield little result. In one such case, I was asked not to name a young girl who had been abducted because it might put her at risk. She had been abducted by Boko Haram. She was at risk. Her family wanted her case to be raised. It is very interesting that today we are celebrating the freedom of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, whose plight has not been out of the public domain for six years.
I will close with the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the architects of the 1948 universal declaration of human rights. She said:
“Where, after all, do universal rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere.”
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who shows such dedication to freedom of religion or belief in his work throughout Parliament. He has made a magnificent impact in his role as chair of the APPG, not just across the UK but internationally, and is greatly respected and esteemed by colleagues of different parties in that regard.
It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who is doing tremendous work. We are so privileged to have her as the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, which is at the heart of the work she does and something that she champions in Parliament, across the UK and internationally. My constituents are delighted that she will be visiting us in a couple of months to speak about this work in East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, because they feel it is so important.
When we celebrate International Women’s Day, we talk about the progress that we have made in the United Kingdom, which is fantastic. I have certainly had more opportunities than my mother did, and my mother had more opportunities than my grandmother did. We have made significant progress, and we all hope that our children will have better opportunities. I have two girls of my own, and I want them to succeed at whatever makes them happy in life, but we cannot forget those across the world who live under the fear of persecution, whose opportunities are dashed and whose ability to contribute is curtailed purely because they are believed to have the wrong religion or belief in the country they were born in.
It is an honour to be speaking here today. The subject matter is very grave and disquieting. The debate was inspired by The Forgotten Women, a recent event held by Aid to the Church in Need and Open Doors, two charities that support persecuted minorities. It was held on International Women’s Day and raised awareness of the many women from religious minorities who suffer grievous persecution because they are deemed to be of the wrong faith. I have worked with the Catholic charity Aid to the Church in Need for many years, and I have been very humbled to read its “Hear Her Cries” report, which is about the kidnapping, forced conversion and sexual victimisation of Christian women and girls. The report presents disturbing findings that have to be acknowledged and acted on in the higher echelons of Government, both nationally and internationally.
According to the Christian Association of Nigeria, 95% of women abducted by Boko Haram in Nigeria are Christian. In Pakistan, research by the all-party parliamentary group suggests that 1,000 Christian and Hindu girls are abducted each year to be forcibly converted and married. Other research says that 1,000 girls are abducted every year from the Sindh province alone, so we think this might be only the tip of the iceberg.
When I was on the International Development Committee, I had the privilege of meeting the Bring Back Our Girls campaign and the abducted Nigerian girls’ mothers, who were devastated that they had sent their children to be educated at school in good faith. They wanted the best for their children, as we do for ours. Those girls did not return. Some girls have been returned, but more have been taken.
What are the Government doing? It is one of the countries we donate the largest amount of aid to. My constituents want our aid money to go to Governments who want to tackle inequality and ensure that the most vulnerable are protected, and that, where that is not happening, the Government seriously question their commitment to working with those Governments. Raising those issues repeatedly and ensuring that action is taken is the very least we can do.
I would like to present a case study that demonstrates the brutality and injustice that women have to contend with. Rania Abd el-Messiah’s case was featured in Aid to the Church in Need’s “Hear Her Cries” report. She vanished from the village of Mina in Monufia Governorate on 23 April 2020. A few days later, a video was released on social media. Rania, a devout Christian, who was active in her local Coptic Orthodox Church, appeared wearing a Muslim al-amira headscarf, saying she had converted to Islam nine years previously. She said she had left her home of her own free will, taking her jewellery with her. She then recited the Shahada, the Islamic profession of faith.
Rania’s family were very suspicious, particularly as, contrary to what she said in the video, none of her jewellery was missing. Her brother Remon said:
“She was definitely kidnapped and forced to make that video.”
He added that she had been “threatened and coerced”. Her family also claimed that the police knew where she was being held. No progress was made, though, until the local diocese, led by Coptic Orthodox Bishop Binjiman of Menoufia, took up her case. After protests and a threat to leave a Government-backed interfaith initiative by the Menoufia Assembly of Priests, Rania was eventually released.
Rania declared that she had not converted to Islam, which was backed up by Al-Azhar, the Islamic authority that registers conversions to Islam, which argued that in Islam, there can be “no compulsion in religion”. Bishop Binjiman later confirmed that Rania had indeed been kidnapped, having been forced into a car by two women. He said the police had told the family not to talk publicly about the case, adding that he was aware of 15 similar cases of kidnapping. During the almost three months that she was held, she was both sexually and psychologically abused by her captors.
It is clear that Christian women like Rania and those of other religious minorities are being persecuted because of their faith, but how often do we hear their stories in the press? What are the UK Government doing to help women like them, and what are the United Nations doing? If MPs from all parties do not raise our voices, then women from religious minorities will continue to be the forgotten women in the fight against gender-related violence.
In a case study from Mozambique, Aana—not her real name, but the one in the report from Aid to the Church in Need—gave an insight into the fate faced by Christian girls in Mozambique when kidnapped by Islamic extremists, who are currently waging an insurgency in the country. After her release, she said that Christian girls were given a choice: convert to Islam and marry a fighter or become a slave. She said that
“those who were Christians and who didn’t want to convert…would be chosen by the soldiers to be slaves.”
This was confirmed by Father Fonseca of Pemba Diocese, Mozambique, who said that Christian girls face a real threat of abduction, rape and forced conversion and marriage, because the fighters
“are able to do anything. They can do what they want.”
He added:
“Christian women are being kidnapped, not all alone but with other women. It is a phenomenon taking place where the terrorists are, where the fighting is taking place.”
The hon. Member for Strangford described the case of Farah Shaheen, a Christian girl living in Pakistan who was kidnapped. I was going to raise her case, but he has covered it in great detail. It highlights the need to review the work that is being done in conjunction with the Government of Pakistan to ensure that the most vulnerable have assistance and receive our support and UK aid. As I said, people in my constituency and, I am quite sure, people across the United Kingdom want to make sure that the most vulnerable receive the aid, and that cases of persecution and injustice are dealt with by the Governments that we are assisting.
I note that in response to the APPG’s 2021 report on the situation in Pakistan, Lord Ahmad, the Foreign Office Minister, expressed the UK Government’s disappointment that draft legislation criminalising forced conversions had stalled in Pakistan’s Parliament in 2021. The UK Government say that they have regularly raised the issue with the Government of Pakistan, but what action are they taking and what further work can be done in this regard?
Before I finish, I will briefly ask the Minister, will he build on the recommendations made by my colleagues today? Perhaps—I hope that, as treasurer of the APPG on international freedom of religion or belief, I am not speaking out of turn—we could meet Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials to ask them about the programmes that are under way to address freedom of religion or belief. I say that because it is clearly an important cross-party issue and it is something that we believe we could lend not just support but some weight to. We are very keen to meet those officials involved in that work, to ensure that action is being taken and that there are regular reviews of progress.
When we think about the freedoms that we have today, we can see that we have come a long way. However, collectively—working together—we can help not just those women in the UK who are affected by the issues that we are discussing today, and who are very important in all our constituencies, but internationally, those women and girls who experience persecution due to a lack of acceptance of their religion or belief, doing all that we can to support their needs at this crucial time.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Rees.
May I start by wishing all those who are celebrating them a happy Purim, happy Holi festival—for tomorrow—and a happy St Patrick’s day for today?
It has been an absolute privilege to hear the powerful speeches here in Westminster Hall today; each case that was cited was as heartbreaking and shocking as the others. I thank the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for their leadership in this area. Along with other Members of this House, they have fought for the rights of persecuted religious minorities with dedication and heart. The all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief is an invaluable resource in pushing these rights forward. We have our own desperate problems with violence against women and girls in the UK, which we must attend to, but we cannot take our eye off the rest of the world. With Members such as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady in the House, I know that we will not do so.
I also thank and pay tribute to the work of organisations such as Open Doors, which was mentioned. However, nobody else’s courage can ever match up to that displayed by the very people who are being persecuted. Today we have heard stories of women and girls who have stood tall in the face of death and danger, while continuing to worship in such dangerous environments. It is clear to us that the perpetrators of such crimes against women are not motivated by genuine religious faith. These atrocities are driven not by a pursuit of God but by a pursuit of power, an often masculine determination to enforce patriarchy to the extreme.
Female genital mutilation continues to be used as a weapon against young women and girls. It has absolutely no place in any culture in 2022, regardless of religious belief or practice. It is misogynistic torture, which causes physical injuries and lifelong psychological damage. Along with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, I should be grateful to hear from the Minister what action Britain is taking to end this grotesque practice worldwide.
As we heard, families across Nigeria remain heartbroken for the daughters and sisters who were stolen from them. Boko Haram is pursuing war against women’s rights to freedom of religion, education, employment and marriage. What hope are we offering to those families and to the girls themselves?
Jim Shannon
I asked a business question of the Leader of the House yesterday in order to highlight the killings of 50 men, women and children in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I was hoping that the Minister who is here today would perhaps be able, in responding to that, to give us some indication of any help that we might be able to give the authorities in the DRC, to try to find the perpetrators of those killings and to offer the authorities there some support.
Sarah Owen
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I hope the Minister has taken notes of all the questions that have been asked today.
The past year has reminded us what horrors the Taliban could inflict upon women and girls in Afghanistan, starting with banning girls from schools, with such devastating impact. When the overseas aid budget was slashed, warnings were raised that it would be to the detriment of girls’ education worldwide. Can the Minister assure us that providing safety and education to girls, including those suffering from religious oppression, is still an objective of this Government? Christians are also at intensified risk in Afghanistan under the new regime, and Christian women face being forced into marriages and conversion. Will the Minister please tell us whether there are still asylum routes open to Christians and to women and girls fleeing persecution in Afghanistan?
In China, the Chinese Communist party regime flattens anyone and anything that challenges the prescribed ideology. Christians are forced underground and risk detainment just for owning a Bible, and in Xinjiang, as we have heard, Uyghur Muslims are victims of genocide due to their religion and ethnicity. While thousands of Uyghurs are known to be slaving away in cotton fields, particular brutalities are saved for women: they have been sexually assaulted, tortured, had their children stolen from them, and been forcibly sterilised. The Chinese Communist party is motivated by the same principles as the Taliban, Boko Haram, Islamic State and others—the ruthless pursuit of domination. Faith is not a factor in this religious persecution, only power. Although the Government conceded last year that what is under way in Xinjiang is genocide, there has been very little change in our national response. Every day the Uyghur Muslims face ethnic cleansing, and other religious minorities, including Christians, live in fear of being found out by their oppressive Government. Will the Minister advise us on what steps are being taken to address the dangers faced by those minorities in China?
Human Rights Watch has highlighted Government policy in India as reflecting bias against Muslims. Since October 2018, Indian authorities have deported over a dozen Rohingya Muslims to Myanmar, including women and children, despite the risk to their lives and their security. In May 2019, the Government revoked the constitutional autonomy of India’s only Muslim-majority state, Jammu and Kashmir. They deployed additional troops, detained thousands of people and cut off phone and internet connections, with women and girls reporting rapes, attacks, and living in a constant state of fear.
The world risks looking more divided than ever at a time when there is no Department for International Development. Although we were promised that the cuts to international aid were temporary, that budget has not been restored. What hope does that give women and girls around the world who need our help? What future is there for our own humanitarian interventions, and what damage has this done to Britain’s standing on the world stage, especially when this is all compounded by a Prime Minister who has chosen to visit Saudi Arabia following the execution of 81 people?
As I mentioned, faith is by and large a force for good in the world, and a very powerful one—just look at the way that people of faith are stepping forward to lead the welcome for Ukrainian refugees, just as they did for Syrians, Afghans and Hongkongers. Throughout the pandemic, churches, mosques, temples, gurdwaras and synagogues served their communities with compassion and hospitality. We are lucky: we live in a country where community cohesion may not be perfect, but everyone has the right to express their beliefs in freedom and safety. That should not be a privilege; it should be a basic human right. Female believers here are largely protected from forced marriage, FGM and other abuses and have access and rights to healthcare, including reproductive healthcare.
However, there have been shocking increases in Islamophobia and antisemitism, and again, women and children in schools have borne the brunt of them. Muslim women have increasingly been subjected to horrific Islamophobic abuse in the streets and online, and even death threats. There have also been approximately 2 million antisemitic tweets in the UK; that is on one platform alone, so it would be good to hear what the Minister has to say about tackling the rising religious persecution that we are seeing in our own country.
This summer, we are due to host a global summit on freedom of religion or belief in London. It is very welcome that the Foreign Secretary has marked the issue as a priority in her brief. However, as hosts of the conference, we must be able to lead with integrity. That means using the full range of the financial and political resources that we have to intervene in religious persecution of all kinds.
I have posed many questions to the Minister today, as have other speakers. I will give him the opportunity to respond. I know there will be consensus that we have a moral duty to intervene in these areas of gross violence, suppression and misogyny. That is clear in every debate that we have on religious persecution. My hope is that we no longer need to keep having these debates to encourage our Government to make the interventions needed.
The Minister for Europe and North America (James Cleverly)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing this debate. He speaks on the topic with great passion, compassion and knowledge, particularly as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) fulfils a dual role. I have no doubt that if she were not acting as party spokesperson in this debate, she would speak with similar passion and conviction. I thank her for the custodianship of the FCDO office in Scotland.
I think that this is the first time I have responded to a debate with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), in attendance, so I welcome her to her post. It would be remiss of me not to commend also the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I will mention her later in my remarks. I congratulate her on her role as the Prime Minister’s envoy in this important area.
Freedom of religion or belief is a universal human right but, as has been highlighted by all speakers today, it is denied to millions of people around the world. Attacks on this freedom go hand in hand with other human rights violations and abuses. Religious persecution is of course not limited to women, but the simple truth is that, as in so many other areas, the plight of women is often worse. As we have heard, it is not just religious persecution but the use of sexual violence that makes the situation even more horrific, painful and pernicious. A number of speakers have highlighted specific examples of where women have been recipients of the most appalling sexual violence and abuse. As the hon. Member for Luton North says, it is done in the name of religion, but it has nothing to do with religion. We have to recognise that.
The recent report from Aid to the Church in Need shone a light on how women and girls are particularly vulnerable to being targeted with sexual violence, using religious belief as an excuse. Some have been forced to convert, often under pain of death. In the face of such grave attacks on human rights, it is up to the world’s democracies, including the United Kingdom, to champion freedom for all. That is why we continue to work in close co-ordination with our international partners on a range of measures, from our work through the UN to call out violations of human rights and support those affected, to aid projects working at the grassroots with communities and religious leaders to protect the rights of minorities. My noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon is leading those efforts as the Minister for Human Rights and the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict.
In November 2020, Lord Ahmad launched the declaration of humanity, which united leaders from many faiths and beliefs in a common front, and called for the prevention of sexual violence in conflict and denounced the stigma faced by survivors—a point that the hon. Member for Strangford made. In some cases, the stigma prevents women and girls seeking refuge in the families they grew up in. The declaration attracted strong support, and more than 50 leaders from countries including Iraq, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka have thus far signed it. I know that Lord Ahmad works closely with the Prime Minister’s special envoy, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, on that issue—I am going to embarrass her now, so I hope she is prepared for this.
My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton is a powerful advocate, and I admire her hugely for that. She is strongly engaged with advocacy groups, including Open Doors and Aid to the Church in Need, which recently hosted an International Women’s Day event. As she said at that event, we must continue to call out countries that fail to take action, while continuing to work at the grassroots level to effect change. We know that communities are stronger when everyone is included, so I will highlight some projects that are already making a difference around the world.
The hon. Member for Strangford and others mentioned Pakistan, where we are funding programmes to protect women and girls, including in religious or belief minority communities, from forced marriage and gender-based violence. We are working with community leaders at village level to try to change social behaviours. On changing the position of the Government, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow mentioned the stalling of legislation. We will continue to encourage Pakistan to pursue the right legislation, but legislation and governmental action alone are not enough, which is why we seek to influence at grassroots level as well as through the official development assistance funding that we provide for Pakistan. We have supported the Government of Pakistan to set up eight courts to provide child-sensitive justice to victims of child abuse, child trafficking and child marriage.
The plight of Afghanistan was raised. We backed the UN Human Rights Council resolution to establish the mandate for a special rapporteur to monitor and report on the human rights situation. That includes the challenges faced by women and girls from religious, or indeed non-religious, communities. We are directly supporting the United Nations population fund activities to prevent gender-based violence, and we launched, with the International Rescue Committee, programming specifically designed for the protection of women and girls. The hon. Member for Luton North asked about the resettlement scheme. We are providing 20,000 women and girls and others at risk with a safe route to resettlement in the UK, and we are on track to resettle an estimated 5,000 this year.
The situation in Syria remains grave, but we are working to support women and girls affected by human rights violations and abuses, including the right of freedom of religion or belief, through our national action plan on women, peace and security. We have allocated £22 million to the United Nations Population Fund in Syria to support this work.
The awful situation in Iraq was raised by several hon. Members, particularly the persecution perpetrated by Daesh. We have seen horrific crimes perpetrated by that group. Many women are still living in difficult conditions because they have children born of sexual violence and they face significant barriers to rejoining their communities due to that stigma. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton took a leading role in pushing for the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance statement calling for minority communities displaced by Daesh to be allowed to return home in a safe, voluntary and sustainable way.
The situation in China was raised with great passion by the hon. Member for Luton North. We must keep the situation in Xinjiang in the public eye. The evidence of the scale and severity of the human rights violations being perpetrated against the Uyghur Muslims is far-reaching and paints a truly harrowing picture. As the hon. Member said, there have been reports of forced sterilisation and testimonies of rape, torture and the forced separation of families. Such terrible violations of human rights must be called out and highlighted on the international stage. That is why the Foreign Secretary challenged those violations in an address to the United Nations Human Rights Council earlier this month.
The hon. Member for Strangford and others asked about the situation in north-east Nigeria. There are ongoing attacks by terrorist groups, including Boko Haram and Islamic State in West Africa, which cause immense suffering to Muslim and Christian communities, as the terrorist groups seek to undermine community cohesion and split communities apart. It is something that the UK Government take a close interest in, and we continue to work with the Nigerian Government on the matter.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow spoke about those girls who were taken by Boko Haram, many of whom have still not been returned and their whereabouts is still unknown. We condemn unreservedly the abduction of those girls. We continue to call for and work towards their release, and we will continue to work with the Nigerian Government on those cases, as well as on other well-known cases.
Looking ahead, the United Kingdom will host a freedom of religion or belief conference in July, as has been mentioned. It will be a critical moment for us to drive collective action and promote respect between different religious, and indeed non-religious, communities around the world. Planning is under way, and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton will play a key role in helping deliver that. We know that she pushes us hard in the Department. She works with great passion and alacrity, and I am sure that my officials and ministerial colleagues will not thank me for saying this, but she plays an incredibly important role in ensuring that we work with the same speed and passion as she does, and she holds our feet to the fire. My hon. Friend is perhaps not exactly what the Prime Minister envisaged for the envoy role. Nevertheless, she plays an important part, as does the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Luton North, and members of all-party parliamentary groups. This has to remain a collective endeavour.
Dr Cameron
Could the Minister update us on whether, as members of the all-party parliamentary group, we could visit the Department to hear directly about the work being done?
James Cleverly
I shot a quick look across to my officials, who will have heard that request. To be completely honest, at the moment the situation in Ukraine means that we are still in response mode, so the normal generosity of spirit demonstrated by my Department is being stretched somewhat. However, we recognise that this is an important issue, and we will seek to find a time to liaise as soon as possible.
Fiona Bruce
I would be delighted to facilitate such a meeting in the Department.
James Cleverly
Told you.
This is a shocking and painful issue, especially when we hear specific cases such as those brought up in the Chamber today—they are harrowing beyond belief. People who already have the least power and the most suppressed voices in their communities and societies once again find themselves the target of misogynistic persecution, attack and sexual violence in the name of religion, although it is not honestly driven by that religion.
We will continue to champion freedom and democracy around the world. Freedom of religion or belief and gender rights will remain at the forefront of our international efforts as a Government.
Christina Rees (in the Chair)
Jim Shannon now has a couple of minutes to sum up.
Jim Shannon
Thank you very much Ms Rees. First, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I thought it certainly showed the power of the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) that, when she said she would be happy to facilitate that meeting, the Minister instantaneously agreed. I thank the Minister for being so accommodating. The hon. Lady referred to forced marriages and gender-based violence and the fact that when someone is poor, they are even more vulnerable and chastised more for their religious belief. She also referred to women being financially dependent on their husbands and said that the female body has become a battlefield.
As always, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) made a good speech. She gave us many examples, referring to the kidnappings in Egypt and Mozambique. The most vulnerable have our support and assistance, but very often they do not have it when they need it. The hon. Lady is absolutely right.
I am very pleased to see the hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) in her place, with her energy and commitment. What she said was so important. She referred to girls’ education and safety, and she referred to cases in Nigeria, Afghanistan and China of Christians and Uyghurs. She said that ethnic groups’ right to worship must be protected.
I thank the Minister for his positive response to the issues that we wish to see in place. He shared plenty of good thoughts that we wish to take on board. He referred to many countries as well, with the special rapporteur in Afghanistan and the case in Pakistan, where protection for women and girls needs to change. He referred to women and girls in Syria and money that was set aside to help there, and to ISIS and Daesh in Iraq. He also referred to China.
I always like to conclude with a Scripture text—I think it is important to do so, because that is what drives us in this Chamber. I will quote 1 Peter, chapter 2, verse 16:
“Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God.”
I think that we have done that today. I am aware that we are not here for our own purposes—we are here for the purposes of the man above. For me, that is what it is all about.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered gender specific religious persecution.
Written Statements
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Housing Update
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)
Supported housing plays a vital role in delivering better life outcomes and improved wellbeing and health for many vulnerable people.
The Government are committed to ensuring that supported housing is good quality and meets the needs of its residents. In recognition of its importance, the Government are investing £11.5 billion in much needed supply through the affordable homes programme, which includes delivery of new supported housing for older, disabled and other vulnerable people.
However, we are aware of a minority of landlords who charge high rents for poor quality accommodation and little or no support.
I wish to inform the House of the Government’s intention to bring forward measures to put an end to unscrupulous landlords exploiting some of the most vulnerable in our society.
We have no intention of penalising those providers who operate responsibly. We are clear that measures must be as targeted and proportionate as possible to protect supply of housing across the board.
Our intention is to take forward a package of measures that will include:
Minimum standards for the support provided to residents to ensure residents receive the good quality support they expect and deserve in order to live as independently as possible and achieve their personal goals;
New powers for local authorities in England to better manage their local supported housing market and ensure that rogue landlords cannot exploit the system to the detriment of vulnerable residents and at the expense of taxpayers; and
Changes to housing benefit regulations to seek to define care, support and supervision to improve quality and value for money across all specified supported housing provision.
We will introduce any measures requiring legislation when parliamentary time allows.
We will work closely with local government, sector representatives, providers and people with experience of supported housing as we develop these measures to ensure they are fit for purpose, deliverable and minimise unintended consequences for the providers of much needed, good quality supported housing.
Alongside these proposed measures, today I am announcing that we will provide £20 million for a supported housing improvement programme. Funding for this three-year programme will be open to bids from all local authorities and build on the clear successes of the supported housing pilots. The pilot authorities were able to drive up the quality of accommodation and support to residents. They also improved value for money through enhanced scrutiny of housing benefit claims to verify that costs were legitimate and reasonable.
The supported housing improvement programme will be vital to drive up quality in the sector in some of the worst affected areas immediately, while the Government develop and implement longer-term regulatory changes. The bidding prospectus for the programme will be published in due course.
This package of proposed measures will tackle poor quality and poor value for money in supported housing and improve outcomes for individuals, while preserving good quality provision run by responsible providers.
[HCWS696]
UK Suspension of Exchange of Tax Information with Russia and Belarus
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Frazer)
Today I am announcing that the UK is freezing tax co-operation with Russia and Belarus by suspending all exchange of tax information with them, as part of the UK’s wider response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. The UK exchanges tax information with Russia under the convention on mutual administrative assistance in tax matters, and Russia and Belarus under bilateral double tax agreements. Tax information is exchanged as part of collaboration to address tax compliance risks.
Suspending exchange of tax information means that Russia will not receive information under any of the UK’s exchange of information agreements: exchange of information on request (EoIR), common reporting standard (CRS) or country-by-country reporting (CBCR). Belarus is not signed up to the CRS or CBCR, so only EoIR information is being suspended.
It is not appropriate that the UK undertake co-operation that would lead to the economic benefit of Russia, or Belarus, which has aided and abetted Russia. The suspension of tax information exchange will ensure the UK is not supplying Russia and Belarus with information that could lead to an increased tax benefit or yield for them. This action is not expected to materially impact the UK’s ability to address tax non-compliance as we continue to exchange tax information with our extensive treaty network.
[HCWS697]
Online Safety
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ms Nadine Dorries)
Today the Government are introducing the Online Safety Bill. For most people, the internet has transformed relationships and working environments, but illegal and harmful content appearing online is a growing problem. This groundbreaking Bill will keep users safe while protecting freedom of expression and democratic debate online. Under the new laws, in-scope services will need to:
Tackle criminal activity—There will be no safe space for criminal content online. Platforms will have to remove terrorist material or child sexual abuse and exploitation quickly, and will not be allowed to promote it in their algorithms.
Protect children—The strongest protections in our new laws are for children and young people. They will be protected from harmful or inappropriate content such as grooming, bullying, pornography and the promotion of self-harm and eating disorders.
Enforce their terms and conditions—The largest online platforms with the widest reach, including the most popular social media platforms (category 1 services) will need to set out clearly what harmful content accessed by adults is allowed on their sites, and enforce their terms of service consistently, while protecting freedom of expression and democratic debate.
The strongest provisions in our legislation are for children. All companies in scope of this legislation will need to consider the risks that their sites could pose to the youngest members of society. This Bill will require companies to take steps to protect children from inappropriate content and harmful activity online, including from content such as pro-suicide material. The Bill will also require providers who publish or host pornographic content on their services to prevent children from accessing that content, including using age-verification technology where appropriate.
Furthermore, this Bill will ensure companies take robust action against illegal content. We have included a new list of priority offences on the face of the Bill, reflecting the most serious and prevalent illegal content and activity, against which companies must take proactive measures. These will include, amongst others, revenge pornography, fraud, the sale of illegal drugs or weapons, the promotion or facilitation of suicide, people smuggling and the illegal sex trade. The Bill will also introduce a requirement on in-scope companies to report child sexual exploitation and abuse imagery detected on their platforms to the National Crime Agency. This will ensure companies provide law enforcement with the high-quality information they need to safeguard victims and investigate offenders. The updated Bill will also tackle scam adverts, by requiring the largest platforms to put in place proportionate systems and processes to prevent fraudulent adverts from being published or hosted on their service.
This legislation will not prevent adults from accessing or posting legal content. Rather, the major platforms will need to be clear what content is acceptable on their services and enforce their terms and conditions consistently and effectively. We have refined the approach to defining content that is harmful to adults, so that all types of harmful content that category 1 services (the largest online platforms with the widest reach, including the most popular social media platforms) are required to address will be set out in regulations subject to approval by both Houses. This will provide clarity about the harms that services must address and will reduce the risk of category 1 services taking an overly broad approach to what is considered harmful. In addition, these companies will not be able to remove controversial viewpoints arbitrarily, and users will be able to seek redress if they feel content has been removed unfairly. Both Ofcom and in-scope companies will have duties relating to freedom of expression, for which they can be held to account. Category 1 services will also have duties for democratic and journalistic content. They will need to set in their terms and conditions how they will protect this content on their platforms explicitly. This will ensure that people in the UK can express themselves freely online and participate in pluralistic and robust debate.
The Bill provides Ofcom with robust enforcement powers to take action when platforms do not comply. Options available to Ofcom include imposing substantial fines, requiring improvements and pursuing business disruption measures (including blocking). The Bill also includes criminal offences for senior managers who fail to ensure their company co-operates with Ofcom, and gives them the information they need to regulate effectively. The Government have also announced additional information-related offences, including ensuring employees do not give false information during interviews, which will further help ensure that companies give Ofcom full and accurate information. We will bring these criminal sanctions into force as soon as possible after Royal Assent (generally two months, in line with standard practice), to further promote strong compliance.
The threat posed by harmful and illegal content and activity is a global one and the Government remain committed to building international consensus around shared approaches to improve internet safety. Under the UK’s presidency of the G7, the world’s leading democracies committed to a set of internet safety principles. This is significant as it is the first time that an approach to internet safety has been agreed in the G7. We will continue to collaborate with our international partners to develop common approaches to this shared challenge that uphold our democratic values and promote a free, open and secure internet.
We are grateful for the extensive engagement and scrutiny of the Bill from the Joint Committee, DCMS Select Sub-committee and the Petitions Committee, which has helped us to create a framework that delivers for users and maintains the UK’s reputation as a tech leader. The Bill is sustainable, workable, and proportionate, and will create a significant step-change in the experience people have online.
We are also publishing the response to the report of the Joint Committee on the draft Online Safety Bill alongside publication of the Bill, and we thank the Committee once again for its work and its recommendations.
[HCWS691]
Health Update
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.
I have today laid a departmental minute proposing to provide an indemnity that is required urgently in respect of a Department of Health and Social Care established non-statutory, independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the offences committed by David Fuller (DF) at the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, and their national implications.
The inquiry will be split into two phases:
an initial report, on matters relating to Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust, reporting by the middle of 2022, and
a final report, looking at the broader national picture and the wider lessons for the NHS and for other settings, reporting by the middle of 2023.
It will review DF’s unlawful actions, how he was able to carry these out, why his actions went apparently unnoticed, and will make recommendations with the aim of preventing anything similar from happening again. We expect the inquiry to publish a progress update as soon as possible after Easter recess.
In November 2021, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced the inquiry (Official Report, 8 November 2021, volume 703, column 23) to be chaired by Sir Jonathan Michael. The Department of Health and Social Care will indemnify the inquiry insofar as the chair or any other member of the inquiry who has acted honestly and in good faith will not have to meet out of his or her personal resources any personal civil liability, including costs, which is incurred in the execution or the purported execution of his or her inquiry functions, save where the inquiry member has acted recklessly. This indemnity will cover the entire duration of the inquiry’s work, from November 2021 until when the inquiry submits its final report, expected in 2023, and for an unlimited period after that date. However, we believe there is a low risk of the indemnity being called upon beyond five years of the inquiry having reported. There will be no cap placed upon the indemnity, so the maximum exposure is strictly unlimited. However, any losses are not expected to exceed a value of £3 million based upon the best estimate currently available at this stage of the inquiry’s work. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle which mirrors the standard indemnity for board members described in “Managing Public Money”. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection. The indemnity is expected to come into force on 26 April 2022, subject to the approval of Parliament on this basis.
Copies of the departmental minute have been laid in both Houses.
[HCWS692]
NHS Charging Exemption: Ukrainian Residents
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
I want to update the House about further measures this Government are taking to step up their response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which continues to see hundreds of thousands of people who ordinarily live in Ukraine forced to flee their homes and seek safety and support in other countries.
Today I want to announce new legislative measures in England to exempt Ukrainian residents from NHS charging so that they can access the NHS on broadly the same basis as someone who is ordinarily resident in the UK. We will apply these exemptions retrospectively from 24 February 2022 to further protect people.
Current overseas visitor NHS charging legislation requires us to recover NHS secondary care treatment costs from anyone who does not ordinarily live in the UK, unless an exemption applies to them. Primary care and A&E services and certain types of treatment—including for most infectious diseases—remain free to all, regardless of a person’s home
We have therefore now amended the charging regulations to allow everyone who is ordinarily resident in Ukraine, and their immediate family members, who are lawfully in the UK to access NHS care in England for free, including those who transfer here under official medevac routes.
This will cover all potential treatment needs, except for assisted conception services, to align with the existing exemption for those whose immigration health surcharge fees have been waived. Those who will benefit from this additional exemption include:
Anyone who uses an alternative temporary (less than six months) visa route outside of the family or sponsorship routes
Anyone who chooses to extend their visit or seasonal worker visa temporarily, without going through the IHS system
Anyone who is in the process of switching visas (which could take some time to process).
We have applied a six-month review clause to this policy and it is our hope that this will help not only to provide security and peace of mind for the NHS and those in need, but to remain open to further developments.
Ukrainian residents who are in the UK unlawfully are not covered by these measures but will remain within the scope of existing provisions within the charging regulations. This means that not only treatment needed immediately, but any treatment that cannot safely wait until the overseas visitor can be reasonably expected to leave the UK, must never be withheld or delayed, even when that overseas visitor has indicated that they cannot pay. Some NHS services will remain exempt from charge for all overseas visitors, such as primary care, A&E services and treatment of infectious diseases.
This Government continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with our Ukrainian friends and we are proud to continue to offer support for Ukrainian residents in our country.
[HCWS695]
Liberty Protection Safeguards and Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care and Mental Health (Gillian Keegan)
This is a joint statement with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for of Justice.
Today, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Ministry of Justice have launched a joint public consultation on an updated statutory code of practice for the Mental Capacity Act and on proposals for the implementation of liberty protection safeguards. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides an empowering legal framework for people who cannot make certain, specific decisions about their own lives. This includes some people with dementia, learning disabilities and autism.
The liberty protection safeguards were introduced in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Act 2019. They will protect people aged 16 and above who are, or who need to be, deprived of their liberty to enable their care or treatment and who lack the mental capacity to consent to these arrangements. When a person needs to be deprived of their liberty, this must be done with the greatest of care and respect for that person and their rights. It is the Government’s intention that the liberty protection safeguards will replace the deprivation of liberty safeguards and will provide specific protections when people are deprived of liberty in any setting, in England and Wales.
In 2019, MoJ also announced a review of the Mental Capacity Act code to reflect changes in law and practice since its publication in 2007. We undertook a call for evidence to help us decide which aspects of the code needed updating or improving. Acting on feedback from stakeholders, we have decided to merge the Mental Capacity Act code with guidance on the liberty protection safeguards. Liberty protection safeguards implementation and practice will therefore be fully informed by the important principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
The elements of the new code that do not directly concern the liberty protection safeguards do not contain new policy or legislation, but rather reflect recent changes in related legislation, organisational structures, good practice and terminology. Following the call for evidence, officials at the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice have worked in partnership with experts to co-produce the new code. This has involved substantively revising and adding new illustrative scenarios to make the code more accessible. It is important that the new code is informed by, and useful for, people who work with the Act and those who are affected by it.
Alongside the new code, we are also publishing additional draft documents, which set out, in detail, how we think the liberty protection safeguards should be implemented and operate. This includes six sets of regulations, information about workforce training, a proposed data specification for national reporting, and an updated impact assessment. We welcome views from everyone with an interest in the liberty protection safeguards on the plans set out in these documents.
Once we have carefully considered feedback to the consultation, we will publish the Government response and the final drafts of the code and liberty protection safeguards regulations. The code and regulations will then be laid in Parliament. People who work with the Act and those who are affected by it will need sufficient time following the publication of those final documents, to prepare for the implementation of liberty protection safeguards.
We had hoped to be able to fully implement the liberty protection safeguards by April 2022. Given the impact of the pandemic on the sectors and professionals who will be called upon to implement these important reforms, we have had to reconsider this aim.
We have committed to an inclusive public consultation lasting 16 weeks from 17 March to 7 July. We expect that responses will be very detailed and will take time to work through to get the liberty protection safeguards right. We are going to set a new fixed date for liberty protection safeguards implementation post consultation to ensure that there is adequate time for implementation.
We look forward to the consultation ahead and will update Parliament when we publish our consultation response.
[HCWS694]
Advance Care Planning: Universal Principles
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
The Government are announcing today the publication of the “Universal Principles for Advance Care Planning”, a document jointly published by a coalition of partners in response to the Care Quality Commission’s (CQC) report into the use of do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions taken during the covid-19 pandemic.
We would like to firstly thank all of the partner organisations involved in developing the document, which sets out six high-level principles for advance care planning in England. This work has been produced for the benefit of patients and those important to them, as well as practitioners and organisations involved in supporting advance care planning conversations and making sure their outcomes are honoured. By working together on developing and publishing the principles, partner organisations will ensure a consistent national approach to advance care planning.
We would also like to thank the CQC for its continued work in this area, as well as patients, their families, representatives and staff who continue to share their experiences on such an important and complex issue.
Planning for future care is an empowering act that allows people to feel confident their wishes will be considered if they are ever unable to fully participate in decision making. By having good quality conversations about future treatment in advance, individuals will have a greater sense of control over their ability to live and die well.
The joint publication of the universal principles demonstrates the commitment that all of these organisations have to ensuring good practice is embedded across the health and care system. It demonstrates the importance of all people, their families or representatives, clinicians and professionals sharing an understanding of the role good advance care planning conversations, including DNACPR decisions, play in high-quality personalised care.
This piece of work has been overseen by the DNACPR Ministerial Oversight Group, which was established to look in depth at the issues raised in the CQC’s report and to oversee the delivery and required changes of the recommendations. The universal principles published today represent a culmination of all the hard work this group and its working representatives have put into addressing the issues highlighted in the report.
The Government and NHS England have remained clear that the inappropriate application of DNACPRs is unacceptable in any circumstance. It is important that those organisations that are responsible for taking the universal principles forward at an operational level do so to implement clear and consistent best practice across all settings, ensuring everyone receives the high-quality personal care they deserve.
The “Universal Principles for Advance Care Planning” can be found here:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/universal-principles-for-advance-care-planning/
[HCWS693]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, Members are encouraged to leave some distance between themselves and others. If there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
International Women’s Day and Protecting the Equality of Women in the UK and Internationally
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stedman-Scott
That the Grand Committee takes note of International Women’s Day and the United Kingdom’s role in furthering and protecting the equality of women in the UK and internationally.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to open this International Women’s Day debate, but I begin by saying that my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the events in Ukraine at this very difficult time. We continue to stand united with our international partners in supporting the Government in Ukraine and condemning this reprehensible assault on its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
I will looking to more positive matters. After years of unfair detention by the Government of Iran, British nationals Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori returned from Iran yesterday. Morad Tahbaz has also been released from prison on furlough. It is the result of tenacious and creative British diplomacy. This outcome is the result of intensive efforts over the past six months. We thank our Omani friends for their help in bringing our nationals home. This is a moment of great relief. We have the deepest admiration for the resolve, courage and determination that all three individuals have shown.
I returned this morning from New York, where I took part in the 66th session of the Commission on the Status of Women. The priority theme of this year’s event is “Achieving gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls in the context of climate change, environmental and disaster risk reduction policies and programmes”. I therefore feel it fitting that we have the chance today to reflect on our role in the international community in prioritising women and girls, as well as marginalised and vulnerable groups, in responding to humanitarian crises. It is easy to feel powerless when faced by threats such as the current situation in Ukraine, but the Commission on the Status of Women provides the perfect opportunity to work with international partners to build coalitions to fight those threats. In fact, while I was in New York I was privileged to attend, in part, the concert that the Met put on for the Ukrainian people; that was really emotional. What was even more emotional was that I was able to meet, for a few minutes, the Ukrainian ambassador out there and pass on my message of support. I am pleased that we are negotiating progressive agreed conclusions that will help to protect and promote women’s and girls’ rights around the world.
I had a busy programme while I was in New York. I met Ministers from a number of other countries to exchange ideas and compare notes. It was fascinating to hear the experiences of Ministers representing countries such as Ireland, Denmark and Sweden. I also led side events to showcase the work that we are leading on gender equality here in the UK. I will tell you more about that work later in my speech. It was my first experience of the Commission on the Status of Women, and I was incredibly proud to have the opportunity to demonstrate the UK’s continued leadership on gender and climate change and to highlight the importance of women’s empowerment as we recover from the wide-reaching impacts of the pandemic, as well as tackling the challenges to come.
All over the world, International Women’s Day is marked in various ways. There are events in local communities and debates across countries, much like the one taking place today in your Lordships’ House. As I have said, it is a privilege to be just one part of these celebrations. This year’s International Women’s Day global theme is “Break the Bias”, encouraging everyone to call out bias, smash stereotypes, break inequality and reject discrimination. That is a theme I am happy to champion. With that in mind, and as we move through one of the biggest challenges this country has faced in decades, we need to keep on working to ensure women and girls have equal access to opportunities so that they can thrive. We know that the pandemic has exacerbated existing challenges that women face. Although challenges mean that women need more support to access opportunities in work and life. I am pleased to have this time today to talk about many of the different areas in which the Government are leading the way in supporting women and girls in the UK and around the world.
I want to talk first about women’s economic empowerment, because it is critical to our post-pandemic recovery. Covid-19 has prompted even greater potential for wage inequalities for women—although, of course, it is not just women who face these difficulties. Your Lordships will have seen the work that I announced on International Women’s Day: a project working with employers to improve pay transparency and a programme to encourage more women to return to STEM careers after taking time out for caring.
Evidence shows that when salary information is not transparent, this has an impact on how people negotiate pay and results in increased inequality in earnings. We need to make it easier for employees to understand if they are being paid fairly and how decisions about their pay are made. That is why we want organisations to be more transparent about what they pay and how it is determined. We want to empower women to negotiate their pay on a level playing field by giving them the information they need to understand the value of their skills and prevent them being held back by their previous earnings.
We are calling on employers to provide salary information on job adverts and to stop asking about pay history during recruitment. We will build an evidence base of the positive impact of this greater transparency and support employers by working with them to develop and pilot a methodology that will enable them to publish salary ranges for all roles in their organisations.
I am also proud to tell the Committee about our progress overseas since last year’s International Women’s Day. FCDO’s flagship women’s economic empowerment programme, Work and Opportunities for Women, has now wrapped up activities that allowed the programme to reach more than 100,000 women across south Asia and Africa, providing them with improved access to higher-productivity and higher-return jobs, more diversified roles and improved working conditions in global value chains.
Empowering women of course goes further, and I am pleased that in December 2021 we launched our Ending Preventable Deaths of Mothers, Babies and Children by 2030 approach paper, setting out our ambitious commitments and emphasising that good health is critical to the empowerment of women and girls.
We know that unpaid care work, especially childcare, is disproportionately done by women. Taking time out of work or limiting work hours can have a big impact on pay and progression. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, not working full-time tends to shut down wage progression, especially for more highly educated women. That is why funding childcare services across the country is key.
Since 2010, the Government have doubled free childcare, adding 15 hours per week, worth just over £6,000 per child per year for eligible working parents. In January 2021, nearly 330,000 children were registered to receive 30 hours’ free childcare. We have also introduced tax-free childcare. For every £8 that parents pay into their childcare account, the Government add £2, up to a maximum of £2,000 of childcare support a year for each child up to aged 11 and up to £4,000 per disabled child until they are 17. Furthermore, those working universal credit households can also claim up to 85% of their childcare costs, up from 70% under the legacy system.
I am pleased that the Government pledged a new £1 billion fund to create more high-quality, affordable childcare, and we are delivering on this pledge with a £200 million-a-year holiday activities and food programme to provide enriching activities and a healthy meal for disadvantaged children in the Easter, summer and Christmas holidays.
Last year was also a year of UK leadership on girls’ education. With the G7, we agreed new targets to get 40 million more girls in school and 20 million more girls reading by age 10 by 2026. In July, we co-hosted the Global Education Summit with Kenya, raising an unprecedented $4 billion—£2.9 billion—for the Global Partnership for Education. At the summit, the UK pledged £430 million—our largest ever pledge. At the UK’s successful hosting of COP 26 Gender Day last year, we showed that girls’ education is essential for responding to the climate crisis.
In 2022, education remains a top priority for our Prime Minister. Earlier this month, he launched a new Girls’ Education Skills Partnership programme on private sector investment in girl’s education. This is a new programme to support adolescent girls overseas with 21st-century skills to give them the knowledge and qualifications they need for employment and enterprise.
The UK put gender equality at the heart of its G7 presidency last year. We convened a gender equality advisory council to bring fresh ideas and new voices to the G7 discussions, galvanising ambitions on gender equality to ensure that our presidency really delivered for women and girls. Education, and especially STEM, is one of the key areas that the council has been looking at, because we recognise the importance of improving gender representation in these industries. We have made great progress in increasing the number of girls studying STEM subjects, but at present women make up only 24% of the STEM workforce in the UK. We need to do more to get women into STEM careers to meet the demands of today’s workforce.
We are encouraging more girls to take STEM subjects at school, college and university. The Government have rolled out several programmes and committed substantial funding to support STEM uptake across all key stages, but there is still more to do, and we must increase the number of women moving from STEM studies to STEM careers. As part of this, we want to support women who are looking to return to the STEM workforce. We will launch a new STEM returners programme to encourage those who have taken breaks to care for others back into STEM, giving them the opportunity to refresh and grow their skills in sectors where their talents are most needed. This pilot will build on previous government returner initiatives and will seek to address the barriers that returners face when re-entering the workplace.
We are committed to improving women’s health outcomes and reducing disparities. This Government are making women’s voices heard and placing women’s voices at the centre of this work. In December, we published Our Vision for the Women’s Health Strategy for England, which is informed by analysis of the call for evidence. This publication sets out an ambitious and positive new agenda to improve the health and well-being of women across England and reduce disparities. We will publish the strategy this year. Alongside the vision, we published the results of the call for evidence survey. We are grateful to the nearly 100,000 individuals across England who responded to the survey. We will soon publish the analysis of the over 400 written submissions.
We all share concerns about online safety. Tackling online harms, especially when it comes to abuse, is paramount. That is why we announced the online safety Bill, with the aim of making the UK the safest place in the world to be online while defending free expression. Under the new laws, platforms will need to take swift and effective action against illegal online abuse. They will need to proactively remove illegal content, such as revenge and extreme pornography. They can impose sanctions against offending users, or change their processes and policies to better protect their users.
The biggest social media companies will need to stop the vile misogynistic abuse on their sites. Following consultation with Ofcom, priority categories of legal but harmful content for adults will be set out in secondary legislation. These are likely to include some forms of online abuse, including misogynistic abuse.
We all know that women and girls have been among the hardest hit by the indirect impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic, both in the UK and globally, including a shocking rise in domestic violence. To respond to the urgent need to scale up the prevention of violence against women and girls, the UK began the “What Works to Prevent Violence: Impact at Scale” programme in October 2021, investing up to £67.5 million in the first ever global programme to systematically scale up proven approaches to prevent violence against women and girls worldwide. This is the largest investment by any single donor Government to prevent violence against women and girls globally.
Tackling violence against women and girls is a government priority. That is why in July we published a new strategy on tackling violence against women and girls, to help better target perpetrators and support victims of these crimes. As part of that strategy, the Government also announced a new package of measures which will strengthen protections for those affected by harassment at work. As soon as parliamentary time allows, we will introduce a new duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace, as well as explicit protections against workplace harassment by third parties, such as customers or clients. We are also supporting the Equality and Human Rights Commission to develop a statutory code of practice on workplace harassment, and are preparing our own practical guidance for employers on preventing sexual harassment in the workplace, which will be published in due course.
The steps we are taking will not only raise awareness of the nature and prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace, but motivate employers to prioritise prevention and ultimately improve workplace practices and culture. Every woman should be able to live without fear of harassment or violence, in the workplace as much as anywhere else, and these measures will help ensure that people feel safe and supported to thrive. In addition, I am pleased to say that the UK Government on 7 March strengthened their world-leading efforts to end violence and harassment in the workplace, becoming the 11th country to ratify the International Labour Organization’s Violence and Harassment Convention. This is the first international treaty to recognise the right of everyone to a world of work free from violence and harassment, including gender-based violence and harassment. The UK played a leading role in developing the treaty over two years of negotiations. Attending the ratification ceremony in person at the ILO in Geneva, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Thérèse Coffey, has now completed the ratification process for the UK.
However, it is not just within our own borders that we have a responsibility. The Foreign Secretary has committed to putting women and girls at the centre of the United Kingdom’s foreign and development policy, and this will be demonstrated clearly later this year with the publication of the FCDO’s new strategy on women and girls. The Foreign Secretary has made sexual violence in conflict one of her top priorities. In November, she announced a new package of funding of over £22 million to end child marriage, support survivors, and fund women’s rights organisations on the front lines of tackling violence against women and girls around the world. She also made a commitment to explore all options for global action, including her intention to work towards a new convention on sexual violence in conflict. This is an opportunity to strengthen the international response to preventing these atrocities, supporting survivors and holding perpetrators to account.
The UK is a global leader on action to tackle sexual violence in conflict. We have trained over 17,000 police and military personnel and deployed the UK’s team of experts on preventing sexual violence in conflict over 90 times since 2012 to build capacity of Governments, the UN and NGOs. The UK also plans to host an international “preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative” conference in 2022. This will be a key opportunity to show UK leadership and rally international support to agree further action to eliminate this crime, as well as tackling wider gender equality issues.
I feel privileged to open today’s debate with so many noble Lords who share my staunch commitment to improving gender equality. I am proud to be part of this Government, and it is an honour to be part of the work we are doing. We will continue to fight for gender equality across the UK and the whole world.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to follow the Minister in today’s International Women’s Day debate. I congratulate her too on looking so cheerful after flying overnight to be here with us this afternoon. I know she will have attended a great conference; I have been myself and it is inspiring to be there. I thank her for at least turning up today after a stressful time.
I am very pleased to be taking part today but, as I raised with the Minister a week or two ago, why has it taken so long to have this debate? International Women’s Day was on 8 March and it is now 17 March, St Patrick’s Day. In future, I hope that we will have the debate either on the day or on one of the days either side of 8 March, and that we can have it in the Chamber not Grand Committee. Only 20 Peers have put their names down to speak today, which is the lowest I have ever seen for this debate. Nevertheless, I am sure we will have a good debate.
Although women have come a long way in the battle for equality, there is still a long way to go. If we look at women in politics in the UK, we see that since 1918 there have been only 559 women elected to the House of Commons but 4,500 men. It has taken us 104 years to get 559 women elected, which is not really a very good record. There is still a way to go before there is equality on numbers in the House of Commons, despite the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act 2002, which allowed political parties to have all-women shortlists of candidates for elections. The Act included a sunset clause; it would have expired at the end of 2015 but was extended by the Equality Act 2010, allowing all-women shortlists to be used until 2030.
Will the Minister agree to look at extending the sunset clause, which will expire in 2030 unless action is taken? It is vital to allow political parties to use all-women shortlists because the elected institutions should look a bit like the people they represent. It is interesting to note that the new devolved institutions do a lot better than old ones. For example, the Welsh Senedd has always had a good number of women elected, and in 2003 broke all records by having 30 men and 30 women elected. That was regarded as a world record; bear in mind that it was in Wales, so it was a really big achievement.
The Labour Party has always made good use of all-women shortlists, which is why we have more Labour women in the House of Commons and the Senedd than all the other parties have together, and other parties are now starting to use the shortlists. We use them not because women cannot achieve, but because in all political parties the local members do not seem too happy about selecting women. We have fantastic women in all the institutions now because of all-women shortlists.
One thing the Government could take action on is to enact Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010. This section says that political parties should keep an audit of candidates to show how many women candidates, BAME candidates and disabled candidates they have. By doing this, each party would have the data and know where it needs to improve. I cannot understand why the Government will not implement Section 106. Does the Minister agree that to solve a problem, one must have the data to identify it? That is the reason for Section 106.
Once political parties publish this data, if they are allowed to do it, it will show for the first time whether any action is required to improve the diversity of candidates. Parties can then take a number of measures that they feel necessary, which is what Labour did to increase the number of women candidates. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for all parties to improve the diversity of candidates, which would eventually lead to all our elected institutions beginning to look like the people they represent?
When the coalition Government was elected in 2010, one of the first things they did was to close down the Women’s National Commission. At that time, the commission had existed for 40 years. It had 650 women’s organisations as partners and communicated regularly with them, including holding an annual conference. The coalition Government said at the time that the work of the WNC would be brought in-house by the Government Equalities Office.
Can the Minister tell the Committee how the GEO communicates with these 650 women’s organisations in the UK, since the coalition Government closed down the Women’s National Commission? I have asked this question several times and the answers I get lead me to believe that the GEO does not, in any shape or form, do any of the work that that commission carried out. This is such a shame, and an indication that the Government have no interest in the work of these organisations, as they do not communicate with them and do not allow them a voice to government, as they had during the time of the Women’s National Commission. If we only had that body now, it could have been doing really valuable work during the pandemic, for instance. I am hoping that the Minister can give me a good answer on that.
I also want to ask when the Government are planning to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, which is better known as the Istanbul convention. This Government signed the convention in 2012 but have yet to ratify it. The UK is way behind other countries, which have already ratified the convention. Can the Minister give an assurance that its ratification will take place in 2022?
I have highlighted several issues which relate to the theme of this debate and suggest three things to the Minister if she wants to see an improvement for women, as I know she does. First, the Minister could discuss implementing Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 with the Prime Minister and her colleagues. Secondly, the Government should ratify the Istanbul convention in 2022. Thirdly, she could find out how the GEO communicates with the 650 women’s organisations—and all women’s organisations—and discuss with them how they are ensuring the work that the WNC carried out on behalf of women is being dealt with, as that was the commitment in 2010. Nothing I have seen or asked about leads me to believe that that is now happening now. If the Minister succeeds with this, it will go some way to improving the position of women nationally and internationally.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I agree with her remarks, especially the ones at the start highlighting the regrettable change from the precedent that she and my noble friend Lady Northover worked so hard to create: the annual debate in the Chamber to allow for all the considerations for International Women’s Day to be carried out.
My remarks today will focus more on the international side, as I am the foreign affairs and international development spokesperson for my party. I declare an interest in overseas travel, which I will refer to later. I also commend the Minister on her stamina during her overnight journey. She is respected in the House but I hope she will forgive me because, a little later in my remarks, I will highlight some of the areas where I believe that the rhetoric in her speech is not met with the reality, particularly of development policy.
Before I depart from the Minister, let me say that I very much agree with her on the news of the return of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and others. I pay tribute to noble Lords, including those from my own party—in particular my noble friend Lady Northover, who has been such a consistent and doughty campaigner in making sure that the case for those dual nationals held in such circumstances was constantly on our agenda. I commend and pay tribute to her work. The Minister knows that my noble friend will leave this Committee to cover the Statement in the Chamber; it is absolutely appropriate that she does so, meaning no discourtesy to the Committee.
I wish to refer to the international side in particular, but I will also refer to what the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, indicated is here in Parliament. Recently—two weeks ago—I was in both Baghdad and Beirut. I was supporting the induction of new MPs in Iraq. It has the highest proportion of directly elected female MPs and is in its fifth term of Parliament after democracy was restored. Many of those MPs come from the protest movement and were driven by their disgust at the corruption in government to become active in Parliament. Their impact will be meaningful, I think. Equally, in Beirut, I was supporting a project that mentors women to become candidates in elections and, as the Minister said, overcome bias and implied bias. It is the whole range, from actual violence through to political violence, media violence, implied bias and absolute bias. Many of these women have had to overcome enormous barriers that I have never had to face as a political candidate. They are an inspiration. When it comes to municipal and parliamentary elections, they will have an impact in transforming that system and, in many respects, in tackling the confessional system that is based in many countries around the world. Indeed confessional systems, almost by definition, retain the patriarchy of structures in society, faith and politics, which has meant that the barriers are hard to overcome.
As a former Member of the Scottish Parliament, I was struck when the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, was speaking that, when I was elected to that Parliament, it had 40% representation of women. That has declined slightly, which is regrettable, but it is nevertheless still very strong. I thought I would check the figures. I commend the Labour Party: the majority of its MPs in the House of Commons are women. It has 94 men and 104 women. The Conservatives have 273 men and 87 women. The SNP has 29 men and 16 women. My own party has 13 MPs. Only four of them are men; nine are women. The challenge for us is to retain that proportion when our number of elected MPs grows massively—as will inevitably happen. That is the challenge ahead; we will tackle it with relish.
I will focus the remainder of my speech on development policy, because I regret that, in this area, the Government’s rhetoric is not matched by the reality. I have previously spoken in the Chamber when debating the prospect of an international development strategy, and I referenced the discussions I had had with my colleagues from our sister party in Canada, which has developed the first feminist international assistance policy. There are strands in it directing future government policy but through a gender approach, under the titles of human dignity; quality healthcare, nutrition and education; growth that works for everyone; environment and climate action, and climate finance to reduce barriers for women, particularly in the services sector and finance; investments; inclusive governance; and peace and security. All are directed through a gender lens and all form a very strong international strategy. I am on the record in my party for saying that the Government have an opportunity, when they publish their international development strategy, which is likely to be in a number of weeks, for it have a UK gender focus. I hope it does. If I understood the Minister correctly, there will be a separate women’s strategy for development afterwards. That is a missed opportunity. The opportunity that presents itself is to ensure that the entire strategy is a feminist, gender strategy.
Perhaps it speaks to a deeper truth. The Minister said that women are at the centre of the FCDO, but the Government could not even bring themselves to publish a gender impact assessment, which they had carried out internally and which predicted that programmes supporting women and girls would be disproportionately affected across all ranges of development policy and all the areas that the Minister highlighted. The government officials themselves knew that the spending cuts and the unlawful reduction from 0.7% to 0.5% would disproportionately affect women and girls. We have seen that most clearly as a result of the pandemic, which has seen women and girls struggle far more and be disproportionately affected by the global response.
As far as the development policy on physical violence, I regularly review the UN assessments and that on sustainable development goal 5—equality for women—highlights that 736 million women still suffer physical violence. That has been relatively unchanged over the last decade. But, as we learned through a leak, the Government’s gender impact assessment for their own cuts highlighted that there would be a 70% to 80% cut in programmes on violence against women internationally. It is simply not credible to say that the UK is a global leader.
The £430 million declaration on girls’ education is of course welcome, but it will be over five years and will backfill cuts. Therefore, we know that 700,000 fewer girls will receive the education they would have received if development cuts had not been in place. The Minister refers to the Foreign Secretary restoring cuts to women’s and girl’s programmes, before the decision to cut overall. That was four months ago, and we are yet to see any programmes restored after the cuts. The 0.5% is capped, so we know that any restoration of those programmes will displace others. When we know that one of the secondary impacts of the Ukrainian crisis has been an increase in food prices, and there is no lift of the 0.5% cap, any support for Ukraine, which is fully justified, will squeeze out other programmes. That £220 million for Ukraine is welcome, but it means £220 million less for other programmes, when we know that women are disproportionately affected in conflict areas.
I will close by giving two examples of such areas. Last week, I was in Sudan. In the country to its immediate south, South Sudan, the UK has through its crown agents, in effect, been supporting the delivery of healthcare. UNICEF put it horrifically:
“Giving birth on the floor, cutting the umbilical cord with a stick. That is the reality for some women in South Sudan”.
We have cut our health support for South Sudan by 10% and, quite unbelievably, there is another round of discussions, which has not yet concluded, about further cuts. In that country, one in 10 babies dies before the age of five.
We also know that women and girls have been disproportionately affected in the horrific conflict in Yemen. More people rely on food programmes there than on many places on earth. The cost of their food has gone up and we have cut our support for women in Yemen by nearly 60%.
It is correct to highlight progress in certain areas and I welcome that. It is also very important that we are self-aware about the damage being done, the moral vacuum being caused and the fact that we are simply not seen around the world as a global leader. When we say that we want to rally international support and we ask others to step up, other countries are having to backfill areas which we have retreated from and cut. That is not the backdrop we should be seeing to the international development strategy. It is not too late. We should lift the target back to 0.7% immediately, we should have a feminist development strategy and we should act on all the worthy ambitions which I hope we all share.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, it is my pleasure to speak in today’s debate and to follow the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed. Like him, I will begin by focusing on international issues. I did put the word around to see if any of my female colleagues were available, because they are more qualified to speak than me, but none of them were today so you have to put up with me. I am glad to have this opportunity.
First, there is much I want to celebrate. As part of my brief, I take special interest in two of the poorest nations on earth, Burundi and Lesotho—one of the others is South Sudan. These nations are making great progress on women’s equality. It has been my privilege to visit Lesotho a couple of times and Burundi very many times. I would like to share some examples.
This month, the Women’s Investment and Development Bank has been introduced in Burundi. This has been praised by the UN as a step towards women’s economic empowerment in that nation. The bank will grant low-interest loans to women’s collectives and their development projects, and will provide training on profitable business.
No one will be surprised that another of my particular interests is how the Church operates in these countries. Today, I want to recognise the incredible work of the Mothers’ Union worldwide—one branch works tirelessly on this front in Burundi—in campaigning for equality for women and girls all over the world. I also mention the national leader of the Mothers’ Union in Burundi, Mrs Claudette Kigeme. She co-ordinates its work and also works with the Five Talents agency, which sets up savings-led rural community groups to train people in growing small businesses.
It has been my and my wife’s privilege to visit a number of those small financial units and hear testimonies from, interestingly, sometimes men as well as women of the impact that microfinance has had on their lives and developing their savings groups. It has utterly transformed their lives and empowered the women. Often, alongside the microfinance, they do literacy and business training because they recognise that the best businesspeople in Burundi are the women. They are much more entrepreneurial and much more reliable in running their businesses well. That is where the testimony of the men sometimes comes in. I have stood in those groups and men have stood up in front of me saying, “My life has been transformed by the way my wife has been empowered—that has developed and changed our whole lives.” Mrs Claudette Kigeme was recently honoured for her work by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, being given the Langton Award.
The second of my friends in Burundi is Mathilde Nkwirikiye. She has led the way in many aspects of fighting for gender justice and equality for women in Burundi. One issue on which she and others are currently working is the right of women to have access to land. Sadly, the law of that land does not currently allow women to inherit land. When you live in an agriculturally based economy, this is a massive injustice which needs to be corrected. Mathilde is one of the women leading the way to see that law changed. Mathilde has championed women’s rights, led work against gender-based violence and engaged in international peacemaking. These two women are utterly remarkable. Meeting them, and seeing them at work, has changed my life and I want to honour them.
I turn to Lesotho and the new Bishop of Lesotho, the right reverend Dr Vicentia Kgabe, who was appointed at the end of last year. She is the first woman Bishop of Lesotho, and the third in the Anglican province of Southern Africa. I contacted her about this debate and asked what she would want to say about the situation in Lesotho and southern Africa. She pointed out that she is a leader in a country which is still patriarchal, where top leadership positions remain a male domain. She notes that education remains male-oriented and that exposure, mentoring and support structures necessitated her to work harder than any of the men to counter this. She is a leader of steady and intentional progress on narrowing the gender gap in Lesotho, and stands as a great figure of reconciliation. Sadly, in recent years the story of the Anglican church in Lesotho has been riven with disputes. One reason why Dr Kgabe was appointed as the bishop from outside Lesotho—she was previously in South Africa—was the recognition that a woman leader, at this point, was the most likely person to bring reconciliation in conflict.
After presenting these examples, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Will she affirm the leading role played by civil society and the Church—as well as other faith organisations—in addressing gender-based violence and working for equality in many poorer nations? Will she confirm the commitment of Her Majesty’s Government in using overseas aid and development spending to assist this work? Following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will she please tell us when we will return to 0.7%?
There are many more celebrations than challenges, but I turn to the latter. I noted the Minister detailing ways in which the Government are encouraging women here with work incentives and childcare programmes. These are welcome. However, the reality is that the gender gap is arguably at its worst for women with young children. This is especially so where they have a larger family. Noble Lords, noble Baronesses and the Minister know this, and they know my passion for this issue.
The two-child limit is a policy against which I have campaigned since its outset, for a range of reasons, but one reason pertinent to today’s debate is its disproportionate effect on women. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 29% of households affected by the policy are single-parent families headed by women, compared with only 1% of single-parent families headed by men. The Pregnancy Advisory Service reported that, during the pandemic, respondents to its survey described being
“‘forced’ by their financial circumstances into ending a pregnancy”
that they otherwise “would have wanted”. Has the Minister carried out any assessment of the specific impact of the two-child limit policy on women, and the poverty of women with more than two children? I hope that she will consider undertaking one if she has not. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses, both to the international questions and to this specific question about the two-child limit, in due course.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, and how wonderful it is that so many men are speaking in this debate today: I think we have nearly as many men speaking as women. Thank you to all the men who are here to support us.
I thank my noble friend, having come back overnight, as we heard, for finding time for this important debate today to mark International Women’s Day and for her introduction. I congratulate her on her speech at the CSW at the UN. This is our opportunity to pause and reflect on the status of women both here and across the world.
Before I begin, I draw attention, as normal, to my various roles listed on the register of interests.
This debate is usually a time to celebrate progress and achievements, but this year, I feel that we are in a difficult place. Without doubt, the women who are most at risk and with least rights are those in conflict countries and unstable situations.
The scenes coming out of Ukraine are truly horrific. It feels very close, and I am delighted that the UK is being so strongly supportive and I applaud how generous the British people are in responding to help, donating through the Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal, sending clothes and supplies and offering accommodation. We have seen heart-rending pictures of women and children trying to leave the country and escape the cruel bombardment by the Russians.
However, sadly, Ukraine is only the most recent example of war. The Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre reports that there are currently 45 countries affected by conflict and violence. This is on top of the state of crisis induced by more than two years of the Covid pandemic, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, told us, has typically hit women and girls hardest.
The UN reports that:
“Violence, conflict, political and humanitarian crises have displaced 82.4 million people from their homes; 115 million people are living in extreme poverty; and 100 million do not have enough to eat—up from 77 million last year. Around the world, from Afghanistan, to Ethiopia, to Myanmar, women’s human rights defenders have come under attack and the wave of political violence against women in politics and media has risen.”
In short, the rights of women and girls have been significantly rolled back on all fronts, and I fear we are in no way near this year’s theme for International Women’s Day of “Break the Bias”.
While the media spotlight is on Ukraine, we must not forget the situation in other conflicts. Only last week, it was the 11th anniversary of the Syrian uprising, and we should not forget the terrible scenes in Afghanistan last August, with the takeover by the Taliban. The UK had spent 20 years helping to bring democracy and order to the country. Was it perfect? No, but it was a great deal better off than it had been in 2001, when it was described as the country that was worst in the world to be a woman, with no women being seen in public. With encouragement and support, so many brave women came forward to take their part in society. There were women MPs, judges, Ministers, diplomats, in the army and police, teachers, lawyers—in all professions—yet today, once again, the women in Afghanistan are being brutally suppressed. Women who had a public life have had to flee for their lives or are still in hiding. Many are stuck in third countries. Once again, they have been airbrushed out of public life.
I have been helping to co-ordinate a group of senior women Afghan refugees here—former Ministers, judges, lawyers and MPs—as they try to come to terms with what has happened and how they would like to see the future for their country. We must not let them be airbrushed out of the international scene and forgotten. I thank my noble friend Lord Ahmad for having helped facilitate those meetings and taking the time to meet these women.
Now more than ever it is vital to include women’s voices in peace processes. Evidence that gender equality is essential to building peace and security has grown substantially since UN Security Council Resolution 1325 was adopted in 2000. In fact, involving women increases the chances of longer-lasting, more sustainable peace, yet women continue to be excluded. You cannot build peace by leaving out half the population—look at Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. We should not have to justify why women should be included; we should ask the men with guns why they are there when they have caused all that misery. How do we ensure that women play a meaningful role and that their voices are heard? Will the Minister agree that the women, peace and security agenda is now more important than ever and should be a core part of every FCDO policy?
I very much welcomed the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to increasing spending on women and girls back to previous levels and look forward to hearing the new strategy. I also welcome her renewed energy in the vital preventing sexual violence in conflict agenda. I am delighted that we will have another conference in the autumn. We simply must not give up on this agenda after all the work put in and the progress made; this was always going to be a marathon, not a sprint. We must take care not to risk losing the progress already made by allowing language used around PSVI in international commitments to be watered down. What steps can be taken in tandem to push for greater implementation and to hold perpetrators to account?
As we have heard, this week is the Commission on the Status of Women meeting at the UN in New York, which I and others have previously been to. Have we heard anything about it in the press? I wonder whether any of the men present even know what it is. It is the second-largest meeting at the UN during the year, yet there is a conspiracy of silence. We urgently need to make changes to this meeting to ensure that it is used as a platform to amplify the voices of women being persecuted across the world.
I end by quoting Sheryl Sandberg:
“In the future, there will be no female leaders. There will just be leaders.”
We may find that they deliver a much more peaceful world.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. I have indeed attended the meeting in New York with her in the past and I know her commitment to working with women in conflict areas. I have learned a lot from her about that.
However, the noble Baroness is also right that we are meeting at a very difficult time to talk about this. The pandemic has exposed the risks women face here and around the world. Here, we have seen frightening levels of domestic abuse and sexual exploitation, with perpetrators taking advantage of lockdown. Changing Lives, a charity based in the north-east that I have a long association with, did some work to look at the particular exploitation of young women on the internet. It was really scary and is something that the young women of today have to face in a way that my generation never had to. I hope the online safety Bill can help to deal with that.
Inevitably, I want to talk about the position of women in the developing world, and the increasing evidence that our decision to restrict aid has had negative and really difficult effects on millions of women. High commissioners, as well as charities, are clear that development has not just stalled during the pandemic but gone backwards—by at least 10 years, they tell me. This, of course, affects everyone in the developing world, but it particularly affects women and children. They have been hit by a range of global crises that are almost intersecting. They are at the forefront of the climate emergency, experiencing extreme weather events such as droughts and floods more frequently, and the effect that has on their ability to find water and grow food for their families and villages.
Women are increasingly experiencing a higher burden of care from both climate change and the impact of Covid-19. I was very pleased that the Minister was proud to champion the drive to tackle inequalities. The problem is that at the moment, this is just not working from the Government. I hear the rhetoric and the determination, but on the ground I also hear how much more difficult things are than in the last few years, certainly pre-dating the pandemic.
There is rollback on women’s rights globally. Space for engagement by women in decision-making processes is shrinking; inequality of opportunity, which affects access to health, education and income, is increasing and exacerbating discrimination against women. We think too of the horror of children not even being able to attend primary school in the last couple of years. That means that there is another huge backlog in getting them anywhere near being able to do STEM subjects. I recently met some young people from Kenya virtually. Their schools were closed for virtually two years. The inability to catch up in those circumstances is just terrifying.
Many people and organisations work in this area. Inevitably—I am sure noble Lords will all say “she’s doing it again”—I will mention VSO, partly, of course, because I know the level of transformation that VSO can make for volunteers and those with whom they work. However, I will talk about one thing that I am not sure that the Government—or at least the Minister—are really aware of: the change in VSO means that it is a much better organisation now than when I worked for it many years ago. It recruits and trains volunteers within the developing country, not just from this county. That means that it is training the potential leaders for tomorrow. It is giving them skills, confidence and voice.
I met young people in this place three weeks ago, at an event hosted by VSO, who returned from a programme initiated by the coalition Government called ICS. They had been working on gender-based violence in different countries in Africa and in Pakistan. They were remarkable about what they had learned, how that had changed how they saw things in this country, what they were prepared to do and how it was working. That programme finished, and I know that the Government are trying to find ways of getting it going again, even though, of course, all the people employed here and around the world lost their jobs, so we would have to start again to build the infrastructure. The Minister would be inspired if she met some of these young people. That can be organised very easily. I met some of the young people who were part of the African teams, because every team from this country is matched by a team of local volunteers. They too, very clearly, had developed leadership skills and their own confidence, resilience and determination to work on issues that would improve their communities. That is what we need internationally.
Actually, our aid cuts are undermining that. Yes, VSO has been given money for the next three years, but it was a lot less than they were given for a year when I was last on their board. It will continue to work and do what it can, even though it is in far fewer countries than it used to work in. I am sure that it is talking to the Government about reinstituting the ICS programme.
There is so much we know that does work, yet we thought, in this country, that cutting aid would be beneficial to us. It is not, because we lose that quality of leadership, determination and knowledge of how things work in the world, and it is certainly not beneficial to the countries that we have been working with. I too say to the Minister that it is absolutely critical to at least restore aid to 0.7%. This is not just about the reputation of the country but about the opportunity of people around the world, and opportunities for people in this country to grow to an understanding of what is going on in the world and contribute to it. That is particularly pertinent for women, because most of our aid was going on women, children and young people. They are the ones suffering most coming out of Covid, and they are the ones suffering most from climate change. We really do have a responsibility to be better.
Lord Hussain (LD)
My Lords, the International Women’s Day debate gives us an opportunity to highlight the empowerment and success of women around the world, as well as the inequalities, discrimination, violence and oppression faced by women in various parts of the world. Violence against women remains a major issue in the development and advancement of women. The violation of women’s rights during conflicts remained an issue in the 20th century and, if not corrected, will surely affect women not only in the 21st century but in the next millennium.
As per the reports of various NGOs and human rights agencies, hundreds of thousands of women have been the target of sexual crimes at the hands of armed forces in Rwanda, Bosnia, Myanmar, Kashmir and elsewhere. These NGOs have documented incidents of gang rape of young girls and grandmothers alike. Sexual abuse, sometimes in the presence of male family members, is used as a weapon of war. Rape by armed forces is a gross violation of international human rights and humanitarian law, and it has to be condemned. The report of the UN special rapporteur on violence against women notes that rape is the
“destructive combination of power, anger and sex which incites sexual violence against women. The victims of rape suffer a disorder, anxiety, and the ‘Rape Trauma Syndrome’ which causes them to constantly relive their rape through a series of flashbacks, dreams, nightmares and body memories.”
I focus my comments on the misery and suffering of the women of Kashmir. As Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and many other credible organisations have time and again stated that the Indian army is involved in illegal detentions, torture, extrajudicial killing and rape in Indian-administered Kashmir. All of this is happening with complete impunity under the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act.
According to recent reports of Genocide Watch, Kashmir is at the verge of genocide, yet world powers, including Britain, choose to ignore these warnings. According to reports, more than 100,000 people have been killed so far in Kashmir, while thousands of men and women are locked up in prisons across India, and thousands of women are known as half-widows, whose husbands are missing. The discovery of more than 3,000 mass graves adds to their agony—not knowing whether their missing husbands or family members are among those buried in those mass graves. Constant curfews, crackdowns, house-to-house searches, arrests, torture and communication shutdowns have become part of the daily life for women in Kashmir.
There are many well-documented and widely reported rape cases at the hands of the Indian security forces. According to various reports, in 1991, as many as 100 women and girls were gang-raped by Indian troops at Kunan Poshpora in the Kupwara District of Kashmir. Two women, Asiya and Neelofar, were abducted, raped and subsequently killed by men in uniform in Shopian in May 2009. A nine year-old, Asifa Banu, was abducted and gang-raped by Indian police personnel and fanatics affiliated with Hindu extremist groups in the Kathua area of the Jammu region in January 2018. The list goes on.
Last week, I received a letter from the chief executive of Luton Borough Council. At the council meeting on 25 January, the following motion was put forward for the council to:
“Raise awareness of the plight of women of Kunan Poshpura village in Kupwara District in Kashmir. These women and girls have been fighting for justice after being gangraped in 1991. Human Right Organisations determine that at least … 100 women were gang raped by the Indian Army in a horrific event. These women have never received any support from the government of India and still wait for justice. The psychological effect of this has tarnished their lives. Although we cannot change the past, this council can help to raise the public awareness of this egregious event, condemn and abhor violence against women in all its forms and against whomever it takes place and requests both our local members of Parliament and Lord Qurban Hussain to raise this in Parliament to take the matter to the government of India and ask the Supreme Court of India to take all reasonable steps to support these women in their campaign to obtain justice and to request an update report back on this case.”
On behalf of Luton Borough Council and more than 1 million British Kashmiris, I put this case before the Committee as a testimony. What have our Government done so far to raise the grave human rights situation in Kashmir with the Government of India? What response have they received? Furthermore, will the Minister promise to raise the issue of human rights in Kashmir—particularly the Kunan Poshpora gang rape—with the Indian Government at the next opportunity and write back to me with the response as per the request from Luton Borough Council?
Finally, given the serious reports of human rights abuses in Kashmir produced by Genocide Watch and other credible NGOs, can the Minister say why India is not included in the FCDO’s annual report of human rights priority countries? Can she assure the Committee that it will be included in future reports?
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, and his sobering report on the plight of women and children in Kashmir, of which I was certainly not aware. To mark International Women’s Day, I wish to step back and look at the gifts and qualities that women bring to the whole of human life, which are often unrecognised and undervalued. If they were more valued and recognised, they would certainly help in furthering and protecting women’s equality in the UK and globally.
As American comedian Rhonda Hansome says:
“A man’s got to do what a man’s got to do. A woman must do what he can’t.”
The most obvious thing is that women bear and give birth to the next generation. We ignore the qualities that women bring to their roles as homemakers and child-rearers at our peril. Of course, they do so much more than that, and men often now take a home-front role, but women are almost always the central hub figures in families.
This is not just gender stereotyping. Research has found that it is much more common for a woman than a man to know her children’s friends, hopes, dreams, romances and secret fears, and to know what they are thinking, how they are feeling and when their doctors’ appointments are. Although there is infinite variability within the two sexes, there are clear sex-based differences in tendencies flowing from how male and female brains tend to be wired and their respective physiology, hence the Government bringing forward a women’s health strategy—and, I hope, a men’s strategy, following the report from the APPG for men and boys, of which I am a vice-chair.
Differences are wired into us at the deepest level. For instance, in terms of hearing, women’s discomfort level is half that of men. On smell, women are relatively sensitive and men relatively insensitive. On touch, the most sensitive man is less sensitive to touch than the least sensitive woman. On people orientation, baby girls exhibit twice as much eye contact as baby boys by the age of three.
Flowing from all this, the leadership literature is clear as to the many strengths of what has broadly been termed a “female leadership” style. I caveat again that I refer throughout to tendencies, including prosocial behaviour, women’s more marked relationship orientation, stronger social competence and the panoramic view that they bring to decisions. They accept ambiguity more readily, are more inherently flexible and honour intuition as well as pure rationality. That is something I have always wondered at; it is extraordinary to see how correct female intuition is. Women more commonly try to take everything and everyone into consideration, and their strong social competence allows them to collect information from all sides and consider all perspectives of a situation. It can also give them titanic powers of persuasion, which I say ruefully from experience.
Many sectors of the 21st-century economic community urgently need the natural talents of women: a capacity to read non-verbal cues; emotional sensitivity; empathy; greater patience; an ability to do and think several things simultaneously; a penchant for long-term planning; and a preference for co-operating and reaching consensus. Harvard psychologist Carol Gilligan’s classic study found that women want to connect. While men are self-oriented, women are other-oriented; men are rights-oriented and women are responsibility-oriented. Men have an individual perspective where the core unit is “me”; women have a group perspective where the core unit is “we”. Men take pride in self-reliance; women take pride in team accomplishment and focus naturally on empowerment rather than power.
The business guru Tom Peters describes how we have not advanced much since the days in the cave. As a hunter, a man needed vision that would allow him to zero in on targets in the distance, whereas a woman needed eyes to allow a wide arc of vision so that she could monitor predators sneaking up to the nest. That is why, he says, modern men can find their way effortlessly to a distant pub but can never find things in fridges, cupboards and drawers. Women guarded and defended the cave community while the men went out hunting. Men are either switched all the way on or, when in a resting state, only 30% on. Women are never turned off; they are on guard 24/7 and their resting state is 90% on. Men are tuned in or out, seldom in between— I think the Committee gets the picture.
That is why, on International Women’s Day, we have to and should celebrate women. We cannot avoid defining who women are or allow them to be stealthily redefined. As we know, women have recently been called “cervix havers”, “menstruators”, “birthing bodies” and, perhaps most distastefully, “bleeders”. Reducing women to their bodily functions is dehumanising and disgusting.
Returning to the definition of “woman”, the dictionary is clear that a woman is an adult human female. The Equality Act 2010 is also clear: Section 212 states that
“‘woman’ means a female of any age.”
This word needs to be politically detoxified so that politicians no longer quake when asked to define it. The most high-profile recent examples of this happen to have come from the Labour Party’s ranks, but politicians across the spectrum are terrified of getting on the wrong side of what is just the latest incarnation of a misogynist orthodoxy. There is nothing new under the sun. Without being able to use the word “woman” and understand what we mean by it, women’s needs can be obscured and even ignored, but those needs are shared by 51% of the electorate.
It came to this because powerful lobby groups and powerful men insist that anyone can be a woman. I am not a scientist but I know that humans simply cannot change their sex. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, who is a scientist and a professor, categorically said this on the BBC’s “Question Time”:
“You cannot change your sex. Your sex actually is there in every single cell in the body.”
We can change our bodies with hormones and, in some cases, surgery to resemble the opposite sex more closely, but we should not minimise or soft-pedal how difficult this is in practice, and how arduous and costly will be the need for ongoing medical intervention. Unsurprisingly, therefore, fewer than 3% of those who identify as transgender women have undergone such modifications, but many who are naturally sympathetic to trans women—and, of course, trans men—are unaware that the vast majority are still bodily intact.
Yet when a female rape victim asks for a woman to examine her, she needs to be sure that her request will be respected, as does one’s elderly mother who requests that only female carers provide her with intimate and personal care. Women in these and similar situations who have objected when confronted with a bodily intact man who identifies as a woman have been called bigots and transphobes. Women’s prisons can, and do, contain male-bodied rapists. Newspapers talk about “her erect penis” when describing sexual assault. Female prisoners can be punished for misgendering the natal, intact males in their prison. In sport, women and girls are being beaten, sometimes even injured, by bigger, faster and stronger males in their own sports—women’s sports.
Extreme ideologies are breaking down the social norms, the social contract between males and females where we make room for each other’s needs and respect the sex-based differences that I have described. One recognised weakness of women leaders’ pro-social engagement and willingness to see everyone’s point of view is their abandonment of their own interests. Their tendency to want to share success can mean that they doubt their own competence. Women quite simply do not always feel able to stand up for themselves. When I have argued for women’s rights to single-sex spaces in hospitals and prisons, I have been surprised to receive many gentle cards of thanks from those who sign off simply as mothers and ordinary women. The ones who tend to empower others often feel very disempowered in this debate.
Returning to the need to celebrate women, we cannot do that without an agreed definition and freedom to speak the truth respectfully but without fear of being cancelled, pilloried or criminalised. There was global condemnation when Russia meted out that treatment to the courageous Russian female journalist, Marina Ovsyannikova. She did not just hold up a sign—she is a sign and, in my contribution today, she has the final word.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for leading this important debate. I have great affection for her and it has been wonderful to see her becoming such a strong and powerful voice on the government Benches, the other side from me. It shows how we can all come together positively to talk about issues such as the importance of addressing the ways in which women’s lives are still undermined by misogyny and discrimination and the ways in which women around the world suffer.
I am a lawyer and much of my work is now in the international field. I could have easily made this speech about my work as I see it, day in, day out, on genocide, sexual crimes in conflict and empowering women as parliamentarians. I chair a group of parliamentarians from the MENA region under the Helsinki forum, which helps to address the legislation they would like in their own countries and how they could emulate what happens in other jurisdictions. But today I am going to speak about the domestic situation. I want to ask all in this Room when the last time was that you consciously altered your behaviour, when you were at the bus stop or walking home. A man might struggle to answer that question, but a woman will probably have an example from this week, last week or the week before—or even from going home late last night.
The business of self-safeguarding is built into a woman’s life from an early age. We listen to footsteps. We avoid the shadows. We carry our keys in our hands. We avoid roads that are ill-lit or tree-lined. When I leave this House and go home late at night, I walk up the middle of my road that leads to my house from the Tube station, because I do not want to be close to the dark bushes and shadows on the pavement. As children, girls as young as eight or nine are warned to take care, not to be alone when they are coming back from the park or school, to stay with their friends and to keep to strict timetables. By internalising those messages from our parents, women learn that, unfortunately, there are bad men out there. We hear the message about what they might do to us, which is about sexual violation and the possibility of rape. It is about impregnation. Little girls learn that stuff, and it stays with you for the rest of your life. The lessons that women learn, as they receive that care from their parents and caretakers, is that, if they do not keep to those steps, somehow or other, it will be their fault if something goes wrong. Again, the idea of shame and blame is internalised when women are ill-treated, abused, assaulted or worse. Blame often centres on the victim.
A year ago now, the Scottish Government asked me to form an independent working group to decide whether adding sex to existing hate crime legislation would be an effective way to protect women or whether there should be a stand-alone remedy to deal with misogyny. I was clear from the outset that we do not criminalise thought; it is very important people realise this. There is talk of misogyny being a crime but, fortunately, it cannot be. I hope we hold true to that, because it is the conduct that flows from hate that we address. Modes of thinking, and what happens in that forum internum between our ears, is very precious and has to be protected. Freedom of thought is protected in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and in our human rights conventions and laws. Freedom of thought is protected because that is where our ideas, creativity, imagination and ability to deal with the world’s challenges come from. It has to be protected, but we do not have to protect the ills that come from hatred, which are also harboured in that space. As I am making clear, it is the conduct that flows from hate that we have to address.
Soon after we embarked on our task, Sarah Everard and Sabina Nessa were brutally murdered and women up and down the country demanded that something be done. Women were correctly making the link, which I emphasise today, between serious misogynistic crimes such as rape, domestic violence and other serious transgressions that women experience, and the other things they experience which are deemed too low level for police attention. Women were saying that, if you do not deal with the men who rub themselves up against people on the Tube or flash at women in public places —and at little girls; they flash at children from school—or the other ways women experience abuse, whether verbal abuse or touching, groping and so on, unfortunately you then create a normalisation which makes it much more difficult to address the more serious stuff. The crushing weight of those experiences for women cannot be dismissed as too trivial to engage the law.
When I started my legal career, men convicted of rape could often walk out of court with a suspended sentence. Domestic violence was described as six of one and half a dozen of the other. Sexual harassment was laughed at. I have spent a lot of my energy arguing for reform of gender-based law, because it was created from a male perspective—not with any conspiracy in mind, but that was the nature of things. A lot has happened, but not enough has changed. These issues are now being treated much more seriously at policy level, but we are still having difficulty with the outcomes. Outcomes are still poor, and you have to ask why. A lot has changed, but the underlying attitudes within the criminal justice system and society as a whole make it very difficult to secure justice for women.
The questions that my working group addressed in the past year came about by examining the testimony of many women and organisations about the verbal insults, denigration, humiliation, gropings, undermining or patronising behaviour, online trolling and sexual objectification they experience. I have to tell you that, cumulatively, it is a horror story. There is no male experience that is comparable—there really is not. I know young men experience violence on the streets, and so forth, but it is very different. Men do not come out of the pub saying, “Text me when you get home, Charlie”, because getting home might pose a serious problem. But women do it all the time; for young women, this is daily practice. As a result, we have proposed that a new misogyny and criminal justice Act for Scotland should be created that will include a new statutory misogyny aggravation. That is something that we in this House voted for but, unfortunately, it was rejected when it went to the other place.
We really should be looking seriously at what women experience. What we have advocated is law for women, challenging the default position that all law is neutral, because that is not working. Women are being targeted by certain kinds of behaviour, and you need targeted law to deal with it. The default position is that, for example, men can be raped and suffer domestic violence too. However, men are not experiencing stuff such as standing at a bus stop where, if a man comes up and starts engaging with you and you ignore him, you start receiving the foulest torrents of abuse. Men just have no idea what women put up with, including talk of the most salacious and disgusting kind and language that would make your hair curl.
I believe that the internet has created a disinhibition, so that people can say things anonymously. But it is now travelling off the internet and out of social media onto the streets. Young women are receiving this in playgrounds, student unions, bars and clubs—talk of sexual matters of the most explicit, crude and horrible kind. Then, when women reject it, they face discussion of how unattractive, fat and ugly they are and that they therefore do not deserve any sexual interest. They go home feeling wretched and miserable. Is it any wonder that they then do not feel able to ask for equal pay or promotion at work or that they do not take up positions in public life? Is it any wonder that they do not make a success of themselves in many of the areas where they should? This really has to be addressed.
We have advocated that an offence of stirring up hatred against women should be introduced into law, that public misogynistic harassment should be made a crime, and that the issuing of threats or invoking of rape or disfigurement, online and offline, should be criminalised. I say “invoking” because online algorithms often create pile-ons, so that a woman, who might be a Member of Parliament, a journalist or a campaigner, receives a threat of rape in language that is difficult for the police to deal with, because it says something like, “Somebody should rape you”, or, “You deserve to be raped”. They do not say, “I’m coming after you”, they are saying, “Somebody should rape you”, but the terror created in the hearts of women is still the same, because they know that there are people out there who are likely to take up that sort of invitation. Those women start not to go out as often and do not participate in public events in the way they might.
I do not think that older age groups understand what is going on, and I do not think that men have any idea that this goes on. It is really important to look at the stuff we looked at as we took evidence. I do not do social media, and I am glad that I do not—the poor noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is going to receive a whole lot of communications as a result of his speech today—because I take part in too many things that I know will incite the aggressions of folk out there. All I can say is that, when you are required to do it in gathering evidence, it is a shock to the system to see what women in Parliament, women standing for Parliament, women who are journalists, and women who are campaigners are exposed to. The other day I was with the scientists who took part in the Covid matter. Absolutely horrible abuse and insults were poured over them. I heard that the mother of the child who died of a terrible asthmatic attack, who has been campaigning on reducing pollution levels, has also received abuse online. It is unbelievable that any woman who seems to say anything publicly has this happen to her.
I hope that the UK Government will look at the steps being taken in Scotland. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, that it is very nice to hear a paean of praise about women, but we need to bring up our boys better so that they have some of the attributes he gave to women—sensitivity, caring and thinking about the other. I am afraid our boys are now seeing this porn that comes up on their phone willy-nilly and presenting it to girls. They think that intimacy looks like that and that that is how you perform sexually. They are introducing that kind of thinking into their own behaviours.
This is serious stuff. I hope the Westminster Government will at some point follow Scotland’s lead. I hope we will make the necessary change. Most decent men—they are here in this House—do not behave like this and are willing to be our allies in creating a gear-shift, but we need to start looking at the perpetrator and get off this business of examining the women. Let us look at the perpetrators who are doing this and start dealing with these crimes differently.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful for this opportunity to commend many women in dire situations who exhibit inspirational courage, resourcefulness and resilience. I am also grateful for the opportunity to request that our Government provide urgently needed support for some priority areas.
My small NGO, HART—the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust—was founded to provide aid and advocacy for victims of war, conflict, oppression and/or persecution not reached by major aid organisations for political and/or security reasons. We work with local partners, who use the very limited resources we can provide to make transformational changes for their communities. Time allows only two examples of situations where we are privileged to provide such support: Shan Women’s Action Network—SWAN—in Myanmar’s Shan state; and central belt Nigeria, where massacres by Islamist Fulani militants continue unabated. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, for highlighting the very serious situation in South Sudan. We also support partners there. The situation is dire, as the noble Lord has highlighted.
In Burma—I use this name because it is strongly preferred by our in-country partners—in healthcare, there is currently chaos as a result of the military coup and brutal military offensives against civilians.
I have visited Shan state in Burma many times with HART. As we speak today, its people are trapped in protracted conflict, ruthlessly supressed by the military regime. Among the thousands of displaced, 70% are women and children, including pregnant women, teenagers who have just given birth and the elderly. They have fled with minimal possessions. Some have lost their farmland and homes, forced to flee to remote villages or into the jungle, and are suffering from hunger and cold, lacking shelter and medical care.
It is within this context that HART’s inspirational partner, SWAN, continues to operate. SWAN is a female-led organisation dedicated to gender equality and justice. Staff provide life-saving emergency aid, antenatal care, postnatal care and counselling. They also run safe houses for women and girls affected by domestic violence and provide vocational training sessions for practical support in an emergency.
Without organisations such as SWAN, many more female lives would be lost. Yet SWAN receives no support from within Burma and almost no international support, other than from small organisations such as HART.
I also raise another serious issue faced by health workers in many parts of Burma. In a recent Zoom call arranged by the Tropical Health and Education Trust, I was privileged to talk to nurses inside Burma who are desperate for supplies needed to provide healthcare. Many hospitals are now owned by the military, and attacks on civilians have caused many deaths, injuries and massive displacement.
There is an urgent need for aid for healthcare workers who, in spite of personal danger, are striving to provide healthcare to sick and vulnerable people. Many have been arrested, some have been killed and many more are living in dire conditions, working without funding or essential equipment.
I understand and greatly appreciate that the FCDO has been providing some funding, but I also understand that this funding for nurses is going to stop. In reality, it is even more needed as the situation deteriorates and the impact of Covid becomes more serious. I highlight that very serious problem. Any reduction or cessation of UK support for the Burmese nursing profession would create even more massive problems in the provision of healthcare, especially in remote regions. For example, there have been reports of hundreds of thousands of women deprived of care during childbirth which they would have received before the disruption inflicted by the military coup. This has led to a large increase in maternal and infant deaths. Also, effective treatment of most common conditions—for example, dengue and pneumonia—has become almost impossible, leading to great suffering and many more deaths. Therefore, I urge the FCDO to consider, as a matter of urgency, the provision of significant funding for Burmese healthcare professionals and, in particular in this context, nurses.
I also urge implementation of a policy of working with reliable agencies across national borders to reach those in dire need in remote areas who will not receive aid sent to Yangon. For example, in the past DfID, as it was then, provided cross-border life-saving aid to SWAN. DfID also enabled HART to supply life-saving funds to civilians in Chin state suffering from the Mawta famine, caused by the flowering of bamboo, attracting a massive invasion of rats, which devour all food supplies.
I mention those examples to highlight the fact that we have well-established relationships with health professionals in-country and across borders who have demonstrated integrity and professionalism. They are now all desperate for funding to provide life-saving supplies to some of the many thousands of displaced people driven from their homes by the military offensives and living in terrible conditions in remote jungle areas. I therefore make a passionate plea to the Government to provide life-saving cross-border aid to reach such civilians living in dire need. As I said, these people will not receive aid sent to Yangon.
I turn briefly to the middle belt region of Nigeria, where tens of thousands have been killed or wounded in horrific Islamist attacks, and where millions are displaced. Just a few days ago, I returned from a visit to some of the worst affected regions and witnessed the ruins of homes, farmland, food stores, churches and an orphanage—all attacked by Islamist Fulani militia in the past seven months. We heard detailed accounts of children slaughtered, a 98-year-old woman burned alive, and people hacked to death by machetes as they ran from rapid gunfire.
Islamist Fulani militia attacks continue to escalate against predominantly Christian villages in Nigeria’s middle belt. Thousands of killings have occurred since 2009, with countless others suffering life-changing injuries. It is estimated that around 3 million people in the central belt alone have been displaced by the destruction of their homes, insecurity and fear. Many Muslims who refuse to adopt the Islamist ideology of Boko Haram and the Islamist Fulani militia are also killed. According to Christian Solidarity International, at least 615 people were killed in just the first three weeks of this year by Islamist militants. The number has increased greatly since, as the killings continued during our time there.
The perpetration of atrocities also continues. These are a tiny proportion of the examples. A widow called Beatrice, aged 25 and from Plateau state, told us:
“I returned in the morning but everything was burnt. I went to my home and saw my mother and siblings butchered and burnt.”
A young mother called Ruth shared a similar story:
“Fulani militia burnt everything including animals. Hardly anything survived. Ten people were killed … some were burnt, others shot, others macheted.”
Janet, a mother of four children, told me this:
“I found my husband had been killed. I cannot go back to my village. It has been burnt. We are barely managing.”
Although Nigeria represents 2.4% of the world’s population, it contributes to 10% of global deaths for pregnant mothers and has the fourth-highest maternal mortality rate in the world. Its suffering is impossible to fathom.
So, too, is its courage and resilience. I give just one example: during my many visits to central Nigeria, I have been privileged to witness the phenomenal work of Gloria Kwashi, who is married to the equally inspiring Anglican Archbishop Ben Kwashi of Jos. They are both survivors of horrific Islamist violence and torture. However, Gloria’s enormous capacity for resilience and love is shown by her ever-expanding family. In addition to her own children, she and Archbishop Ben have adopted 57 orphans in need of care. She also runs a clinic and established a school for about 400 children, and gets up at 4 o’clock in the morning every day to prepare food for the hundreds of students. It makes me feel very humble.
Yet, like so many others in central Nigeria, she receives no support. Despite the escalating needs in the middle belt region, the United Kingdom does not provide any humanitarian assistance apart from a small interfaith mediation programme. Such a minimal response from the British Government is in no way appropriate to the scale and urgency of the humanitarian and security crises in central Nigeria. HART is responding to desperate requests to help with the provision of education and healthcare by supporting the provision of vehicles that take educational supplies to the displaced people forced to flee to remote areas. It will soon provide similar vehicles to take healthcare to these destitute civilians.
Therefore, while I commend the Government on their expressions of commitment to empower women and girls and prevent violence against them, I urge the Minister no longer to turn a deaf ear to the massive suffering of victims of violence in Burma’s ethnic states and Nigeria’s middle belt. There is an urgent need for an immediate humanitarian response to enable women to receive the aid they need and to maintain the inspirational contributions of the many valiant women who are working to alleviate suffering and promote human rights, freedom, democracy and peace. They are an inspiration and make me feel very humble.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am very pleased to take part in today’s debate. Like many others, I am pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, opened it in such a comprehensive way. I certainly do not envy her in responding to it, however, as it has already been so wide-ranging.
I take part today with a somewhat heavy heart, partly because I see the suffering of the women in Ukraine who have to bear such a heavy burden in facing the onslaught of a vicious Russian invasion, whether they stay or flee their homeland. Like the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, I salute the courage of the Russian TV news editor Marina Ovsyannikova, and I of course celebrate the wonderful news of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe coming home. I also celebrate the growing recognition of the achievements of women in the digital policy space that I speak on frequently.
More broadly, however, contrary to expectations, there has been a deterioration in women’s rights and condition in this country in many ways. I was a teenager in the 1960’s and it seemed then that growing equality of treatment in all walks of life and respect for women’s rights would lead to a better society. In so many areas, I fear that is not the case. As Refuge says in its briefing, women and girls in the UK continue to face appalling levels of violence. More than one in four women in England and Wales aged 16 to 74 experiences domestic abuse at some point in their lives, and an average of two women a week are killed by their partner or ex-partner—a statistic which has not changed in decades. Women’s Aid highlights the fact that 60% to 70% of women accessing mental health services have experienced domestic abuse.
As Refuge also says, technology is increasingly being weaponised by perpetrators of domestic abuse to harass, stalk and abuse survivors. Technology-facilitated domestic abuse—or tech abuse—has a devastating impact on both mental health and physical safety. The Online Safety Bill, published today, will be judged not only by whether it protects children, but also by whether it protects women from this kind of abuse.
Moreover, rape charges and convictions are at a minuscule level. Home Office crime figures show 56,152 alleged rapes in the year to September 2020, but analysis shows that just 1.5% of reported cases produced a charge. The Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Vera Baird, said:
“If you are raped in Britain today, your chances of seeing justice are slim. Even though police are now referring more and more cases to the CPS, we have seen a catastrophic fall in rape prosecutions. The latest data show just 1.5% of cases result in a charge. That means that more than 98% of cases do not reach court. This is shameful and has real and profound consequences for victims up and down the country.”
The drop in prosecutions has led to fewer convictions. There were 1,074 rapists convicted in the year to December 2020, a record low and a decline of 64% from the 2,991 convictions in 2016. In criminal justice, we have had equivocation about the status of misogynistic abuse and conduct as a criminal offence, as we heard so cogently from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy.
In healthcare, the foreword by Dame Clare Gerada to Public Policy Projects’ Redressing the Balance: A Women’s Health Agenda is damning. She says:
“It is my personal feeling that women have no more rights regarding their bodies and healthcare than when I was born 62 years ago. As a GP of over 40 years, I have treated thousands of women. However, throughout the process of crafting this report, I have been shocked to learn that many of the medical interventions and procedures held up by institutions and policymakers are not in place for the good of women’s health but serve to prevent women from being in control of their own bodies.”
Single-sex wards are under threat, as we have discussed during the passage of the health Bill last night.
As a Clapham resident, I was shocked by the policing of the Sarah Everard vigil, the complacency of the outgoing commissioner and the report of the police inspectorate. I am pleased by the outcome of the recent High Court case brought by the organisers, Jessica Leigh, Anna Birley, Henna Shah and Jamie Klingler. All that brings me on to freedom of speech, which is meant to be so dear to us in this country, and in particular to my party. Given the publication today of the Online Safety Bill and the response to the Joint Select Committee on which I sat, it is a highly topical issue.
I have never been trolled or piled on, but when I see those who engage in legitimate discussion of sex-based rights, such as Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstater, JK Rowling, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, and others in my party, cancelled, insulted or moderated out, then I despair. Where does this lead? Can we, for instance, not talk about the concerns raised by the Cass Review, the independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, for fear of giving offence?
There are a few facts from the Cass review which we must talk about. The number of children and young people being referred to GIDS has increased dramatically in just over a decade—from approximately 50 referrals per year in 2009 to 2,500 in 2020, with a waiting list of 4,600. The large majority of these referrals are now for what the report calls “birth-registered females” who are presenting in their early teens. In 2009, girls made up one-third of referrals to GIDS. In 2016, they made up over two-thirds. I have long worked in the autism field, and it is notable that around one-third of children and young people referred to GIDS have autism or other types of neurodiversity.
In the population as a whole, the percentage of people with autism is approximately 1%. If we are to be able to genuinely celebrate women’s achievements and advance their rights, it is vital that we are able to hold a conversation which is civilized and respectful. We must all be allowed to express our genuine beliefs—or, indeed, facts—without fear of censorship or abuse.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the many impressive women speakers here today and the supportive comments of men.
International Women’s Day is a celebration, but it is also a time to assess our progress in protecting the equalities of women. When we look back over the past year, many of us have been left shaken and distressed. The murder of Sarah Everard, and the behaviour of police officers supposedly protecting the bodies of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, were bad enough. However, the subsequent investigations revealed that a large number of police officers held deeply troubling attitudes towards women. It has left the impression that a significant number of serving police officers have, at the very least, a lack of respect for women in general—and their women colleagues in particular—and, at worst, a degree of hatred of women that is frightening.
When I have spoken on similar in issues in this House, some members thought that Scotland was in advance of England and Wales in the way in which it deals with serious sexual assault and rape. Unfortunately, this is not always the case—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and my noble friend Lady Kennedy can probably confirm. As in other police forces in the UK, there is clear evidence that Police Scotland has misogynists and sexual predators in its ranks. It has failed to protect women police officers, and members of the public, from some officers’ behaviour. A recent employment tribunal found evidence of a sexist culture in the force which left women officers scared to complain, in case they would be left unsupported by male officers when put in dangerous situations. The culture is exposed further by the evidence that over 100 officers faced charges of sexual misconduct, including sexual assault, against members of the public. These are the very people they were supposed to protect. It is hard not to conclude that this culture will deter women who need to report rape or sexual assault.
Two additional barriers exist in Scotland which put women and men off reporting such assaults. The first is the legal requirement for corroboration under Scots law. This requirement remains in place, despite an enquiry in 2011 which recommended its abolition. The report found that 58% of serious sexual offences, which were not pursued due to lack of corroboration, would have had a “reasonable prospect of conviction” in England and Wales.
The second additional barrier is the use of the “not proven” verdict, which is unsatisfactory for everyone concerned. It may allow the accused to escape conviction but it implies that they may have been guilty. The complainer may have to watch someone whom they think is a threat to their future safety walk away. “Not proven” is used disproportionately in rape cases. Rape Crisis Scotland pointed out that nearly 30% of acquittals in rape and attempted rape cases were not proven, compared with 17% for all other crimes and offences.
In March 2021, the Scottish cross-justice review group produced its final report, Improving the Management of Sexual Offence Cases. It made significant recommendations for a new approach to cases involving serious sexual offences, proposing that everyone involved in such cases should have sufficient understanding of the crimes involved and the potential impact on complainants. Its main recommendation was for a new national specialist court with trauma-informed procedures to deal with serious sexual offence cases. The judges, prosecutors and defence lawyers, as well as other court officials, would have trauma-informed training. The review further suggested the increased use of commissions for taking evidence, stating:
“It is unquestionable that if a complainer’s evidence, including cross-examination, were captured at as early a stage as possible, much of the trauma arising from the whole trial process would be diminished, the time scale for the complainer’s direct involvement would be greatly compressed and the traumatic effect considerably alleviated. The benefits are such that it cannot be disputed that this is a change which must be made as soon as possible.”
A third proposal for consideration was that sexual offence complainers should have independent legal representation. This recognises the potential tension between the interests of the complainer and those of the Crown. The low level of rape cases that go to trial and the very low rate of convictions show that serious sexual offences are different to most other criminal cases. At every turn, problems arise that prevent a fair trial. These recommendations offer a different approach. I hope that the Minister can recommend this report to the relevant department for England and Wales. For my own part, I hope that the Scottish Government, who have welcomed the report, will soon take action on it.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I speak today from the perspective of a retired male lawyer—pale and perhaps a little stale. I shall look at where we have come from and where we have got to today because history is important.
I start with the Matrimonial Causes Act 1857, under which, for the first time, men could petition the court for a divorce on the basis of their wife’s adultery. However, a wife wanting to divorce her husband had to prove not just his adultery but an aggravating factor such as rape or incest. That imbalance continued until the Matrimonial Causes Act 1923, which put husbands and wives on an equal footing, each now able to divorce the other on the grounds of simple adultery.
Women’s property rights picked up—that is, for those who had some property—when, in 1882, the Married Women’s Property Act allowed married women to own and control property in their own right for the first time. That was, for some at least, a big step forward.
Let me turn to suffrage. Things kicked off in the late 1880s when a woman who fulfilled the necessary property qualifications was permitted to vote in the new London County Council elections. I have a particular interest in this. My great-great-grandmother, the first Lady Sandhurst—by then a widow—questioned why, if she could vote, she could not be a candidate. So, in 1889, she stood in the London County Council elections—in the Liberal interest, I fear. She won the popular vote in the Brixton seat but her defeated and cross Conservative opponent challenged her election in the courts. He argued that, although the statute gave her the right to vote, it spoke only of men as elected members. That argument succeeded and she was disqualified. She was not deterred: in 1890, she was elected president of the Society for Promoting the Return of Women as County Councillors. She would have been very proud of my aunt, her great-granddaughter, who became a county councillor and, later, the chairman of Oxfordshire County Council.
Although the right to vote in general elections was given to women after the First World War, as we all know, there was still discrimination against women because they could not vote until they attained the age of 30. Only in 1928 was that limitation removed. At much the same time, in 1921, we had the Sex Disqualification (Removal) Act. This enabled women to read for the Bar. Helena Florence Normanton was the first woman to take advantage of that Act and join an Inn of Court. In November 1922, she was the second woman to be called to the Bar of England and Wales, following the example of Ivy Williams in May 1922.
Progress for the women was slow at first but, after the war, it got a bit better. In 1949, Normanton and Rose Heilbron both took Silk. The next year, in 1950, Elizabeth Lane took Silk. Lane was appointed the first woman County Court judge in 1962 and, three years later, the first woman in the Family Division of the High Court. I appeared quite often before her; she was a jolly good judge. Now, we have women judges at all levels, including the very highest, even if they are still outnumbered by men.
On a personal level, when I joined my chambers of, I think, 15 or 16 men in 1973, it had no women members. There were growing numbers of women at the Bar; a contemporary of mine was Heather Hallett, now the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, will know, women undoubtedly needed even more grit and luck to start at the Bar than men—much more. In 1977, we selected the first woman member of my chambers. I recall the initial discussions well. They revolved around two things: first, the lavatory facilities; and, secondly, whether she would leave to have children.
However, we overcome that barrier. Thereafter, at least in my chambers, a candidate’s sex was never an issue. We recruited many more women, although I acknowledge that I cannot say the same throughout the Bar. We also learned, in my chambers, to treat women with respect and not to expect them to join in and enjoy so-called banter. Happily, as I speak today, my old chambers has six women as Queen’s Counsels and a substantial number of women members. Two former women members now sit on the High Court Bench. One of them, Philippa Whipple, will this afternoon be sworn in as a Lady Justice of Appeal.
So, we make progress and have come a long way. However, when I look at the wider world, there is much still to be done. Childcare is hugely expensive. In most, if not all, families, the burden of running the home still falls more heavily on women. I know; I have a working daughter. The large number of women graduates and the growth of working from home will perhaps see the balance change over time and male partners take a greater share. I certainly hope so.
However, to my mind—we have heard this from other noble Lords today—even more serious than opportunities at work are the incidents of daily life that women have to put up with. Only yesterday, the business pages on the BBC News website had as the lead item that Lloyd’s of London had fined a member firm, Atrium Underwriters, £1 million because it had
“admitted charges relating to bullying and misconduct during annual ‘boys’ nights out’ … These included initiation games, heavy drinking and making inappropriate and sexualised comments about female colleagues”.
That was yesterday, so we men have much to learn. We must all do better.
However, the worst part of this laddish culture is that, as we have heard, the disrespect for women and plain misogyny at its heart is not just unpleasant and demeaning for women but leads to violence. This is not getting better. I looked at the crime figures for London. In 2010-11, some 3,300 rape offences were recorded. Ten years later, in 2019-20, that figure had more than doubled to 7,890. As we know only too well, women are afraid to walk home at night alone. I could go on. Put simply, until we men—I am not perfect myself—treat all women with respect and decency, those numbers will not improve.
More generally, too many women are demeaned. That is why, for my part, I am sorry to see the pressure from some in the transgender debate. In arguing for rights, some advocates pour scorn on women who wish to preserve privacy and personal modesty. Women should not have to give up their hard-won rights before they have even got true, effective equality with men. We have come a long way but have a long way still to go. We can and must do better. Women must not come second.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this International Women’s Day debate, as I have done every year for the past decade, on the topic of women’s equality in this country and around the world. This is a critical time because the impact of inequality is always worse in times of conflict and hardship, so I will focus my remarks on the plight of women fleeing war in Ukraine.
We must pray for all those left behind in Ukraine to face the pitiless Russian forces. They include the old and infirm, who will not or cannot leave their homes, and the men and boys who are forbidden to leave with their families and left to fight the invader. But my concern today is with the Ukrainian mothers who have had to flee with their children, not knowing when or whether their families will be reunited. We know this category forms the majority of refugees from Ukraine, at this stage.
For now, and in many cases perhaps for ever, these are single-headed households. As such, they face a double whammy: the inequality of the refugee, navigating the many obstacles placed in their way as they seek refuge, as we have seen in recent weeks; and the inequality of the single mother who must not only be there for her children, but put food on the table, clothe them and ensure they can go to school and receive medical care. All this is while they deal with, and all too often hide, the trauma of their own experiences and their fears for the partners and parents they left behind.
It reminds us that ensuring the equality of women requires us all to take positive action. This is not a matter of ticking boxes or of theoretical rights. Equality requires us to take the trouble to see the reality of how others live, and respond with the humanity and generosity that we are so quick to claim but so slow to dispense. I will not dwell on the delays we have seen in living up to our promises of generosity, but instead focus on what we can and should do to help these mothers in their hour of need.
Last weekend, the Communities Secretary said we will put our arms around them and give them all the support they need. That is welcome. He also said that the first arrivals under the new scheme could be expected this weekend, so let us do all we can to ensure that the support available to these wretched people, and to the British families opening their homes to them, is fit for purpose. It is not just a matter of welcoming these single mothers as refugees. We can do better than that; we can see they are doubly disadvantaged and do something about it.
The Loomba Foundation, which I chair, is planning an association with Rotary International worldwide, and with it in the UK and Ireland, to raise funds in support of Ukrainian mothers fleeing with their dependent children. We will draw on the Loomba Foundation’s extensive experience of the plight of widows, including those widowed in conflict and natural disasters, who all too often face that same double whammy of a sudden change in their status with an increased responsibility for their dependents. The mothers and children fleeing Ukraine are in that situation and we know what it takes to, as the Communities Secretary put it, give them all the support they need.
My plea to the Government today is to do more than matchmaking and providing sums of money to host families and local authorities, essential as this is, but to make sure the dots are connected across national and local government to offer the tailored and joined-up support for these refugees: first, by identifying the likely needs from counselling and health to schooling and economic empowerment, and facilitating a multi-agency response; secondly, by reaching out to mothers arriving with their children and telling them about the special support that is available; and finally, by setting up a special helpline that they can contact for advice.
Women’s inequality has all too often been invisible and ignored, yet the irony is that it is women who are the first emergency service, the people we rely on to look after the children and to care for the elderly and vulnerable. Making women’s equality real means understanding and dealing with the barriers they face. That is an investment that always pays off.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin with the good news. I very much welcome the return of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori and acknowledge that they were victims of geopolitics in which they played no part, as indeed are the women, girls, men and boys in Ukraine.
It is important in a debate such as today’s that we look around us. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, looked at the situation across the political parties. He left one out, however, and I am very proud to say that it currently has 100% female parliamentary representation. Like the Liberal Democrats, we are looking to greatly grow our representation. I am sure there will be some men in the next tranche, but I hope we keep the percentage of females very high.
I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on the location and timing of this debate. I do not know how many people have looked up and thought that we are conducting this debate at the feet of the patriarch. There could hardly be a less appropriate place for it.
When I speak in your Lordships’ House, I often seek to share the words of women of today who are less privileged, who do not have access to the Chambers and who do not have a voice. Today, as we speak in the midst of a building filled with portraits and statues of largely dead, white, rich males, I shall seek to allow voices of women from the past to be heard in your Lordships’ House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, said, there has been a conspiracy of silence. The words and voices of women right through history have so often been suppressed. I will bring a few of those to your Lordships’ House today to see what we can learn from their courage, determination and achievements.
I start by looking at tackling and calling out violence. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, spoke very powerfully about the risks women face outside the home today, as they always have, but of course we know that, today and in the past, the greatest risks of violence against women are inside the home. The 15th-century Italian poet and author of The Book of the City of Ladies, Christine de Pizan, wrote:
“How many women are there … who because of their husbands’ harshness spend their weary lives in the bond of marriage in greater suffering than if they were slaves … ?”
I also quote the 18th-century English legal theorist, Sarah Chapone:
“a Man … he may be as Despotick (excepting the Power over Life itself) as the Grand Seignior in his Seraglio, with this Difference only, that the English Husband has but one Vassal to treat according to his variable Humour, whereas the Grand Seignior having many, it may be supposed, that some of them, at some Times may be suffered to be at quiet”.
We sometimes think that, in the past, women were forced to endure but they always fought back and spoke out. It is really important that we listen—during this Women’s History Month, as well as by marking International Women’s Day—to our foremothers there. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham talked about how so much education in other countries is male-orientated. Of course, that is also true of so much of our education system today. I do not know, if we went into a school today, how many pupils would know of the two authors I have just quoted.
Looking at the issue of art, there is another woman who I wish to quote, the Italian Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi. I would posit that she produced some of the most wonderful art that has ever been created. She did so after the most awful and difficult origins. She was raped as a young woman in 1611. When she was 18 years old, she was tortured in court to forcibly prove the honesty of her testimony. Artemisia Gentileschi went on to produce wonderful paintings. Among them, and perhaps the most famous, is the biblical story of “Judith Slaying Holofernes”. That painting depicts Judith, with a knife, cutting off the head of an enemy, while she is helped by another woman to hold that enemy down. I invite your Lordships’ House to imagine what it might be like if that painting were up there, instead of the one that is before us. One of the quotes which comes down to us from Artemisia is:
“As long as I live I will have control over my being.”
What an inspirational phrase that is.
I will also look more broadly than the fate of individuals by turning to Hypatia, the fifth-century Alexandrian philosopher and political adviser. One of her quotes which comes down to us is:
“Regardless of our colour, race and religion, we are brothers”
and sisters. We might think that we have culture wars today, but the culture wars between pagans and Christians in fifth-century Alexandria were considerably more violent. Those noble Lords who know the fate of Hypatia will know that her body bore extreme scars and the cause of her death was that culture war, but she said that we are all brothers and sisters. Let us listen to this wisdom from women of the past.
Finally, I come to one last person to quote, someone who is much closer to the current day: Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan Nobel Peace Prize winner. She said:
“We are called to assist the Earth to heal her wounds and in the process heal our own—indeed, to embrace the whole creation in all its diversity, beauty and wonder.”
Wangari Maathai was talking about a different kind of model to that which existed, not just in past decades or centuries, but past millennia. In a very fast scan, I have gone through women’s history over the past two millennia. For those millennia, we have had a man-made system. It has given us the world we have today. It is a world in which people are exploited—particularly, but not solely, women—and in which nature is exploited and destroyed, just as people are also exploited and destroyed.
The Minister, in opening this debate, spoke about the slogan for this International Women’s Day, “Break the Bias”. I argue that we need something far more fundamental, as all those women from history teach us. We need to break the system. The system has failed us, and we need a new system with women as leaders at its heart.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate—I have learned quite a lot—and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I am glad that she referred to education because my background is the world of business schools. The language there is entirely male and aggressive. Accounting and finance are all about domination, control, slicing, selling, asset-stripping and plundering. Nobody cares if workers are fired and have no home to go to at the end of the day. None of that ever comes into any accounting calculation. Nobody ever considers the social impact of redundancies, wage reduction and tax avoidance. However, women are more concerned about nurturing, supporting and growing things. There is a stark difference. Women who enter business schools are increasingly forced to leave their feminine selves outside and behind. That is fundamentally wrong. Women need to be valued in their own right in what they bring, not in how they compare to men. That requires fundamental thought. I hope to return to this issue another day in another debate.
I note that the Motion says
“that the Grand Committee takes note of International Women’s Day and the United Kingdom’s role in furthering and protecting the equality of women”.
I wonder what had happened to equity—where is it? Equity is very important too. Without it, many people will never attain fairness and equality. In many ways, equity and equality are elusive. They are always in the process of being made but they never finally are because of many social divisions. That requires constant vigilance, new approaches and searching to deal with social problems. I would have preferred to see equity mentioned as well.
We are in a strange scenario where we have more women in government than ever before yet women’s economic progress seems to have stalled or is slowing down. That is a paradox. I wonder whether women in government are increasingly asked or forced, perhaps unconsciously, to adopt male objectives rather than the female approaches to which I referred earlier, such as growing, nurturing and supporting. Again, that needs to be looked at.
Life expectancy has stalled, if not gone into reverse. Life expectancy for women has now declined, according to ONS data, from 83.6 years to 82.6 years. Inevitably, the poorest women are most negatively affected, yet the Government are doing incredibly little to reduce poverty. If anything, inequalities have increased. More people live in poverty than ever before—14.5 million. That was even before the pandemic, the situation is far worse now.
The Equal Pay Act 1970 promised an era of equal pay for equal work but that remains elusive. Women’s median hourly rate is 10.2% less than men’s. The latest statistic we had from the Government on the gender pay gap for full-time and part-time employees was 15.4%. Why are we yet to reach a goal that we set ourselves 50 years ago? What exactly are the Government doing? I know that we will hear about the many things that the Government are doing—X, Y and Z—but the facts as indicated by the data pose this question: has enough been done? Why has enough not been done?
We are referring here to women, but, of course, women are not a homogenous category. They are differentiated by age, class, disability, ethnicity and many other social factors. Black women are the least likely to be among the UK’s top earners. They face the double hit of gender and ethnicity, which is why I referred earlier to equity. What can we do to lift them up? They are the most underrepresented group in the top percentiles of income in the UK. Some progress could be made by mandatory ethnicity pay reporting but the Government are vehemently opposed to that. It is hard to see how progress on the ethnicity pay gap can be made when the Government accept the principle of gender pay gap reporting for women but not on the basis of ethnicity. That does not help many women; I hope that the Government will revisit it.
Low pay for women results in low occupational pensions, low contributions and, eventually, low pensions. This condemns them and their dependents to poverty and insecurity, especially in later life. We have 1.25 million retired women living in poverty. The Government’s response is to cut the triple lock on the state pension, which pushes even more people into poverty. Again, that is unsatisfactory. The state pension for women is always less than for men, according to the statistics published by the DWP. Why does it have to be less? Of course, over the years, women may pay less in, but is that the only way we are measure somebody’s value—that they have paid less in so they get less out? Is there no other basis on which to think about it, such as humanity, decency, morality or ethics? The two should really be equalised. The state pension for women needs to be lifted up and should be at least as much as what is given to men.
The Government publish all kinds of budgets—we will have the Spring Statement next week—and lots of other legislation but they are never really accompanied by a gender impact assessment. What is the gender impact assessment of what the Government propose in a budget? We struggle to see it. I raised this last year, when I got a lot of soothing noises from Ministers—I have also raised it at other times in the House—but there have been no developments whatever. We now have income tax being hiked by stealth and national insurance contributions being increased as well, but there is no gender gap analysis. Who will suffer the most? What about single mothers? Will they really suffer the most? The answer, possibly, is yes but absolutely no attention is paid to that.
In his Budget Statement last October, the Chancellor used the word “women” just once in his speech but there was not even one gender-specific policy to help women—not one. However, there was a policy that would hurt women: the cut in universal credit of £1,040, affecting 4.4 million families. The Government took back £4 billion from the poorest and gave it to the bankers. Many of the households affected by that are led by single mothers but no help was given to them at all; they are basically condemned.
There is a gender division of labour in our society. Many women are confined to low-paid jobs, whether in teaching, nursing, social care, supermarkets, hospitality or other sectors, yet the Government have imposed a wage freeze. Again, they hurt women the most in pursuit of their economic objectives—although I have never really understood what those objectives are.
The take-home pay of many women has declined as a result of these austerity policies and wage freezes. They are therefore prevented access to nutritious food, good education, healthcare and other essentials. There is again a gender issue here.
We have a paradox: a female worker in social care or a supermarket is getting paid and will pay extra national insurance of 1.25 percentage points, but a speculator speculating on how much economic surplus those individuals will generate will not pay anything from the capital gains made from those speculations. They will not pay any national insurance, never mind the extra 1.25 percentage points. Who are the winners? Who are these speculators? Mostly, they are men. At the very least, the Government could see that the gains picked up by men through speculation are shared with women on whose backs they are made. I see no analysis of or sensitivity to these gender issues in the Government’s policies.
There is no equity or equality of tax treatment of earned and unearned income. That again has gender consequences, because women in low-paid employment are paying taxes at a higher rate than those who are making money through other sources, such as dividends or capital gains. Again, the analysis shows they are predominantly men. Government policies have also condemned many to use food banks; again women suffer, because they are on low pay.
Take just one more example. We have an increase in homelessness all around us these days. You see it as you enter Tube stations and other places. Two-thirds of homeless Londoners living in temporary accommodation are women, so 42,000 women are homeless in London alone. Of the homeless households living in temporary accommodation in London, 39% are headed by a single mother. Many are homeless because of domestic abuse or poverty, or they cannot afford to pay rents because their income is low and the tax system does not do much for them. Unaffordable housing is a key factor and women bear the brunt of housing policy failures.
The cost of living crisis, on top of cuts to universal credit, housing benefit and sexist policies such as the benefit cap, makes it much harder for women and their families to keep a roof over their heads. The Government can help by reversing the damaging welfare cuts and increasing all benefits, at least in line with inflation. That would help to reduce homelessness among women, single mothers and their children. By building high-quality homes with rents linked to local wages, not what the landlords want, the Government can prevent more women becoming homeless. Let us celebrate this year and I hope the Minister makes some positive promises in return.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. At least I will not feel lonely talking about the economics of gender inequality. First, the title of the debate says
“furthering and protecting the equality of women”.
We are really saying that we are combating inequality and hoping that we can reduce it as much as possible.
The central inequality I want to talk about, which is almost eternal, is who does the work. Economists tend to talk about work in terms of paid work. They say there is work then there is leisure, but how does an individual choose how many hours to work? That is all fine, but a lot of work is unpaid and most unpaid work is done by women. We have very little accounting of unpaid work in formal economic analysis and very few policies to deal with unpaid work.
Over a long career in economics, I have explored the idea of citizens’ income—basic income, as it used to be called. The argument with basic income for a long time was that it did not actually deal with the gender issue. How it was dealt with was that citizens’ income should be available for all voters, paid without asking any questions. But then it was said that, if you paid people just the basic income, without work, they would stop working—and then what would happen? That is an irony about paid work: whether you pay basic income or not, unpaid work has to be carried on, because society lives on unpaid work—not only with cooking, childcare, nursing and care of the elderly, but all sorts of things, such as cleaning the house, that are mainly done by women.
It is a very interesting paradox—not paradox, but something to note—that when something like universal credit or other welfare state arrangements are made, there is a great compulsion to say whether you are seeking work. Unless you are seeking work, you are not eligible to be paid money when you are out of work. It is very interesting, because quite a lot of women will not be able to seek work because of unpaid work demands made on them because of the size of the family and other things, which may make it difficult for them to qualify for universal credit in a world in which that is a requirement.
One problem we will have to face is whether we can fashion a basic income package just for women, or for anybody who does unpaid work. That is especially important in the discussion on the Health and Care Bill. It has often been mentioned that some social care workers are not involuntary social care workers as such, but in a family the social care burden has fallen on the woman, who is around. They are unpaid, in a whole category of unpaid social workers, and we ought to be doing something about unpaid social care workers. One idea would be to create a basic income especially for women. Just as we talk about citizens’ income, this would be women’s citizens’ income. You would have to be of voting age to be able to accrue, earn or receive that basic income.
I recently contributed a piece to something called the Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income with a co-author who was a woman, who was very much the leading light in this joint work. She pointed out that the distinction between paid and unpaid work is central to the issue of gender inequality. Because unpaid work is not compensated, women always have inequality of income relative to men. I know that there is no money in the Government and that they want to cut taxes rather than give money away and so on, but we are about to enter a very difficult economic period in the next five or six years. We will have stagflation and all those sorts of things, so we will have to take greater care of vulnerable citizens, who are mainly women.
Since the Minister answering for the Government is in charge of giving money away on pensions and all sorts of other things—we always have to go to her and say, “Look, can you give us a bit more?”—she ought to explore the idea that women should be paid something like £50 a day for the weekend. It would be a sort of weekend bonus; nothing very much, but only for working-age women. We ought to experiment with that, because doing so would be an experiment in trying to reduce the inequality gap between men and women who are of working age.
That is about it; I do not want to say any more about this and that, because I am the 17th speaker out of 18. However, I want to make one remark on what the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, said. He mentioned the woke controversy that is going on. It is a peculiar thing that the debate about what and who is a woman. It is interesting. It is a difficult job, because the people who question the word “woman”, and so on, are probably as deprived as everybody else. However, we cannot have the majority suffer because the minority feels that it is deprived.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not a flippant comment, but I think we ought to make a distinction of women by birth and women by choice, and men by birth and men by choice. That kind of usage could become normal, or at least usual. We are not insulting anybody, but there is a question of choice. There should be symmetry for both sexes. If you can say “women by birth” and “women by choice”, it may be that the noise—
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I want to say something to my dear friend and former economics teacher at the LSE: he probably should not go there because this is not about choice. People who are gay do not choose to be so; they are gay. People who believe that they are a woman believe they are a woman. People who believe that they are a man believe they are a man. There is absolutely a debate to be had but, frankly, it is not a choice.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
This is not the first time one of my proposals has bitten the dust. The fact that I taught the noble Baroness at LSE makes me proud that she has finally sorted me out. That being said, I think I should conclude.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
I have the unenvious task of being yet one more pale male.
I do not always agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but I agreed with many things in her contribution. I certainly agree with her that, next year, we should not let us become second-class citizens and have the debate in here again. It should be in the Chamber. The symbolism of it—that this has somehow become a second-class debate, with someone saying, “It’ll do, just put it in the Moses Room”—has rightly been remarked on. He was one of my ancestors was perhaps not the most progressive male on the planet, but he was a man of his time. And I cannot help but say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that the Church fought long and hard to have women bishops. It has to mark its calendar; they should be represented.
I want to return to the last part of the debate. I disagreed with my noble friend Lady Thornton when she endeavoured to say, “Well, this is how it is and we shouldn’t go there”. Well, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, did go there, as he had absolutely every right to do. He asserted a view that is held by many—perhaps not by my noble friend, but by many—that there is a biological sex of men and women.
Baroness Penn (Con)
Noble Lords deserve to be heard in their contribution to the debate.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
Thank you, but I was not going to stop anyway.
This is an important debate, and it is an issue that deserves to be aired on International Women’s Day, as the noble Lord, Lord, Farmer, did. I want to draw attention to women who I think have been very strong and willing to express a view. My interest in this debate started with JK Rowling, who had the temerity to suggest that there was a word, and it was “women”. That produced an unbelievable uproar, and it was followed by Kathleen Stock, who lost her job trying to say the same thing. Interestingly, another woman I admire, also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord, Farmer, is the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, who took over a really tough job at the Equality and Human Rights Commission saying much the same thing: that women’s safe spaces should be protected and that people have to respect the view that there is such a thing as women, which has nothing to do with saying that we should in any way discriminate against transgender people.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned the very important Cass review that came out recently and found that in the current system, far too many young people are being offered puberty blockers on the basis that they have changed their gender. In fact, 80% of people who presented at the Tavistock clinic with symptoms of gender dysphoria discovered, by the time they reached 18, that they are either gay or lesbian, and that trying to change their body was not the solution to their problems. There was the famous case of Keira Bell, who went to extreme lengths and then realised that that was not the solution to her problems in life.
These are difficult issues. The importance of the Cass review is that it says that there should be clinics around the country and much faster treatment for young people. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned young people with autism. I was listening to a group of concerned clinicians recently, and they said that the huge impact of social media on young people is the biggest single factor that makes young girls believe that, somehow, they are in the wrong body. We should not underestimate the impact of social media.
The older I get, the more I find that the women in my life are the most interesting. The women that I have met are inspirational. I shall refer to some of them. I recently came across the woman writer, Bernanadine Evaristo. What an amazing writer. If you have not read her, I recommend her book, Girl, Woman, Other, but even more superb is her autobiography, Manifesto. It tells you what it is like growing up in a mixed-race family in the 1960s: pretty tough. She fought over the years to establish herself. I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because I am a lover of Renaissance art, but it was not that long ago that I discovered Artemisia Gentileschi. There are some wonderful people in the arts.
There are three women I know who I admire. I chair an advisory committee on a social enterprise. The CEO who runs it is an absolutely amazing woman called Jenny Holloway. She pays herself very little. She recruits and trains mostly women in Haringey. They learn how to become machinists and cut patterns to be able to start their own businesses. She single-handedly decided that she would save the Laura Ashley factory in Powys when it closed down, much against my advice because I thought it was mission impossible. She succeeded, and is opening another training establishment in Leicester to stop women there being exploited in the clothing industry.
Ushma Patel is the power behind the throne of the local landlord in my pub. What makes her interesting? We started to chat one night and she told me that she had donated a kidney and not long after that climbed Mount Kilimanjaro. I once thought about climbing Mount Kilimanjaro with two kidneys, never mind one. I take my hat off to Ushma, who is an amazing woman.
My wife does God in our family, as I somewhat irreverently state, but I go along occasionally on high days and holy days. Once I went along and listened to a lay minister, Liz Wolverson, give an amazing sermon. She fascinated me. I learned a bit more about her. She is the diocesan director of Church of England schools in London. She has rescued probably 10 failing schools. She is a tough cookie: she gives the head teacher six months and if they do not improve she waves goodbye to them.
In my opinion, these are really interesting women. There are many more of them. I am an admirer of Kemi Badenoch, the Minister for Women in the Government.
Last but by no means least on my list, I will mention the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. I did not know a lot about Debbie. We were talking one day and she told me about her life in the Salvation Army, which she educated me about in a way I never knew before. She can sing some damn good salvation songs as well, but I will not get her to do that here. What I admire about her—I checked, and she would not mind me saying this—is that she is out but proud. That takes a lot of guts. Whatever you think about the policies she annunciates on behalf of the Government, and not everyone will agree with them, nobody can accuse her of not caring.
I ought to hurry up. The Minister talked about more women in STEM. I prefer STEAM, to get the arts in there. It is changing. I am meeting more women in apprenticeships. The Industry and Parliament Trust had a dinner and there were some wonderful women there. There was one young black woman bringing up a disabled child who had joined as a bus driver. I asked, “What’s it like being in a bus garage? All the rest are men, aren’t they?” She said yes. I asked about the banter. She said, “It’s pretty bad, but I’ve learned to hold my own.” The manager of the company was there, and I pointed out to him that it was not about her holding her own but about him improving the management and training in that company.
We should not be too despairing about what is happening. I met two young British Asian women recently who absolutely staggered me. I asked them what they do; I was stereotyping and thought that they were going to be doctors, lawyers, accountants, whatever. One was a civil engineer and the other a quantity surveyor working on HS2. I said, “I’ve got to go and meet your mum and dad.” That is fantastic to see. We should not despair. The other young woman apprentice I met was a paralegal, interestingly. That is another route into it.
Are attitudes changing? I think they are. People laugh when I say this, but I see more men pushing children in buggies than I ever used to. Have things changed fundamentally? No. There is a lot more progress to be made, of course. Men need to be more involved in childcare.
Nobody has referred to the impact of the pandemic we have been through, with lots more working from home. Women have suddenly begun to think, “Why do I have to commute five or six days a week? I want more time, especially if I’m going to be involved in childcare.” I agree with some of what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said.
There has been a lot of talk about single parents and I agree that childcare costs are very important. Too many fathers are still abdicating responsibility and we do not do enough about that. But what is the single most important thing we could do for a single-parent family? Get somebody in that family into work. That has one of the most profound influences. Then children do not grow up in a family where generation after generation seems to think that they do not need to join the world of work. They do; it is fundamental. The example set by a mother being in work is important.
You can criticise universal credit—people frequently do. Some do so because they do not really know much about the system, I have to say. But let me say this. First, I understand the concern about the £20, but people forget about the taper change, which made quite a difference when people were in work. Secondly, the most staggering achievement of the universal credit system is the digitisation. Some 6 million extra people were able to go on to universal credit during the pandemic. That was an astonishing achievement. Many women were able to take advantage of it.
On pay equality, pay for work of equal value, I look at my son and daughter. I am really proud of Laura, my daughter. She is an advanced clinical practitioner in A&E at Northwick Park Hospital and worked right through the pandemic. She is absolutely brilliant. She is twice as qualified as her brother, Paul, but earns half as much. Why? Because he is in IT. That is the value that we put on them.
This has been a fascinating debate. I would like to end by mentioning the woman who I admire most—the one who has put up with me—Lady Margaret. She is amazing. She is a very skilled craftswoman, but is modest about her achievements. She brought up the family mainly, in my absence. She has a very sharp sense of humour. Recently, we were looking at a bottle of wine in Marks & Sparks. It was quite expensive, so I said, “What are we celebrating?” Quick as a flash, she said, “Well, we’re still alive.” That is something we all need to celebrate. I have enjoyed taking part in the debate and look forward to mission impossible for the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, as she covers the waterfront.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I am also grateful that I am still alive. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for introducing this very wide-ranging debate so comprehensively. I am very glad that we have had a debate for International Women’s Day, though I echo the complaints voiced by my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, the noble Baronesses, Lady Gale and Lady Bennett, and others that it did not take place close to the day itself or in the Chamber. I pay tribute to the Conservative Peers who successfully put pressure on their leadership, who had no plans to schedule this. The wonderful noble Baroness, Lady Gale, played a key part years ago in making sure that we would hold this debate.
I hope noble Lords have forgiven my absence while I went to contribute on the Statement on the release of the Iranian detainees. It is hugely welcome that Nazanin and Anoosheh are now back home. Of course, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, noted, in the context of this debate, it is wonderful to welcome Nazanin back, caught up as she was—and as so many women are—by events beyond her control.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Purvis, not only for his outstanding speech but for taking a full note of the speeches that I missed. Of course, had we been in the Chamber I would not have had this conflict.
We know that there is no country in the world, yet, where there is gender equality. We know that the Scandinavian countries lead in this regard, and that the least developed countries see the greatest gap between the genders. That is where it is most stark.
As I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, I had a sense of déjà vu—no doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, will as well. The same questions remain unanswered since those first debates in your Lordships’ House and the wonderful team that I see arrayed behind the Minister should be well prepared. They and their forebears will have been passing the same notes to the Minister, year in and year out. Why, for example, have we not ratified the Istanbul convention, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale? Why does GEO move from department to department, inadequately supported? When will our Parliaments reach gender parity? Why are we not centrally addressing the position of women in the UK, let alone overseas? They are all so familiar.
So what has happened since we last debated the position of women in the United Kingdom and the wider world? In the UK, as worldwide, the pandemic has hit women harder than men, even though the disease itself may not discriminate. The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, picked up the point about how it has hit women harder. Why is that so in the United Kingdom? The same reasons apply elsewhere: women are more likely to have been working in sectors that were disrupted, to have to care for children and to home-school them, and to have responsibility for elderly relatives. All this means the pandemic has hit them harder. We know too, as noble Lords have mentioned, that domestic violence rose and that fewer resources were available to assist women in that circumstance. Women’s Aid has noted that around two-thirds of women seeking access to mental health services, which themselves are scarce, have suffered domestic abuse. As it points out, gender inequality is both a cause and consequence of violence against women and girls—the sharpest end of women’s disadvantage in this country and worldwide.
My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones highlighted the appalling situation we are now in on holding people to account over violence against women and girls. A number of other noble Lords mentioned this. It is appalling to see the awful trolling of women online which my noble friend mentioned. So many women MPs receive death threats; how could we encourage our daughters to come into politics today? The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has urged that we move forward urgently in this area. She has a remarkable record on this and pointed to the proposed misogyny criminal justice Act for Scotland. We have been debating having that for England and it has been pushed back. The noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, pointed to the lack of progress in Scotland.
Now, as we come out of the pandemic, theoretically, we face the economic consequences. As the noble Lords, Lord Sikka and Lord Desai, and others indicated, unless you have economic equality you will have no other form of equality. The Government warn of constrained budgets, despite hugely rising fuel costs and inflation hitting the price of food and clothes. Again, this hits the poorest the hardest, as we have heard, and women are on average poorer than men. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham pointed to the way in which women are terribly disadvantaged economically, including through the extraordinary restrictions on universal credit for families beyond two children.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, rightly noted in his fascinating speech, women still carry the greater burden of caring. As we look internationally, we know that the situation can be dire for many women and girls around the world. As we know, in theory, almost as many girls are now in school as boys, which is welcome. However, in reality, the level and quality of schooling differs. The boys are in the better schools and are in school for longer; this brings enhanced life chances. How, therefore, will the Government deliver the global education commitments made in 2021? We have already heard about the 58% gap in economic participation and opportunity, and the gigantic gap in political empowerment.
What did we do in the middle of a worldwide pandemic? We cut aid. Here I must endorse my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed’s speech and his castigation of the Government over their cut in aid. It is all very well saying the same things we hear year in and year out: “We support women and girls internationally, we are supporting education” and so on. No country has gender equality, and it is worst in the poorest countries. That is where our aid is supposed to be going. So, if we cut aid, of necessity we damage the position of women and girl. It is no wonder that the FCDO did not want to publish its impact assessment. The conclusion could not be otherwise: the cuts would hurt women.
No amount of “we can’t afford this” can possibly excuse such an action from one of the richest countries on the planet. The first thing to do is to restore the level of aid. If the Minister cannot do that then no amount of notes from the officials behind will answer that basic question. My noble friend Lord Purvis is right that women and girls must be front and centre in our new, upcoming international development strategy. Will this be the case?
I now put forward the key area of sexual health and reproductive rights. This is absolutely essential to women and to their families, communities and countries. It is of fundamental importance as a pillar for achieving all other areas of gender equality. I recall, when I was a DfID Minister, being in a community where we supported family planning. The image will always stay in my mind of a young woman, probably in her teens, with twins attached to her, sitting on the ground with other small children under five playing around her. She was exhausted. We know exactly why family planning would help her—and she would know too, if she could give any energy or attention to it at all. Fewer children in a family means more of them in school, and the mother is better able to earn a living and more likely to be able to take advantage of the possibilities of microfinance, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham mentioned.
We all know that we face the climate emergency, which the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, mentioned. This will roll back women’s rights globally. The poorest and most vulnerable women and girls are often the most vulnerable to climate change, and often lack the resources required to adapt to it to ensure the protection of their livelihoods and well-being. With increasing drought, women and girls are expected to travel longer distances to collect water and firewood, exposing them to further sexual and gender-based violence. The destruction of households and livelihoods has become a reality for communities hard hit by climate change. In some cases, this loss of livelihood leads to increases in transactional sex and the risk of teenage pregnancies. Women are especially vulnerable in conflict, which will be promoted by climate change. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, for her work in this area over so many years, including her necessary work in the role of women in peace in Syria and, now, in Afghanistan.
When the West went into Afghanistan, I recall that at first people said that nothing could be done about women’s rights because of the culture, but that was turned around so that the key change that occurred in Afghanistan was a dramatic improvement in women’s rights, and the noble Baroness played her part in that. It is heart-breaking to see that the Taliban is back in control, so much has been reversed, and families are in such desperation that you now hear of people selling their kidneys. I am glad that we passed that amendment in the health Bill, whichever night it was when we were here so late. Could the Minister update us on what engagement we are having in Afghanistan, having had so little influence over the United States, despite post-Brexit claims? It has cut and run without our being able to exercise any influence over it whatever.
We see even now the impact on women of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with women fleeing with their children and leaving behind their menfolk, their lives potentially changed for ever, as the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, and others have mentioned. There was the mother who was hurt in the attack on the Mariupol hospital, then losing her own life and that of her baby. During disasters, health services are often limited and, at times, not available, which means that more women give birth without much-needed medical support. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has spoken of the pressures in Sudan, Nigeria and elsewhere, while the noble Lord, Lord Hussain, spoke of the situation of women in Kashmir and elsewhere.
Then there is the double or multiple discrimination to which the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, has often pointed. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, mentioned this in relation to the UK—and, of course, it applies even more internationally. In his work on widows, the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, emphasises that they suffer the double discrimination of being women and widows. Older women can suffer particular discrimination, and then there is the double discrimination against women with disabilities and the multiple discrimination against women with disabilities, who are widows and who are simply women.
The sustainable development goals demand that no one is left behind—but the cuts that have been meted out undermine all that. There is so much that we will need to do to deliver those sustainable development goals in only a few years’ time. We are not on track, even in the United Kingdom, to deliver the SDGs, and certainly not worldwide. The pandemic has meanwhile shown that we are all globally interconnected, and the war in Ukraine has shown the geopolitical tectonic plates shifting. How this will settle out is yet to be seen, but we must ensure that, whatever the outcome, the position of women and girls and the need to fight for gender equality is not left behind.
This has been as wide-ranging a debate as ever, and I certainly welcome the fact that we have something of a gender balance here—and so it should be. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in reply. I think she will see that she has an uphill task and that words need to be matched with actions. She knows, if anyone does, that we can see through empty words.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Hear, hear. First, I apologise to the Committee for my seated comments to my noble friend Lord Young. I want to say something to the noble Lords, Lord Farmer, Lord Young and Lord Clement-Jones, who all meant very well by what they said—and I think we could all agree about the need for careful and respectful debate, and not taking for granted or assuming what people might think or what they might be saying. The only thing that I would say to them is that I have been a feminist all my life. One thing that you learn as a feminist, and as someone who has been active in women’s politics, is that you need to be in control of the battles that you fight. I say to them that it is great that they feel as strongly as they do, and please support me and my feminist friends in any way you can, but actually the fight is ours.
I intend to make a speech that is about breaking the bias and about ending the prejudice and discrimination that women face on a daily basis in 2022. As other noble Lords have said, of course, who could not be absolutely choked up when we heard little Gabriella saying “Mummy” to her mummy? Goodness me, is it not wonderful that that family is reunited? I pay tribute to my honourable friend Tulip Siddiq, the MP for that family. I also wish everybody a happy St Patrick’s Day.
I thank the Minister for getting us this debate because, like other noble Lords, I am sure that she will agree that it deserves to be in the main Chamber; so I will just ask her to put it in the diaries of the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip for next year and mount a campaign—one that we will all join her in—to make sure that we get the debate that we want on the special day on which we want it. I did, however, visit Central England Co-op’s wonderful International Women’s Day debate at the National Memorial Arboretum last week, and spent a very lovely morning there. It was not New York, but it was actually a great event. My job there was to speak about bias in my life and lessons to be learned, so I thought I might mention a few biases that I have known and experienced.
The first example I want to mention involves my late mum, Jean Thornton, the eldest of 11 children in a working-class family in Batley and Spen. I cannot remember a time in my life when I was not aware that my mum was top of her class in her primary school. She was very ill and failed to be able to take her 11-plus exams, and despite the fact that her teachers were really very keen that she should take it, her family did not arrange for her to re-sit it, but they did send her brother to the grammar school the following year and could not afford two sets of uniforms. She felt that missed opportunity literally all her life, which is why I can remember it: I have always known this story about my mum missing that opportunity and suffering from that bias.
Even though she made a great success of her working life and her public life and had seven children of her own, it did make her very ambitious for us, her six daughters. I am the eldest of seven. When the head teacher suggested—and it has to be said that I was definitely a troublesome, campaigning sixth-former—that I might not be university material, and should settle for a teacher-training college, I was not actually sure that he would escape with his life. I did, indeed, head to the LSE.
When I was in my early 30s, in the 1980s, I decided to take a pop at getting selected as a parliamentary candidate in Bradford, when one of our Labour MPs had died. Those of you who have subjected yourself to the ordeal of trying to be selected to fight a parliamentary seat will know that you have to attend a lot of meetings to sell yourself to the members of the local party. However, two of the meetings for this parliamentary selection were held in local working men’s clubs in Bradford, and I, as a woman, could not enter. I had to be signed in and escorted through the club; so while I watched all the other candidates, who were all men, waltz into the selection meeting, I had to wait until the secretary came to sign me in and escort me to the meeting.
At the time, I probably did what most of the women here would have done: I just got on with it. I made the best speech that I could and, needless to say, I did not get selected. It did, however, harden me, and it gave me a campaigning zeal to change the Labour Party selection rules and to ensure that there would be a great pipeline of women ready to stand for election. So in 1997 we saw the 100-plus Labour women, and now more than half of our Parliamentary Labour Party are women.
We have all experienced bias, be it minor but annoying. For example, I am fairly sure that when I came to your Lordships’ House in 1998, Conservative women here in the House did not wear trousers. I do not know if there was a rule or what, but it simply was not done.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Yes, it was the same in the courts. In 1998, women Peers had two little toilets that were by the Chamber. The men still had the splendid Victorian ones, but we gained the one just around the corner within a few years.
Then, of course, the bias goes to the downright dangerous and discriminatory. I have an admiration for the organisation Pregnant Then Screwed. This is partly because, when I was pregnant with my first child, I was without doubt the most senior person in the whole co-operative movement to have ever taken maternity leave; I was not that senior, actually. The chair of the committee for which I worked simply thought that I was being awkward and unco-operative by not saying exactly when I would return to work after my baby was born. Today, I would have known to take out a complaint and have them in a tribunal as quick as you like, but I did not know and so just had not as happy a time during my pregnancy as I should have had.
In the medical and health world where I work, there is still a clinical bias whereby medicines and devices are designed for and tested on men. This is changing but, of course, it is potentially dangerous and certainly can be very uncomfortable. The bias, otherwise known as misogynism, in our police, which has been mentioned already, has appalling consequences for both individual women and their treatment. We know about Sarah Everard but, more recently, a young girl was strip-searched at her school, including the removal of her sanitary wear, by two police officers. She was traumatised by her treatment, which took place without her mother or an adult present.
We have the lowest rape convictions for an age, as noble Lords have mentioned. As Dame Vera Baird said, 1.5% of rape cases reach court, meaning that 98% do not. We have long argued for the inclusion of domestic abuse and sexual offences in the definition of “serious violence”. We argued for violence against women and girls to be a strategic policing issue, given the same prominence as terrorism and organised crime. We argued for safeguards to be set out on the extraction of data from victims’ phones. We argued for a lifting of the limit for prosecution of common assault or battery in domestic abuse cases. We argued for a review into spiking, so that we can get to the bottom of this appalling practice. None of these measures were included in the Government’s original Bill. They are all there as a result of the campaigning work of women’s organisations, the Labour Party and, I have to say, the Liberal Democrats and other Members of your Lordships’ House. We have changed the law for women for the better. The Government have been asked some pertinent questions by my noble friend Lady Kennedy about ensuring that misogyny is made a hate crime and publishing a perpetrator strategy at the end of the month, as the Domestic Abuse Act requires. The Government must adopt these measures.
Turning to health, the area in which I work, we need the women’s health strategy to be produced. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has now said that it will be. The UK has been found to have the largest female health gap in the G20 and the 12th-largest globally. Research has shown a gender health gap in the UK where many women receive poorer healthcare than men and are routinely misunderstood, mistreated and misdiagnosed. There is still a great deal of work to do.
I want briefly to turn to the international issues mentioned by several noble Lords. I just want to add my voice and say this: what a short-sighted, counter- productive decision it was to reduce funding for women and girls across the world at every single level. This was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, my noble friend Lady Armstrong—virtually everybody. We need to return the funding for women and girls to its pre-2020 level; this requires the return of the £1.9 billion in programming. We need it now. We cannot afford not to find it.
I want to mention two other issues. One is to do with bias and tone. Both the current Secretary of State for Health and his predecessor have called out my honourable colleague Rosena Allin-Khan at the Dispatch Box because they did not appreciate her tone. That makes me quite angry because when men do that and say to women, “You’re not using the right tone, my dear”, what they are actually saying is, “You shouldn’t be speaking at all. Please speak only with our permission”. I place that on the table but, do not worry, my honourable friend Rosena is absolutely aware what is happening: those men are saying that she should not be speaking.
Finally, the Labour Party is the party of equality. We are the party of the Equal Pay Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equality Act. We understand that our society, our economy and our country are poorer if women cannot play their full part. Women hold the key to a stronger economy. My noble friend Lord Sikka was quite right and I have been asking, all the time I have been in the House, for gender impact assessments. We have been asking for them for many years, so I plead with the Minister to add that to her to-do list.
International Women’s Day is always a bittersweet moment. It celebrates how far we have come, which is a great distance—certainly a great distance in the time I have been in your Lordships’ House—but also notes, with regret, how far we still have to go. It is a chance to recommit ourselves to the struggle for women, the girls of today, and our daughters and granddaughters of tomorrow. Women across the country and the world deserve security, prosperity and respect. We think a Labour Government would give them that but, for as long as we are still on these Benches, we will push the Government to deliver it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
Well, my Lords, here’s to mission impossible. I will do my very best to answer as many questions as I can. I am sure that I will not be able to answer them all but, with my officials, I will make sure that I write a letter, that every question is answered, that the Committee will all receive a copy and that it goes into the Library. I can tell noble Lords that it is definitely not a second-class debate and I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, of my great mantra: it is not what you say, it is what you do; and it is not what you promise, but what you deliver. That is what we should all be judged on.
If I may have a moment to say to the noble Lord, Lord Young: William Booth was absolutely at the head of equality. He commissioned men as lieutenants, captains and all the rest of it, but there were as many women holding the same ranks. There was no differential.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
He was. We have heard some powerful, moving and challenging questions today from across the Room, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed. The richness of this debate shows how important it is that we have the opportunity to mark International Women’s Day and highlight the wide range of challenges that disproportionately affect women and prevent them accessing the opportunities to help them thrive.
I will deal with one of the elephants in the room, which is not having this debate on the day that so many wanted it. I remember being asked about this in an Oral Question. I went to find out and am advised—I have no reason to disbelieve it—that the usual channels agreed time for the debate as soon as was possible. I will make the case, as much as I can, to have it on a better day.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
I have agreed to meet you to do that and I stand by that.
I will start by talking about Ukraine; there are many things to talk about in that respect. The noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Loomba, and others mentioned it. We are absolutely committed to supporting Ukrainian women and girls, recognising the critical contribution that women are making on the front line and in communities affected by the conflict. Somebody told me that women were making Molotov cocktails to try to keep back the Russians. All power to their elbows.
We are particularly concerned about the impact of the conflict on women and girls. They will be more exposed to the risk of violence, particularly sexual and gender-based violence. We acknowledge the vital work of civil society organisations. I think I am a poacher turned gamekeeper in that respect, so noble Lords can be assured of my support for good civil society organisations.
I reflect that, when I stood with the Ukrainian ambassador to the UN on Monday, he asked me to do one thing: come back here and ask everybody, regardless of whether they were politicians or not, to help these women and children integrate into our communities when they come to our country. If we do not, sex traffickers will get hold of them. They will be forced into prostitution, there will be forced adoptions—the list goes on. I gave him my word that I would do that. I ask noble Lords to get that message out to make sure that we can stand by the ambassador’s need.
I did not attend all of the concert at the Met but I was there. A Ukrainian bass sang the Ukrainian national anthem. He fell into the arms of the conductor afterwards, such was the depth of despair he felt. Let us all continue to stand by these dear people who need us.
I will answer the question about the Istanbul convention. The UK remains strongly committed to ratification of the Istanbul convention. Almost all the obstacles to ratification have now been removed. We should be in a position to ratify the convention quite soon. [Laughter.] I did not think that was funny; I was being serious.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, mentioned political representation. They gave some figures about the balance of people. We must congratulate the Greens on their 100% record; that is worthy of mention. We will come later to the issue of women in political life and the abuse that goes with it, if I get to answer that. The Government continue to keep Section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 under review but remain of the view that political parties should lead the way in improving diverse electoral representation through their own selection.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, talked about the development strategy having women and girls right throughout it. The Government will publish a new international development strategy this spring. That will guide our work for the coming decades and beyond. The new strategy will prioritise spending on life-saving humanitarian aid and support women and girls. The Foreign Secretary is committed to that, and will go through the business plan and strategy development.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and others talked about an equality impact assessment of the ODA cuts. We treat equality issues seriously. The UK is a leading global voice on women and girls, LGBT people, disability and wider human rights. We have processes in place through spending reviews and FCDO business planning to ensure that we meet our legal obligations. The equalities assessment was a snapshot in March 2021 aimed at predicting how spending decisions for 2021-22 would have an impact on protected groups. As we move through the project cycle, we will review the actual impact of the spending.
On scrutiny and transparency, which was also raised, we fulfil our international legal and public transparency commitments and continue to be accountable to Parliament and taxpayers for how we spend UK aid and to mandate our partners to be transparent.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham mentioned Lesotho. One thing that came out of this week was that someone asked the question: why are women not in the room when decisions are made, because the decisions would be very different? We want women in the room, women in the chair and women in the lead.
I come to the question asked many times by the right reverend Prelate about the two-child limit. The last time I answered it, I got told off for being a little discourteous, so let me be as polite as I can. Nothing has changed since I answered the question last time and there is nothing else I can say that will help him.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst mentioned childcare. This will be critical to get women in work, back to work and into better jobs. I had the pleasure of talking to people from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Denmark, and we formed what you could call an unholy alliance. We will exchange information about what happens in our countries and see whether we can learn from each other to make improvements. Childcare is critical, because this issue is stopping women taking more hours and progressing, and we should redouble our efforts to find solutions to make that better.
The right reverend Prelate asked about the official development assistance budget for women and girls. The Foreign Secretary has been clear that we intend to restore funding to women and girls and to humanitarian programmes. Our spending review 2021 highlighted that we will increase aid funding for our highest priorities. We are bound by the International Development (Gender Equality) Act 2014 to ensure that gender equality remains at the heart of the UK’s work on international development and humanitarian crises.
In November, the Foreign Secretary announced that she would restore ODA funding for women and girls to pre-cut levels. The baseline year and timing of restoration is under discussion as part of the Foreign Office’s business planning process. So it will be done, but I cannot say when. That is one that I will not let go until he gets the answer he needs.
To mark International Women’s Day, the UK was proud to launch new funding for women’s rights organisations and civil society actors, and there is a £220 million pot of humanitarian aid, to which we are making our largest ever aid match. It will contribute to the Disasters Emergency Committee Ukraine Humanitarian Appeal, matching the first £25 million donated, so it is not insignificant.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson asked about the new convention to hold perpetrators of sexual violence to account. As part of the network of liberty, the preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative remains a key focus for the UK Government, and the Foreign Secretary has made tackling sexual violence in conflict one of her top priorities. In November 2021, the Foreign Secretary announced her intention to work towards a new convention on sexual violence in conflict, and it is an opportunity to strengthen the international response to prevent such atrocities, support survivors and hold perpetrators to account.
My noble friend Lady Hodgson and others asked about Afghanistan and what is going on there. I will write on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, talked about a rollback of rights. The UK is recognised as a world leader in defending and promoting women and girls’ rights. We have a reputation for addressing often neglected or difficult issues on the global stage, such as sex education and relationships, access to safe abortion, female genital mutilation, child marriage and gender-based violence. In negotiations at the UN and in other multilateral fora, the UK stands firm against organised attempts to undermine women and girls’ rights, including a big discussion at this year’s Commission on the Status of Women.
I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, that I would be very pleased to learn about the VSO, so if she would like to jack up a meeting, I will be there. I was listening to a very powerful story from a Minister from Chad about how their water has completely run out, so they cannot grow food or look after themselves. It was heart-rending.
On engaging with women’s organisations, I have held a series of round tables with women across England to discuss the impact of Covid-19. I also hosted a round table at the UN with civil society organisations. If there is an organisation noble Lords think I should speak to, please let me know and I will endeavour to meet it.
The noble Lord, Lord Hussain, mentioned Kashmir. We recognise that there are many human rights concerns in Indian-administered Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We encourage all states to ensure domestic law is in line with international standards. The British high commission in New Delhi and our network of deputy high commissioners work closely with Indian civil society and non-governmental organisations to promote gender equality and tackle gender-based violence. The noble Lord asked me to write, so I will do so afterwards. Time is not on my side today, that is for sure.
My noble friend Lord Farmer made a really good point about somebody—I cannot say her name, so I will not embarrass myself. She is a sign and we should make sure that we give our support in that way. My noble friend also spoke about sport. It is something that everyone in the country should feel able to take part in. It is for sporting bodies to set the guidelines about trans people in sporting competitions.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—I nearly called her a noble friend, as that is what often comes out; we are friends—talked about violence against women, women not being able to walk down the street for fear of what might happen and the terrible verbal and physical abuse women experience. I will take back the point she made about what is going on in Scotland. I am advised that we will be publishing a new hate crime strategy in due course, which will take the Law Commission’s recommendations into account. Let us be under no illusion: it is serious stuff and needs to be dealt with.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who I agree is an inspiration on international issues, asked about support for Burma. Myanmar is a focus country for the UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, as well as the Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict Initiative. The UK has sought to integrate support for GBV survivors across its humanitarian and development programme and has provided flexible funding to women and LGBT-led organisations. The UK is also supporting the UN LIFT Fund to reduce the risk of trafficking and support survivors. The term “deaf ears” was mentioned, so we will turn the volume up on that and do our best.
My noble friend Lord Sandhurst and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady Thornton, raised the issue of sexual harassment. It is just not on: every woman should be able to live without fear of harassment or violence in the workplace as much as anywhere else. As the debate about the future of the workplace proceeds, the Government are committed to making sure that people feel safe and supported to thrive.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made a very important point about freedom of speech. I fully support him, and I know that I can count on all noble Lords to be respectful of each other’s views. If we do not show respect, we will not get the debate that we need. We might not agree with each other on certain things, but we have to have an open and honest debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Loomba, was delighted that he was working with Rotary International and Rotary in this country. It is a great organisation, and sometimes the things it does do not get the credit they deserve, so perhaps he will go back and thank them from me for what they are doing with his efforts to make money for this important appeal.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, raised the issue of South Sudan. On Sudan, Her Majesty’s Government are committed to continuing to support sexual and reproductive health rights for 2022 and 2023, and our female genital mutilation funding will continue until next year. On South Sudan, as part of our humanitarian assistance and resilience-building, we have a programme called HARISS. We fund a six-year, £25 million UK-funded programme. International medical corporations work with communities and local authorities to raise awareness of gender-based violence to improve safety for women in their communities, and to provide confidential and survivor-centred case management and psycho-social support.
I am out of time, and I am feeling that I have failed noble Lords miserably in answering their questions, but I have the answers, so, as I said, I will write to noble Lords and make sure that all their questions are answered—so my officials will have homework to do. They will not be passing me notes but writing letters. If I may bring the debate to a conclusion, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I stand ready to do my bit as much as I am able to on this particular issue and, especially, to stand up for women. With that, I beg to move.
Motion agreed.
House of Lords
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, for the first Oral Question, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, is contributing virtually.
Barristers Leaving Criminal Practice
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Howarth of Newport
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to bring forward measures aimed at reducing the number of barristers leaving criminal practice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, our plan is more work for criminal barristers at higher fees. We have made radical proposals for wholesale reform of legal aid, provided £150 million more on fees and £20 million more for longer-term reform, and increased sitting days so that the Crown Court can get through more trials. The combined effect of our plans will take expected criminal legal aid spending to £1.2 billion per year.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab) [V]
Does the Minister accept that before this week’s announcement, a decade of underfunding by the Government brought the criminal Bar to near collapse? Criminal advocates, having suffered a 40% real-terms cut in their earnings, were exiting criminal work in droves—a quarter of junior barristers and half of all QCs. Criminal trials were being adjourned for lack of available counsel and it was taking up to five years for cases to come to trial. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s acceptance this week of the Bellamy review recommendations, but why did it take the third threat in eight years by criminal barristers to go on strike before the Government acted? Also, does the Minister understand that it is far from clear that the Government have provided enough money for the remuneration of criminal law barristers to keep them in the system?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, it did not take the threat of a strike from the Criminal Bar Association for us to respond to Sir Christopher Bellamy’s report, but I hope that our responding in a way which has drawn broad welcome from the Bar Council, the Law Society and the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives will mean that the Criminal Bar Association will withdraw its utterly ill-thought-out and unfounded strike proposal.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests here. Can my noble friend say what further proposals there may be to allow solicitors to appear in the higher courts?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, solicitors need a higher rights of audience certificate to appear in the higher courts. We are in discussions to ensure that this system is working well. However, as part of our response to Sir Christopher Bellamy’s report, we are looking at opening up more opportunities for legal executives to do more work in the courts, particularly in the higher courts. That would also improve diversity, because the diversity of legal executives is in much better shape than it is for solicitors and quite a lot better than it is for barristers.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, perhaps the effect of the cuts has been felt most harshly on younger barristers at the very start of the profession. Up to 25% have left the profession over the past five years, despite having done the pupillage and Bar examinations. For them, legal aid has been a lifeline, allowing them to survive and have a decent career. What assessment have the Government made of the effects of these changes on the younger barristers and the likelihood of them staying in the profession?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, we think that these changes will be a systemic change in legal aid: 3.5 million more people will be eligible for legal aid in magistrates’ courts and 2 million more people will be eligible for civil legal aid. We think that will help the Bar generally. Our other plans—for example, having more online hearings—mean that barristers are not spending money on travel and that a barrister can, for example, drop their children off at school and then attend a hearing 200 miles away.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
The Minister has just mentioned travel. Has any thought been given to reimbursing barristers for the cost of travelling to and from the courts in which they are to appear, particularly in the case of junior barristers, for whom a substantial part of the fee is taken up simply by the cost of travelling to and from the court?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. We do look at the cost of travel for barristers. As I have just said, we hope that increased online hearings will mean that travel costs are essentially reduced to zero, with more money therefore going into barristers’ pockets. That is something that we are looking at. We have constant discussions with the judiciary on that. Ultimately, however, whether a hearing is heard in person or online is a decision for the judge, not for Government Ministers.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect that industrial action by barristers would get as much public sympathy as industrial action by politicians. I welcome the Minister’s comments, but that was not the influence; the Government thought that it was what they wanted to do anyway. I also suspect that if the Minister had been in post earlier, we might not have seen the appalling LASPO Act, which cut so much legal aid, no doubt contributing to this problem. Following his announcement today, are the Government planning to review the impact of the changes so that they can later assess whether or not they are having the desired impact?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, as a barrister-politician, I now know where I stand in public esteem. The noble Baroness is right. One of the issues has been that there has not been a means-test review in civil legal aid, for example, for a long time. While we are not proposing to review it annually, we will keep it under review to ensure that the general package keeps in line with where public pay is and where public costs are, to ensure that the underlying principle of access to justice is maintained.
COVID-19 Vaccinations: International Athletes
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Addington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make COVID-19 vaccinations available to athletes and support staff from any nation which requires such provision and is sending competitors (1) to the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games, or (2) to any other international sporting competition hosted by the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has safely hosted major sporting events during the pandemic without mandating vaccination against Covid-19, supported by the comprehensive body of research undertaken by the Events Research Programme. For the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth Games, organisers are very strongly recommending that athletes and officials get vaccinated. To date, we are not aware of any Commonwealth Games associations asking for assistance, but we continue to liaise with the Games associations on this and other matters.
Lord Addington (LD)
I thank the Minister for that response. Does he not think it would be a good idea to be proactive and go to some of the smaller nations which do not have developed vaccination programmes and say that we will offer vaccination to all their staff who are coming to this event as a gesture of good will? It would be an extension of our soft power and surely that is what a festival of sport, such as the Games, should be.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we are proactively working across the health sector and with our Games partners to see what additional support may be required for participants when they are in the UK. We are in regular discussions with the Commonwealth Games associations and their chief medical officers regarding the protocols which will keep everyone safe for the Games. The UK is committed to equitable access to safe and effective vaccines, treatments and tests through multilateral co-operation to end the acute phase of this pandemic.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Pursuant to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will the Government confirm that they will work with the organising committee and the WHO in particular to reach out to all 53 Commonwealth countries to promote vaccination and support the 98% vaccination level which was achieved at the Winter Olympic Games in Beijing?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
Yes, we are working with Games partners and public health partners and are learning lessons from recent events such as the Summer and Winter Olympics to make sure that the message gets across very loudly and clearly that we are strongly recommending that everyone be vaccinated.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, given the attention that will be paid to the Commonwealth Games, is this not a wonderful opportunity for the Government to promote vaccination, particularly if a fourth round of vaccination is going to be inevitable, and to promote it by using some of the young people at the Games to get the message over, particularly to the young and ethnic minorities, that vaccination is important?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
We know that vaccinations are very effective at protecting us from Covid-19 and are our strongest weapon in the fight against the pandemic. That is a message that is important for people still at home who have not yet been vaccinated, as well as for those visiting. The Games are an important opportunity to send that message.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, what will the residential quarters be like for the Birmingham Games? Obviously, the right arrangements can help with appropriate disease control. Cheekily, is there a housing legacy from what is being done? I declare an interest as the chair of the Built Environment Committee.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will write to my noble friend with the full details of the housing provision and legacy, but I reassure her that there will be a robust set of protective protocols in place, including testing, temperature checks and regular cleaning, which has been developed in accordance with leading public health experts and lessons learned from other large-scale events to keep everybody safe during the Games.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend mentioned the ERP. Will he take this opportunity to congratulate David Ross and Nick Hytner, who so excellently chaired that group and all who were involved? I declare an interest: I was honoured to serve as part of the ERP. Will he congratulate all the staff at DCMS who played such a key role in enabling spectators to be back at sporting events, fans to be back in music venues and people to be back in cultural venues across the country safely and able to enjoy the rich cultural and sporting fabric of our nation?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I most whole- heartedly congratulate everybody involved, including my noble friend, for their work in the Events Research Programme. They worked very swiftly to develop an evidence base to make sure that we could get people back to doing all the things that they missed doing during lockdown and which are so important to their well-being and mental health and to the wider economic and societal impacts.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what arrangements have been made for feeding the athletes at the Commonwealth Games? At the last Olympics, Coca-Cola and McDonald’s completely dominated the food offer because they had paid so much money. That does not send out a great message on health, especially to our kids.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I will write to the noble Baroness about the food options for those attending the Games. Of course, it will be up to people to choose what they wish to eat and to do so in a healthy and nutritious manner.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, the pandemic is not over until it is over everywhere. In order truly to tackle it, people across the world need access to vaccines, including in African and Caribbean nations, which have been deprived of vaccines and of the ability to manufacture their own vaccines because of intellectual property protections. If proposals for a vaccine waiver are put to World Trade Organization members in the coming weeks or months, can the Minister indicate which way the UK Government will vote?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the UK is one of the largest donors to the COVAX advance market commitment, which supports access to Covid-19 vaccinations for up to 92 low- and middle-income countries. This is a very effective mechanism and our £548 million commitment has helped COVAX deliver more than £1 billion vaccines to low- and middle-income countries. We have also donated more than 33 million vaccines. We need a truly global effort because no one country and no one pharmaceutical company would be able to do this alone.
Young Audiences Content Fund: Replacement
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will replace the Young Audiences Content Fund which supported the production of British-made content for commercial broadcasters.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare my interests as in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to the success of our world-leading TV production sector. UK-wide television tax reliefs, including for children’s television programming, continue to play a vital role in driving production to record highs, with more than £4 billion of expenditure supported in 2021. A full evaluation of the three-year pilot Young Audiences Content Fund will take place to determine its impact. The potential for further investment will be assessed against that evaluation and against future public service broadcasting needs.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, the Government’s recent decision to close the Young Audiences Content Fund has removed a successful incentive for UK commercial broadcasters and UK producers. This is devastating for the children’s creative industry. The fund had given a new lease of life to an ailing children’s sector. It also allowed producers from diverse backgrounds to get commissioned. Interim measures need to be put in place now. What consideration are the Government giving to ensuring that other sources of investment—such as raising the production tax relief credit from 20% to, say, 40% or 50%—could be found to maintain the diversity of high-quality programming for UK children that will be freely available to all and save the children’s creative production sector from catastrophe?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Young Audiences Content Fund was a pilot. It is still open. It closes at the end of this month, at the end of its three-year period. It was a pilot to test a new way of financing public service television. At the end of the pilot, a full evaluation will take place to determine its impact. The noble Baroness has anticipated some of the things that might emerge from that evaluation, but I hope she will agree that it is important that it be evaluated. She mentions the tax relief that we introduced. That was aimed specifically at children’s TV, and since 2015 has directly supported 543 projects, delivering over £623 million of expenditure in children’s television production.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the points made by the noble Baroness are well made and we support them wholeheartedly. I am grateful for the comments that the Minister has made but they do not really go far enough. More worryingly, this seems to be part of a pattern of activity and policy at DCMS—a pattern that I am sure this House will have noticed—including the issues of the future of Channel 4, the delay in securing provenance for programmes on widespread release, the BBC licence fee and charter arrangements, and regional news and journalism. The issues all seem to come up, suddenly get an announcement and then are withdrawn. Do we not need a White Paper looking more broadly at the wider context of the media, how we want it to progress in this country and the need for it to mesh more closely with a modern version of public service broadcasting?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, we are looking at that wider context. The Government have committed to ensuring that viewers and listeners benefit from a modern system of public service broadcasting that remains relevant and which continues to meet the needs of audiences, now and in the future. That is why we announced the strategic review of public service broadcasting so that we can do that. The evaluation of this fund will feed into that wider strategic review so that we can see the best way of delivering what everyone wants.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, the whole point of a pilot is to test the water and find out what works and what does not. If it does not work, scrap it, but if it does work then keep and develop it. This scheme was successful, as the Government themselves admit, with the programmes funded winning awards and being sold around the world. To simply say that there is to be an evaluation while closing the scheme does not seem like a good enough answer.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the funds were set up using unallocated funding from the 2010 licence fee settlement to pilot contestable funding in priority areas of public service broadcasting provision. Although this and the equivalent fund for listeners performed well, any further investment of taxpayers’ funding will need to be assessed against the evaluation of the funds and future public service broadcasting needs, informed by our wider strategic review. DCMS and the fund administrators will conduct a full evaluation of the pilot against its fund criteria, including quality, innovation, additionality, provision for every part of the UK, diversity, the boost to new voices and plurality, and the reach of audience.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, in response to a question earlier this week, the Minister talked about the ever-expanding creative industries with pride, as indeed he should. However, this kind of decision really rather gives the lie to that sort of rhetoric, as it does to his earlier reference to—I cannot remember exactly what he called it—world-beating children’s programming. Does he not agree that decisions of this kind—taken, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty said, without any real sense of how the future might look—are extremely dispiriting for the very talented young people who are coming through and hoping for a career in this area of our creative industries, who are now feeling that perhaps it is not going to work out for them?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, this is a three-year pilot that is about to reach the end of its three years, and it must be evaluated so that we can see whether it has been as beneficial as noble Lords anticipate that it has. The noble Baroness is right that, even with the challenges of the pandemic, the industry has reached new heights of success, seeing record production in 2021, which is testament both to the UK’s status as the best place in the world to produce television and to the hard work of everyone involved in the industry. We want to evaluate the impact of the fund so we can see how best we can support them to continue to reach even greater heights.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, can the Government at least ensure that there is a continuation of funding until such time as the review has been carried out and a government decision is made about what is to happen in future? Will that decision bring to an end the days of the Government raiding the BBC licence fee for projects, however worthy they might be?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is important that this trial to test out new ways of contestable funding be evaluated before those decisions are taken.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, is it not weird that a three-year project has not been evaluated in the course of running it? If you were doing this in commerce, it would be automatic that you would reach the end of a pilot knowing whether or not it had been a success. To take the good bits and then dump them into space for a year and a half, or however long it will take the Government to do this, rather than continuing them because you know they are succeeding, is not the right way to run a Government.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, it is usual for a pilot to end and then be evaluated once all the data collected can be seen in the round. Noble Lords have pointed to many of the emerging conclusions, but it is right that we evaluate it in the round.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, up to the beginning of this year, 144 development projects and 55 productions had been funded, some with really great output including Irish, Scottish, Gaelic and Welsh projects. Could I push the Minister a little more on the timescale of the review? Many of his answers have said that a review is going to be carried out, but no timescale for it has been set. Are we talking about the next few weeks or next month, or is it going to drag on for months to come?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Young Audiences Content Fund and the Audio Content Fund have supported 220 hours of children’s television content and around 650 hours of radio content to date. We want to carry out the evaluation once the fund finishes at the end of this month and to see that as part of our wider strategic review of public service broadcasting. I cannot set out a precise timescale for the noble Lord, but we want to do that swiftly and thoroughly.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, if our creative industries are as successful as noble Lords on all sides have said, and if our audio-visual sector, including children’s content, is, as my noble friend the Minister says, world-beating, why does it need subsidy?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, in public service broadcasting it is important that we provide for all the audiences that rely on it. Children of course do not have the same consumer power that adults do, and it is important that high-quality and distinctively British content is made for children in this country, particularly when there are so many other options for them to watch programmes from around the world, particularly from across the Atlantic. That is why it is right that we support public service broadcasting and make sure that the high-quality programming that we already enjoy can continue for generations to come.
Ukraine: Discussions with US and China
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the governments of (1) the United States of America, and (2) China, about the situation in Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom is working very closely with our allies and partners in our continuing condemnation of the actions of Russia and Mr Putin in their reprehensible attack on Ukraine. We have worked very closely with the United States, and the Foreign Secretary visited it last week to further co-ordinate our support for Ukraine. We have also engaged directly with China, and have been clear that China must also stand up for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and not condone Mr Putin’s actions.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that answer. Would he agree that the geopolitics of the world in which we live are being changed by the unjustified war with and invasion of Ukraine? Would he further agree that the Chinese are clearly uneasy about the way in which the situation is developing? As a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations, cannot the British Government take an initiative to work with the Chinese and the Americans to try to secure, for example, humanitarian corridors to enable aid to go in and people to come out safely? Will the Government try to promote these actively with all our partners, because it is the right thing to do?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount on both points and I assure him that we are working very closely with the Chinese, among other countries. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary spoke with her Chinese counterpart, Foreign Minister and State Councillor Wang Yi, on Friday 25 February. She underlined the UK’s expectation of China’s role in the current crisis. As we have heard, it has an important role in the multilateral system. We are engaging at all levels, including official and ministerial.
The UN General Assembly vote, where 141 nations came together, demonstrated how we are working with key partners and other countries. It is important that we are universal in our condemnation of the Russian war on Ukraine.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, there is a lot in what the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, says. In our discussions with the Americans, are we urging them to pump and export more oil? We are urging the Saudis to do so, as are the Chinese. If we are following this path, could Ministers explain more clearly to the public that, although we are all in favour of long-term energy transformation away from fossil fuels, in the short term these measures are necessary, not only to put a squeeze on Russia over Ukraine but to avoid the hideous spikes in prices and energy costs that at present are causing so much suffering to so many people, particularly the most vulnerable?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
Again, I agree with my noble friend, which is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister visited the Middle East. The immediate issue is one of energy security and of ensuring that the whole world moves totally away from reliance on Russian energy, particularly Russian gas. There are countries that are heavily reliant on Russian gas. We applaud the decisions taken recently by, for example, Germany in pausing the Nord Stream 2 project. Equally, we are seeing very strong collaboration and collective action to ensure that, from the point of view of both the global community and our own citizens, the issue of energy security remains a key priority.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the positions of China and India are of course of concern to UK interests. Have the Government signalled to China that any preferential market access to UK financial services will be questioned? The UK is in discussions with India about a free trade agreement. It is reported today that India is in discussions with Russia for a rupee/rouble trading arrangement that would circumvent the sanctions restrictions. The head of the export organisation for India said:
“Other nations are banning exports to Russia, so it is a good time for Indian exporters to enter into the Russian market”.
Does the Minister believe that it is disagreeable that the UK will be offering preferential market access to the very financiers who are circumventing our restrictions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, we have been very clear that if China wants to be seen as a responsible global actor, it needs to take concrete steps to show that it in no way condones Russia’s actions. This alludes also to providing alternative market access. India is a key strategic partner. We are building strong alliances and having clear discussions with India about its role both in conflict resolution and the long-term situation pertaining to Ukraine. I know that the Indian Foreign Minister has engaged directly with both Ukraine and Russia.
The noble Lord alluded to a report. We should wait for formal announcements. I do not want to comment on particular speculation.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister assess that the Chinese understand that more than just the United Kingdom’s relations with Russia are in question right now? Essentially, it is not possible for a country—especially a big country—to be neutral in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. If China is not clearly part of the opposition, we shall have to reassess our relations with China too.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
The noble Lord points to an important role. As the noble Lord will know, China is not just another player. It is a key player on the global stage. China is not the same as Russia. It still wants to be seen as a responsible global actor, whereas Russia has launched an unprovoked and premeditated attack against a sovereign democratic state. As I have said before, China abstained in the key Security Council resolution, which directly showed its concern about the current war in Ukraine.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I return to the point about multilateralism. Of course, our support for President Zelensky and the people of Ukraine must be complete. President Zelensky is making positive noises about the talks with Russia. We need to support him in those as well. What are the Government doing to ensure that we can back President Zelensky in those talks? We should take the outcome of the talks to the multilateral institutions and gain the support of China and others for this progress, so that we can bring this horrible war to an end.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
On the noble Lord’s final comment, we all want to see that. This war has gone on now for many days and weeks with increasing and indiscriminate attacks on the Ukrainian people. This calls for the need for peace and conflict resolution. We back all current initiatives that are under way to seek a resolution. Ukraine is a sovereign nation and must lead on this. I assure the noble Lord that the Prime Minister is in daily contact with President Zelensky and is fully abreast of the current initiatives and progress. Russia can stop this in an instant. That is where the pressure should come. It needs to stop and pull back. There should be no preconditions in terms of where we go with this, but Ukraine must lead, and of course we will support President Zelensky in his peace efforts.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, is it not particularly sad for us that India, the greatest democracy in size and a crucially important member of the Commonwealth, is taking the abstaining line in the UN? Should we not be endeavouring with every diplomatic effort to ensure that India comes on side, as a democracy should?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am the Minister responsible for our relations with India and I can assure my noble friend that we are engaging very constructively with India about the Ukrainian war. India also recognises its important role. Of course, it has a strong historic relationship with Russia, but it also recognises that what has happened is an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state. As my noble friend said, it is important that all democracies around the world call for an immediate ceasefire. Immediately after that, it will be important to ensure that the territorial sovereignty and integrity of Ukraine is fully protected.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, on the issue of the territorial integrity of Ukraine, I was pleased yesterday to see that the FCDO’s update included in its very first point a reference to the peace talks and to President Zelensky’s demand that the world gives his country ongoing, guaranteed, legally enforceable security for its borders. It is not surprising, because the Budapest Memorandum proved worthless and unenforceable. The Minsk agreements were also unenforceable and unimplementable. Deterrence has failed. It is only serving the purposes of the bloody aggressor who is stopping us from putting in the skies some safety for the people of Ukraine.
We should now be turning our attention to how the future of Ukraine—when it is eventually negotiated, as it will have to be—can be guaranteed. The international co-operation on economics and sanctions forms the basis of that. We should be working on it now to reinforce Zelensky’s position in these negotiations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that the United Kingdom has a very strong relationship with Ukraine that dates back not just to the start of this Russian war of choice but is of long standing. We have been providing defensive support to Ukraine since the annexation of Crimea. Defence continues to play an important, central role in the UK’s response to the Russian invasion.
The noble Lord made a point about sanctions. This is not about now; we have already begun this work. It is multifaceted and the important thing is that we are working in unison with our key partners.
Healthy Homes Bill [HL]
Thursday 17th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Healthy Homes Bill [HL] 2021-22 View all Healthy Homes Bill [HL] 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text
Business of the House
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park)
That Standing Order 38(1) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Tuesday 22 March, Tuesday 29 March, and Tuesday 5 April to enable public bills, measures and delegated legislation to be taken before oral questions on each of those days.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could say a bit more about the Motion before the House. My understanding is that that Motion, which we are not opposing, means that on three Tuesdays the House should sit at 11 am, for long sittings. I point out to your Lordships’ House that the House is now sitting longer and later than at any other time I can recall, either in my time in this place or beforehand.
As an official Opposition, we do not stand in the way of the Government managing their business and getting their business through—but there is a limit to what we can be expected to do. It says in Today’s Lists, “The House may sit late”. The Minister is shaking her head, so I hope she will be able to confirm that that is not the case. Too often this House has been asked to sit far later than is reasonable for good governance and good legislation.
If we are to start at 11 am on those three days, I would like an assurance from the noble Baroness that we will not sit past 10 o’clock. We do not oppose reasonable attempts by the Government to get their business through, but this macho style of government, whereby we have been here until 2 o’clock and 3 o’clock in the morning, and have regularly sat past midnight, is not the best way for us as a House to play our role as effective scrutineers of legislation in the appropriate way. I say that not in a party-political way, but in the interests of this House doing its job properly. Looking at the timings for the Report stage of the Elections Bill, we see that we have already been asked to get that through in three consecutive days. That, too, seems unreasonable to me.
All I would say to the noble Baroness is that although we do not oppose the Motion, we would like an assurance that the House will not be having regular late-night sittings to deal with what is really an overcrowded government timetable.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we cannot let this go through without a proper debate, and I strongly support my noble friend Lady Smith on the Front Bench. This is unprecedented. I spent 26 years in the other place and I have been here for more than 16 years now—and I have never seen this happen before. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether it has ever happened before? The Government have totally lost control of their business. Why? What is the reason? The Leader of the House may say that Covid did not help, and it certainly did not, but the real trouble is the confusion at the top of government. There is total confusion about the whole process of legislation, and there are more U-turns than in an Isle of Man TT; it is unbelievable how many there have been.
I also object because the Motion means that we will be meeting every Tuesday morning. Select Committees that we serve on meet on Tuesday mornings, and they will clash with this. It is making a total mockery of business. The Government Whips are always quoting the Companion at us. We saw that yesterday, or the other day, in a despicable way, which I hope that we will hear more about later in our business. We keep having the Companion quoted at us, yet it says that our business should be finished by 10 pm—whereas, as my noble friend Lady Smith said, we have been going right through to the early hours of the morning. Indeed, we went into the early hours yesterday.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Indeed, it was this morning. This is quite disgraceful, and I wait to hear whether the Leader of the House can cite any precedent for it. The Government need to get proper control of their business, so that we do not end up with this kind of ridiculous situation.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, before the Leader of the House responds, may I ask what account was taken of the impact of these proposals on our staff?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, just to reinforce what has already been said, may I say that the problem is simple and so is the solution? The problem is that the Government are trying to do too much in one parliamentary year, and it derives from the Queen’s Speech. In the 10 months, or however long it is, since the previous Queen’s Speech, too much legislation has been put into the package.
This is not a great issue; there is plenty of time available in this House for legislation. The Government have been having Thursdays since I do not know when, and we have been sitting early and sitting late. Discussions will now be well advanced on the content of the Government’s legislative programme beginning in May—we do not know, or at least I do not, which day in May—and the Leader of the House should be tackling her Cabinet colleagues and getting them to obtain a grip now. Recognising that the Commons can guillotine legislation, and so can process it much more quickly than we in this House can—that is one of our great strengths—it is a matter of judgment as to how much can be put through during a 12-month period.
As the Leader of the House knows, she has a responsibility not just to her party but to the House as a whole. I would like a reassurance from her that she is tackling her Cabinet colleagues and telling them that they are trying to pile too much into a year for this House. With our much looser timetable for discussing Bills as they go through—that is our strength—unless this is tackled now, we will face exactly the same problem in the next 12 months. This is my specific question: is the noble Baroness tackling her colleagues in the Commons? Is she the only Member of this House in the Cabinet these days? I have lost count. She nods her head. It is particularly important, then, that she take that responsibility, and on behalf of the House, I urge her to do so.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I ask her to reflect on the fact that this is a self-regulating House, and a self-regulating House requires a degree of self-restraint—in the number of amendments tabled, the number degrouped, and the length of the speeches made in pursuit of them?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I share the concern about issues of major importance being debated in the middle of the night. Last night the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, moved a very important amendment. I was not able to speak, because there was not enough time, and we could not get answers about the implications of her proposal, because it was a late amendment. Where we have something fairly major like that, it is important that we do not just debate it in the middle of the night.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank noble Lords. May I first say to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that I certainly am making those representations and having conversations, and I think the message is getting through, not least because I have to attend Cabinet having had about three hours’ sleep myself? I am making sure that people understand the pressure being put on this House. I assure the noble Lord that I am putting those representations forward, and that I very much hope we will not be in this position next Session.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I apologise: a new Today’s Lists has been published, which says that we will finish around 7 o’clock. I think the hope is that if we are in the middle of a group, we will finish that group, but that that will be around 7 o’clock. Obviously, the Front Benches and the Whips will work together to that end, so I can certainly say that. Noble Lords will also see that a Statement is to be repeated, which is not on the Today’s Lists published first thing this morning, so they may want to check on that.
In relation to starting at 11 am, we did indeed talk to the House authorities because of course we understand. I have passed on to Simon my thanks to the staff for all the work they are doing on our behalf; he has passed them on to the team. We did discuss the timings to make sure that they were doable. There are a few adjustments that the administration will be making to ensure that we are able to deliver the sittings. I am very grateful and I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in thanking the Clerk of the Parliaments and his entire team for everything they are doing to support our workload.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hodgson on the point he made, and I guess we all need to reflect on that. Of course, when we start at 11 am, we will not be wanting to go on. I cannot—and will not—make a categorical promise because I may break it. I do not want to. But I am very grateful to the usual channels for the engagement we have had in working together, and I know that we all feel the same way and want to work together to make sure that we get through the business we need to, but without putting further undue pressure on noble Lords.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the Leader for her response. I think it is right that she takes this back to Cabinet and makes the point that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, made in very strong terms. But I do just press her on the point about late nights. It is not just about not finishing late when we start early at 11 am; we are sitting longer and later—far more hours than they do down the other end of the building, as some of us will recall—but on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made, when we have important issues, this House is not at its best with just a few Members left to contribute to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said that we should be briefer, perhaps, and more succinct in some of the comments we make, but it is important that crucial issues are not discussed late at night. Up to 10 pm is in the Companion but beyond that I do not think we are at our best.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Lord Speaker for giving me the opportunity to set the record straight about what happened on Monday night. I endeavoured to make a contribution—your Lordships were denied my pearls of wisdom on the difference between genetic modification and gene editing, but that is for another time—but was discourteously dismissed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, on the grounds that, she suggested, I had been asleep during the Minister’s contribution. I said to her that that was not true and in fact what I was doing was listening, as we do, with my ear against the speaker—fortunately, today my hearing aid batteries are now in and I am not reliant on that.
The point I wish to make is this: not only did it cause some damage—passing, I hope—to my reputation but it damaged the reputation of the House unnecessarily, in my view. There are procedures for dealing with this and it should not have been dealt with in that way.
I received what purported to be a letter of apology from the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and it started with: “Whatever the rights or wrongs”. It seemed to me that that was not really an apology—more of an equivocation, at best—and I do not accept that it was an apology.
I felt that there was an obligation—and I said this to the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, in my reply—to set the record straight in this House, as I am endeavouring to do now, and that she should be here to hear that and, in my view, apologise to the House. That would have been the proper thing to do. She has chosen to be absent and noble Lords can draw what conclusions they like, but I thank all those people, especially those on the opposite Benches—not just them, my comrades as well—who came to me and expressed their concern about the behaviour which they regarded as appalling and discourteous. I thank the Lord Speaker for the opportunity to set the record straight.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
The Question is that the Business of the House Motion be agreed to.
Human Medicines (Coronavirus and Influenza) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 7 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 31st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 March
Elections Bill
Thursday 17th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (17 Mar 2022)
Lord Collins of Highbury
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am acutely aware of the call from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, so I will try to avoid speaking for too long, but at times there are points of principle that one has to address. Of course, the good thing about Committee is that the House is at its best in terms of probing what exactly is meant by and what is the intent of particular clauses. I have sought to get a clear view about the impact of Clause 25 and where it could lead.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has said many times in the House that the majority of non-party campaigning organisations, whether they are unions, charities or think tanks, do not exist primarily to campaign in elections. Expressing a public view at election time is not their primary purpose. The vast majority of their expenditure and activity is on other work, and they generally have quite limited staff—or volunteers, for that matter—to give support for election regulation compliance. The rules require these non-party campaigners to make a judgment about where they have incurred regulated expenditure.
As we have heard in previous debates—of course, lot of these clauses are interrelated—the guidance of the independent Electoral Commission is invaluable in helping non-party organisations navigate incredibly difficult and complicated rules that are defined loosely in legislation. There is a requirement to lean on the Electoral Commission. The fact that a Secretary of State could, under the Bill, direct the commission to amend its guidance—in effect, changing the rules—is deeply worrying.
As we have heard previously in Committee, election expenditure is regulated for the 12 months leading up to a general election. As the Minister rightly pointed out, this has been in place for quite a while. If the definition of what constitutes regulated campaigning were to change during that period, organisations would clearly find themselves having breached the rules retrospectively. That, of course, is the chilling effect that we have referred to that we need properly to address.
It goes without saying that this level of ministerial and therefore political oversight of the Electoral Commission undermines the independence of the regulator and opens the door to political interference in the regulation of campaign activity by party and non-party campaigners alike. This is deeply worrying; it conflicts with our democratic traditions and is an extension of the trend of governmental interference in previously independent regulators.
The legal definition of “joint campaigning” is loose and organisations rely on the Electoral Commission’s guidance to tread the line between working in a formal coalition and the usual sharing of information and communication that happens organically between organisations that have common goals, even if they do not have a common structure.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if this amendment is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 44, because of pre-emption.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will speak on whether Clause 25 should stand part, which is grouped with these amendments in an attempt to improve Clause 25. I will begin with some remarks about Part 4 as we have so far examined it.
I came away from Tuesday’s Committee much more worried about the coherence of this Bill than I had been until then. We learned that Clause 18 is there primarily to reverse the court’s judgment in the Thanet election case, although the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, in her reply, attempted to persuade us that it does not really change the law; in which case, the clause is not necessary. We learned that Clause 22 was entirely about the threat to our electoral system posed by a body called Advance Together, which, on examination, fought five seats in the 2019 election and gained in total just over 400 votes. We did not learn the purpose of Clause 24. Indeed, after the Minister’s explanation, I and others were more puzzled about the purpose of this clause than we had been before we started, and worried as to whether there is some underhand objective that we have not yet uncovered.
When reading through Section 88 of PPERA last night, which defines “recognised third parties”, I could find no reference to unincorporated associations as recognised third parties. Can the Minister or his staff kindly inform me before Report whether the inclusion of unincorporated associations in Clause 24 is intended to bring these bodies within this category for the first time or whether they were already covered in existing legislation? I also found in the briefing a reference to permitting only overseas-based unincorporated associations consisting entirely of UK citizens, which is not the wording in the Government’s text.
The Minister gave us to believe that the small group of former Liberal Democrats who formed Advance Together, and then merged it into Renew, represented a major threat to the UK, but that foreign money and foreign interference, most evidently from Russia, do not present any serious threat. The Minister suggested that the paragraphs in the ISC’s Russia report and elsewhere that flag up the seriousness of that threat are little more than “innuendo”. It is astonishing that he can suggest that Russian interference should not be a serious concern to us as we consider this Bill—at this point above all.
Now we have Clause 25, which gives full power to the Secretary of State to add or remove descriptions of third parties from the approved list. I am grateful to the Minister for offering us a government amendment to delete the power to
“make such amendments of this Part as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”,
but this is only because the Government consider that PPERA already provides sufficient authority. As I wade through sections of PPERA to understand the provisions of this Bill, with the occasional reference to the earlier Representation of the People Act, I am repeatedly reminded of the CSPL’s declaration in its report on election finance that there is an “unarguable” case in favour of consolidating and simplifying electoral law.
The Minister must recognise, as he struggles to explain and justify this Bill clause by clause, that it totally fails to consolidate or simplify. The Electoral Commission’s briefing for Second Reading stated, accurately, that the changes in Part 4, including these clauses,
“would add new requirements to laws which many campaigners have said are already complex and hard to understand. The added complexity of these changes could deter some from campaigning at elections ... Voters could therefore ... hear from a narrower range of sources.”
It therefore falls to the Minister to justify the inclusion of Clause 25 and the powers that it gives to the Secretary State, and to explain, as we keep asking, what problem it is intended to resolve. If he cannot persuade us that it is necessary, we shall ask for it to be removed.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the intention to oppose Clause 25 standing part of the Bill, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. In so doing, I also support Amendments 41 and 42, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury.
Clause 25 introduces significant delegation of powers in relation to Clause 24, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has indicated. We understood from the Minister last week that the purpose of Clause 24 is to protect the country from electioneering by overseas organisations. I am quite happy to support the Government in that purpose. However, the Minister was unable to assure the Committee last week that non-charitable civil society organisations in this country would remain outside the scope of Clause 24 and therefore also, importantly, of Clause 25. I hope that the Minister can clarify this significant point in his summing up.
I do not want to repeat my concerns about Clauses 24 and 25, which I expressed last Thursday, so will focus solely on the delegated powers in Clause 25, and in so doing declare my interest as a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
It is concerning that, in Clause 25, the Government have provided wide-ranging powers for Ministers to amend Section 88 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to which Clause 24 applies. In a sense, it feels a little unnatural to be talking about Clause 25 when these two clauses are so very closely aligned and intertwined. The Government need a very good reason to introduce Henry VIII powers under which a Minister can amend an Act of Parliament.
I want to focus on Clause 25(1)(b) in that respect. I am sure that the Minister is aware that the DPRRC has particular concerns about this paragraph, which relates to the list of third-party organisations that can exceed the spending limits contained in Section 94 of PPERA. He may also be aware that, in its memorandum to the DPRRC, the department admits that preventing other categories of third party being able to campaign has the potential to impinge on freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR and the right to enjoy a free election under Article 3 of the first protocol of the convention. The department has argued that it is important that, if a legitimate category of third party emerges, it can be added quickly to the legitimate categories to ensure that these restrictions on campaigning remain proportionate and no more extensive than is necessary to meet the aim of preventing campaigning by those with no genuine stake in the UK. As I said, I understand that objective, but this clause seems to go much wider and, with the delegated powers in Clause 25, we have no idea where it may go. The DPRRC is clear that the Minister needs to explain the need for Ministers to have Henry VIII powers to remove third parties. If Ministers are unable to provide a satisfactory explanation, these powers are inappropriate. That is the view of the DPRRC, not my view—I am simply a member.
I have brought this issue to the Floor of the Committee because if the Minister can explain the need for these Henry VIII powers in Clause 25 it may help noble Lords when deciding whether to bring back this issue on Report. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that organisations based in the UK and which are not controlled from overseas will be clearly excluded by the Bill from Clauses 24 and Clause 25, thus taking fully into account the concerns of the DPRRC.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I too am a member of the Delegated Powers Committee and I support everything she said about the delegated powers provisions we are considering. I declare my interests as set out in the register. I support the amendments proposed by my noble friends Lord Collins and Lady Hayman.
There are 6.56 million trade union members in this country, which is one in 10 of the population, from babes in arms to our oldest citizens. Trade unions were defined by Sidney and Beatrice Webb in The History of Trade Unionism, in 1894, as
“a continuous association of wage earners for the purpose of maintaining and improving the condition of their working lives.”
They achieve this in two ways: first, by seeking to regulate relations between workers and employers, a purpose which is captured by Section 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, and, secondly, by campaigning for changes in the law. They have a glorious history in that respect, from the “Ten Hours Act”, factory and mines legislation, and, after they had formed the Labour Party, the Trade Disputes Act 1906 and many other pieces of legislation through the 20th century.
That campaigning function is a legitimate activity, protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European convention. Article 11 protects freedom of association and specifically the right to be a member of a trade union for the protection of one’s interests, and Article 10 protects freedom of expression. Only restrictions which are
“necessary in a democratic society”
are permitted on those two guaranteed rights.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, when I first came into this House I got involved with the Trade Union Bill, like a number of other noble Lords. I did so because I was seriously concerned that it was unbalanced and partisan legislation that worked against the interests of one political party in this country. I fear that Part 4 of this Bill has much the same effect. We should be aware that, despite the complexities of this issue, the impact could in effect well be the same. The Committee should be very concerned about that.
Clause 25 adds to the imbalance, with the addition of executive power. It is a pity that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is not in his place, because he would be very strong and vocal on this issue. Before we could possibly agree this additional power for the Secretary of State, we need to understand the reason for it and why it could not be dealt with in some other way. We should not lightly give additional powers, and I would like to hear from the Minister precisely why this is necessary and why it could not be dealt with in a different fashion; otherwise, we should not agree to it.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to follow the themes that the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and other noble Lords have alluded to. I came to this Bill slightly worried but with open ears to hear where it was going. As we have got more into Committee, the more worried I have become about a level playing field for elections. Regardless of the colour of a political party, a level playing field is what is required. With Part 4 and Clause 25 along with other clauses, it is becoming more worrying.
If you were to say to an ordinary person outside this House that the Bill would put the Electoral Commission more in the pocket of the party of government, regardless of its colour; to limit organisations, which at the moment can campaign 12 months out from a general election and spend £20,000 before they have to register, to £700; and that the stroke of the Secretary of State’s pen—that is what we are talking about—decides what type of organisation or individual is deemed to be allowed to campaign, I think most of the British public would say that was not a fair and equal way to carry out an election.
I come back to the central question that a number of noble Lords have asked: what is the problem that this clause is trying to deal with? How big is that problem? As someone who has been involved in elections since the age of 15, I am not clear what the problem is that requires my third question: what is it that requires the speed and the secrecy of the Secretary of State’s pen to deal with it? Those are the three questions that I ask the Minister. I hope that he will give detailed and, as he normally does, reasoned answers to what the clause is trying to solve, how big the problem is and, if he can explain the first two, why the only option is a Henry VIII power for the Secretary of State to decide what type of organisation or individual is deemed legal to campaign in such a way.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I too express my deep concerns about the ways in which the Bill contravenes the Human Rights Act and indeed our constitutional commitments. I have canvassed the views of human rights lawyers and constitutional lawyers, and I am afraid I find it very difficult to see where the Government’s advice has come from that this complies with our commitments and obligations under our own legislation and constitutional commitments. When people say, “Let us think twice”, it is a reminder to this House about our role in causing hesitation when something of such significance in our democracy is going to interfere with the fundamentals. I call upon us to hesitate before going down this road, and to question what its purposes really are.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I would like to say a word of caution as well. When I look at a piece of legislation, I invariably say, “How would this work if the political parties were changed—if, instead of us implementing it, the party opposite were doing so?” If it passes that test because it is a fair piece of legislation, then I think that is within the Government’s right.
My concern here is that we are unbalancing the structure and that a Secretary of State—from a party, my party, that clearly is not well known for its love of the trade union movement—could exercise these powers, which may need exercising but not in this way by these people. We have to be very careful with the Electoral Commission because it is in all our interests for it to be seen as fair, independent and trustworthy. I am not going to make lots of speeches on this Bill because they would all be essentially the same, but I am afraid I am concerned about the way the Bill is tipping things.
I clearly have no interest in funding Labour Party campaigns, but I have an interest in there being a level playing field and people being able to campaign. My personal view, which I will mention in debate on another clause, is that party financing has got completely out of control and needs fundamental reform. You cannot run a democracy on selling games of tennis. When we say, “We have a great democracy and we’re really proud of it”, we are asked, “Oh yes? How do you fund it?”, and we have to reply, “Well, the Prime Minister plays tennis with Russians, and we get quite a bit of money in from that.”
When I came into politics, which was a long time ago—about 60 years, to be exact—the great joke was that you could not have a party function without a raffle and you could not run an election without at least a couple of jumble sales. When I was eventually disposed of by the Labour Party, which in retrospect was actually not a bad thing, I joined the Conservatives—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I have followed the noble Lord’s career for all those 60 years in great detail; I remember when we worked together in the Co-operative Party. I think his recollection is just a little wrong. My recollection is that he left us; we did not kick him out.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I have a letter signed by none other than the great Mr Blair terminating my membership of the Labour Party for a disciplinary offence, which was running for an office that was not actually reserved for any political party but was supposedly open to all. Mr Blair decided that I was to be forbidden from running for that office. I had won the election fairly easily because it gave people an excuse; they were voting not for Balfe but against the Iraq war, which was a bit odd because the job I was standing for was administrator of the European Parliament pension fund.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Was the noble Lord not running for a well-paid lucrative post within the European Parliament?
Lord Balfe (Con)
I suggest to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that he stops making a fool of himself. This was not a paid post; it was an elected post within the European Parliament, known colloquially as “shop steward”—I see the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, nodding—that attracted no pay but you got some staff, a big office and the ability to actually get things done for the members. By definition, it was a non-political post. It had no politics attached to it, which made what happened even more odd. I will bring the noble Lord the letter; I will get it out of the LSE archives.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Could the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, just help us with something? Having gone down this road, we need to complete the journey. I think I understand why he was removed from the Labour Party, and why he presumably accepted the post, but I would like to know what it was he found particularly attractive about the Conservatives. It is one thing to leave the Labour Party, but to join the Tories, I mean—
Lord Balfe (Con)
From my position in the trade union movement, I knew there were quite a lot of right-wing people in AUEW/TASS. We were not all bleeding-heart liberals; we were actually toughies. I had no difficulty in joining the Conservative Party because I felt that it reflected many of my values.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am enjoying this exchange, although obviously we need to focus on the clause. In recent times the noble Lord has addressed this House about the discipline that has been imposed on him by the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, so that seems to be a common thread through his career.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I think we should stop our entertainment and get back to the purpose of the Bill.
My concern about the Bill is that it leads to an uneven playing field—it is as simple as that. If we are to have reform, it should be by some form of consensus, although I know that has been incredibly difficult to achieve. I take a rather puritan view as to how much should be spent on elections. We need to get back to a situation where a democracy consists of people asking for votes, not of people going out and attempting to buy them. To my mind, the party funding system has got completely out of kilter.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to contribute to Committee on the Elections Bill, rather than take part in the “Lord Balfe Down Memory Lane Amendment (No. 2) Bill”, which I, like other Members, have enjoyed. We are discussing in this clause the powers of the Secretary of State, yet this is the same Minister who will pilot the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, which, as we know, will restore the position where, in effect, a general election might be called at short notice.
Will the Minister explain in responding how the clauses we are discussing—the powers of the Secretary of State to add or remove from a list—would be exercised in the event of a very sudden general election? Would it be possible for the Minister suddenly to say, after an election has been announced, that such and such will or will not be allowed to take part in it, with the expenditure limits that follow? I would be very interested to know the answer to that and how they fit together. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Will the noble Viscount take that a bit further? It is not just after the general election has been called; the Prime Minister will now have the sole power of calling the general election and knowing the date. It could be that, a few months before the general election, in a couple of marginal seats in which organisations are particularly difficult, the Government could, at the stroke of the Secretary of State’s pen, proscribe those people from campaigning. Does the Minister—I apologise, the noble Viscount—accept that that could take place?
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
First, I thank the noble Lord for promoting me to a position that I am unlikely ever to hold. I do not disagree with him. As I said, it is the relationship between what is being proposed in the Elections Bill and the fact that we are moving to a situation where, if a Prime Minister so decides, we can have an election at short notice. These areas, including those raised by the noble Lord, deserve a bit of exploration. I would be ever so grateful if the Minister could add that to the list of things he intends to cover in his reply.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the noble Viscount should not be so modest and reticent about the possibility of achieving ministerial office. If we have the quick election that we might have when the situation arises that the Prime Minister can call an election, the Labour Government might welcome his presence on the ministerial Benches in the House of Lords. I would certainly do so.
I do not want to go down memory lane again with the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, but I genuinely pay tribute to him. I know that we had a little to and fro earlier in which I seemed to imply that I did not appreciate him; I do appreciate that, on many occasions, he has criticised his own Conservative Government—just as he used to criticise our Government—and we should give him credit for that. It is to his credit that he sees the flaws in this Bill and others and has said so.
We debated earlier the need to have Tuesday morning sittings. This Bill, including this clause, is one of the reasons why we will have these sittings. The Government have tabled this huge omnibus Bill; it includes this provision that has been rightly criticised by my noble friend, but it also includes so many other things. It is an omnibus Bill of grievances and vendettas of the Conservative Government against the Labour Party and the trade union movement. It is an attempt to ensure that there are Conservative Governments for ever. That is what they are up to. They believe it is their right to rule and they are trying to find ways to make it more and more difficult for other parties and more and more difficult for electors to cast their votes and particularly for poorer people to participate in the electoral procedure. This clause is part of that.
I hope that the Minister, in his discussions in his department and government, will express the views of so many people, including some on his own side, as we know, that it is not helpful to keep pressing this Bill. Going back to the debate we had earlier, it would make life a lot easier and make it less likely for us to be sitting into the early hours of the morning and coming in on Tuesday mornings if this Bill were abandoned. This clause is one of the many reasons why it should be. I hope that, at some point in our debates in Committee and on Report—if we ever get there—he will feel able to come to that view.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, I make it clear at the outset—I will take any intervention noble Lords want to make—that the Government’s view is there is an issue being raised in Clause 25, which I will address.
Before doing so, I thought I had answered the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on spending by unincorporated associations on our previous day in Committee, but I am very happy to arrange for her to have a full explanation from either me or officials. The purpose of lines 25 to 28 on page 33 of the Bill is to carve out from Clause 24 precisely the kinds of bodies that she describes: charities and all those listed there which are allowed to campaign.
Lord True (Con)
If I may complete my remarks, they will not be subject to the new provisions in Clause 24, which, as I explained last time, will restrict foreign campaigning, with which I think the Committee agrees. I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness outside and explain this further.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
I thank the Minister for allowing me to intervene. As a point of clarification, I understood that charities will not be included. That is not the issue. I am concerned about non-charitable bodies from abroad, which are not controlled. If he could make that clear, that would be very helpful.
Lord True (Con)
All those bodies in the current list in Section 88(2) of PPERA are carved out, whatever their description. We will come on to the concerns raised about what is in Clause 25, but I repeat that assurance. In saying that, I understand some of the suspicions and concerns raised by noble Lords.
I do not wish to be adversarial in any way, but the other thing I would say in starting is this. As I have said several times in these discussions, I agree that, one day, ideally, a consolidation Bill would be highly desirable. I fully accept that. There are issues here that are relatively urgent, whether we are agree or not: for example, around foreign money, digital campaigning and so on and so forth. The Government are seeking to make progress on those, but it is not a zero-sum game. In presenting this legislation—by the way, as a Minister who has himself had to try to get his mind round all the various references and cross-references in the Bill—I am not in any way saying that a consolidation Bill, one day, is not a desirable end. Anybody involved in the political world would agree.
Clause 25 is really what this debate is about. The potential problems and suspicions—raised, for example, by the noble Viscount—arise from the perceived view of Clause 25 that has been expressed in this debate. Perhaps I could deal with the first part, which is about potentially adding new categories. We are conscious that, as the world evolves, new legitimate categories of third parties that are not currently on the list might emerge. Because they are not protected by the carve-out in Section 88(2), they might be significantly restricted in their ability to campaign by this provision if they could not be added to the list quickly. That is why Clause 25 makes provision for the amendment of the list of eligible categories of third-party campaigns in PPERA, to add a new category of campaigner that might emerge. That would allow any Government, not just this Government, to amend the list to enable new groups or styles of campaigners to take part. Parliament would have a lock on that, via the affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I simply wish to congratulate the Minister on following so very clearly the precautionary principle in legislating here for something that has not yet happened and might happen, because it would be useful to have this in place if it did happen. That is what I understand him to be saying.
Lord True (Con)
I am saying that there is a practical possibility that this might arise. I take it that, however expressed, that was assent from those Benches, and I am grateful for that.
These provisions will ensure that we can be responsive to the emergence of new categories of third parties, or changes to the legal description of existing categories of third parties—there is some legal language in Section 88(2) —so that they are not unduly restricted from campaigning and participating in our democracy in the future. That is added with a parliamentary lock.
I am grateful for the engagement on the points we come to next; I have heard the concerns of the Liberal Democrat and other Benches, most notably, as we heard again in the debate today, from the party opposite. I thank all who have spoken to me on this subject, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for the points he made on Clause 25 regarding the power to remove—the specific subject of his amendment—or vary the list.
I hope that part of making progress on a Bill is making progress, but it is the person at the Dispatch Box who has the responsibility to listen—my job as a Minister. I hope we can go forward with that in mind.
The Government have listened to the concerns raised. I pay great respect to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recent report on the subject of Ministers having the power to remove entries from the list of eligible categories of third-party campaigners in Section 88(2). That is why I asked my officials to meet, as the noble Lord said, with the TUC and TULO on 7 March to discuss their concerns.
Although powers to update lists in legislation are not unusual—and indeed can be important where, either due to changes in legal definitions or oversight, Governments may need to respond quickly—we acknowledge the concerns that have been expressed. The Government have heard the concerns around whether the power in Clause 25 could be abused by a future Government. I reassure the noble Lord and others who have spoken that before the next stage of the Bill I intend to consider at the very least what further safeguards could be added to the clause, along the lines of, for example, Amendments 42 and 45 from the noble Lord, relating to the role of the Electoral Commission. I have heard the force of opinion in the Committee on these provisions.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister is now going to consider safeguards under Clause 25. I invite him to bear in mind that, in order to avert the danger under Clause 25(1)(9)(b) of
“removing a description of third party from that list”,
if the possibility remains of trade unions being excluded or put in that category, it will have to be justified, by reference to the convention, as necessary in a democratic society. That is a high hurdle.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I have given a very clear undertaking that I will consider this concern. As it stands, the provision potentially affects not only trade unions. The immediate and direct concern, as has been expressed by noble Lords, is in relation to trade unions, but obviously the power as it stands is, exactly as the Delegated Powers Committee pointed out, far-reaching. I will of course take all issues into account in considering this. I can only repeat my good intent, and, I hope, in my humble state, power to make progress to address the concerns that have been raised by your Lordships on this clause.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s comments and the discussions that will follow. However, I must press him on just one point, so that I can at least have the benefit of his advice. Is it the intention that the powers we are discussing could be exercised by any Secretary of State after a sudden general election has been called?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, having listened to the debate, the noble Viscount’s contribution was obviously one that I heard. The Bill as drafted—like any other Member, I can only parse a Bill that is put before your Lordships House—has no restriction on what time or in what condition it might be adopted. That is why, I thought, I heard widespread concern from the Committee. When I started, I said I thought that the answer to the noble Viscount may not lie in addressing any particular possible set of circumstances but in trying to address the wider concern that your Lordships have about these provisions. That is the undertaking I am giving between now and Report. I have said that, at the very least, we will look with interest at the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Minister’s response to this debate. I think we are making progress. The fact that the Minister recognises that there are genuine concerns shows the benefit of proper scrutiny of these clauses. I hope that, in his consideration of what might come from the Government on this clause before Report, he will consult both the TUC and TULO to ensure that they understand the rationale behind it. I am sure he will. I welcome the Minister’s comments and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out provision that is not needed because of section 156(5) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
“Disclosure of status as a recognised third party
(1) Section 89 of PPERA (Register of notifications for purposes of section 88) is amended as follows.(2) At end of heading insert “and third party disclosure of registered status”.(3) After subsection (4) insert—“(5) During a period in which a notification under section 88 is in effect and the Commission has entered details of the notification on the register in accordance with this section, a third party shall disclose its status as a recognised third party in a prominent place on the homepage of its website.(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), a reference to a third party's “website” means any part of a website relating to that third party which that third party has caused or authorised to appear.(7) Subsection (5) shall not apply where a third party does not have a website within the meaning of subsection (6).(8) A person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, they contravene subsection (5).””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires registered non-party campaigners to disclose their status as such on a prominent place on their websites, so as to increase transparency for the public.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is very simple. It is to increase transparency around third-party campaigners—not campaigning—by inserting a new clause entitled:
“Disclosure of status as a recognised third party”.
The amendment is not concerned with imprints on electronic or printed material, the complexities of which we shall wrestle with when we come to Clause 37 in Part 6. It is much simpler than that. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend and the Bill team for agreeing to address this issue now.
This amendment is confined to the contents of the homepage of a website—if it has one—of a registered third-party campaigning organisation. If the amendment were accepted, the homepage of that registered organisation would be required to carry a statement, along the lines of: “XYZ”—the name of the organisation—"is registered as a third-party campaigner under Part 6 of PPERA 2000”, or similar wording. This would alert a reader or viewer that the organisation was an active campaigner in the political sphere. It might mean that the viewer or reader might wish to make further inquiries before becoming more deeply engaged with this organisation.
Would such a provision bring about a sea change? Of course not, but it would serve for the small proportion of interested people as a way of increasing the transparency of what is going on. In these circumstances, it would be the desirable outcome fitting the purposes of this Bill as a whole. In my view, there is broad support for such a proposal. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that, after two minutes and 12 seconds, I beg to move.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, yet again I support the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I share his view that it is good for charitable and voluntary organisations and campaign groups to be involved in civic activities. There should be full transparency around their involvement.
I do not disagree in any way with his suggestion. I would make it a condition of registration with the Charity Commission that an organisation should have a website. Certain things would have to be on that website, such as accounts and a copy of the organisation’s governing documents, precisely so that people could find out basic information about who was behind the entity. But why confine this to a website? Why not have it on a Facebook page or a Twitter handle, for example? I think the noble Lord is coming at an issue that is of growing importance and much bigger than this Bill.
I have started to talk to a number of the regulators, including the Fundraising Regulator, about what is an organisation. It is now quite common for campaign entities to be described as an organisation when they are nothing more than a Facebook page. They may be crowdfunded, but they do not have to produce accounts or show who or what their membership is. They do not have to show their governing documents. They are simply a presence. They can exert quite considerable influence in political campaigning—not necessarily as yet in election campaigning, perhaps, though I bow to others who have greater knowledge about this.
It is certainly a growing phenomenon in campaigning on political issue—one that I think regulators will have to start discussing. Indeed, I know that these discussions are beginning. I was talking to a regulator the other day about how they deal with a very prominent campaign, Insulate Britain, its fundraising activities on a platform and whether they were or were not compliant. This issue is starting to emerge. All sorts of people are having to work through it for the first time.
In this spirt, I ask what might seem a bit of an “anoraky” question of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots. He and I are entitled to be the anoraks on this subject in this House. Small and technical though the question may be, I think it is potentially of growing importance in the time to come.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, for his introduction. As I am sure Members of this House are aware, new digital tools and channels have significantly changed the campaigning landscape in the UK during the last decade. This includes the use of organisational websites.
Unfortunately, concerns about the transparency of some websites that have been set up for political campaigning are starting to have an impact on public trust and confidence in campaigns. The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, seeks to address this further. We support his aim in doing so.
Following the 2019 general election, the Electoral Commission said that it had been contacted by people who had been concerned about misleading campaign techniques from across the political spectrum, including on websites. It received a large number of complaints, raising concerns about presentation, tone and content.
Transparency is incredibly important. We are pleased that this is addressed later in the Bill. In the Electoral Commission’s research after the 2019 election, nearly three-quarters of people surveyed agreed that it was important for them to know who produced political information that they saw online. Fewer than one-third agreed that they could find out who produced it. Again, it is important that the amendment talks about having the information on the website in a prominent position, not tucked away and hidden.
The Electoral Commission’s research also confirmed that transparency about who was behind political campaigns was important. Nearly three-quarters of those questioned—72%—agreed that they needed to know who produced the information they were looking at online, including on a website. Unfortunately, fewer than one-third—29%—agreed that they could find out who had produced that information.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, has said, this is a simple amendment, but we also agree this is an important small change. The more transparency we can provide when people are looking online during general or local elections, the better. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said it was a good thing that civic organisations are involved in electoral campaigning. Of course it is. I am sure we all agree with that. But that does bring issues around transparency as part of how campaigning on websites is managed. I do not imagine everyone is going to be deliberately hiding information, but perhaps they do not even think about the importance of providing it.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, again, this is a significant point that has been raised, and I am grateful to those who have spoken in this short debate. I hope I have come to assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Hayman, opposite, that, setting aside the fact that some people’s misinformation is other people’s information, we know what we are talking about and that these are important areas.
I am grateful to my noble friend for proposing the new clause. As he has explained with commendable brevity, his intention is to require third-party campaigners to disclose their registered status in a prominent place on their website, where such a website exists. That was supported strongly by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. Registered third-party campaigners are already publicly listed on the Electoral Commission’s website—I will not venture to comment on the legibility of that website —and this Bill will introduce further requirements to ensure that any UK-based group spending over £10,000 registers with the regulator.
Further to this, I agree with noble Lords that it is worth emphasising that the digital imprints regime in the Bill—and we will come on to discuss that section later—will require campaigners, including recognised third-party campaigners sometimes referred to as “registered”, to declare who they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked, when promoting relevant online campaigning material to the public. So I can certainly go with the spirit of what was said by all noble Lords who have spoken.
On the specific amendment of my noble friend, while the Government entirely agree with the principle that the public should clearly be able to identify recognised third parties, I can reassure the noble Lord that the current rules, supplemented by new rules in the Bill, will provide for that. It would be good practice for this to happen. For many people, entry into a new organisation is via a website; not everybody is active on Twitter and Facebook, as the noble Baroness acknowledged. So I will want to consider further how we can ensure that this good practice will happen, because the fundamental point that has been made by noble Lords is important. In that light, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his proposed new clause.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support for this amendment. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that I am proud to be an anorak with her, on this and other issues. She of course had a considerably more sophisticated approach to what should appear and how it might be covered. If this were to be developed, I had always thought that, since this is a fast-developing space, the Electoral Commission, having got this bridgehead, would then have some subsidiary code, which would be what it required third-party campaigners to provide somewhere on their website. I saw that as a second stage, having got this initial agreement. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. She is essentially right about public trust and confidence and the growing interest in and significance of third-party campaigning. I am grateful for her support.
My noble friend talked about the Electoral Commission website. I do not think it is very informative, and I do not think people should have to go to the Electoral Commission website to find out whether someone is a third-party campaigner or not. They should be able to see from the organisation itself. I am grateful for two-thirds of a loaf from my noble friend—or maybe half a loaf. I hope we are not going to fall back on “it would be good practice if”, because that is a let-out. I notice he used the words “good practice” in his summation, so I hope that he will reflect further; I, and I suspect others in the House, would feel that “good practice” did not go far enough in this small but important area. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment restricts the provision made by Clause 26, so that it applies only in relation to periods involving parliamentary general elections or general elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement relating to the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 36, line 15.
“(13) The amendments made by the preceding provisions of this section have effect only in relation to reserved regulated periods beginning on or after the day on which this section comes fully into force.(14) In subsection (13), “reserved regulated period” means a period in relation to which any limit is imposed by paragraph 3, 7, 9, 10 or 11 of Schedule 10 to PPERA (periods involving parliamentary general elections or general elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts transitional provision in connection with the amendments made by Clause 26.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am sort of moving this on behalf of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock. We have sort of tried to spread out these groups so we can last the day, as it were, and I am doing my best.
I will be brief here, because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has his amendment in this group. I come back to the fundamental point that some of the clauses in this Bill beg the question of what the problem is and what we are trying to solve. It is absolutely not clear why this clause is here. What is clear is that, once it is introduced, it will add a burden to a lot of small third-sector charity organisations, and those organisations are least able to bear that burden. That is the point I really want to stress. It comes back to the issue that heavier, more stringent regulations placed on such small organisations will result in what we have called so far a chilling effect—basically, self-censorship. It will not be worth the hassle to express an opinion, and it could be quite an important political opinion. We talked about campaigns about local facilities. It could be a small charity running a creche or something that is promoting childcare that wants to impact a particular election campaign. We have seen examples of that in the past.
One of the problems of this Bill is that, instead of the Government having to come up with clear explanations —“We’ve identified the problem, this is the solution, and we can all unite behind it”—we are having to think, “What is the problem that the Government have identified here?” It increases anxiety in me, because it makes me think, “Am I missing something? Is something happening to our democratic society that requires this sort of burden of regulation, this new lower tier?”
I will certainly welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on his amendment, because I can see that he is seeking ways to alleviate that burden, and I am happy to consider that as well. But at the moment I am not at all satisfied that there is any justification for the clause, or for that lower-tier arrangement.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Amendment 48A has been grouped with the stand part debate. I thought about degrouping it, but having seen the lie of the land and the way that the debate was likely to go, it seemed easier to join the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his support.
This is about third-party joint campaigning. It is not unusual for charities and voluntary groups, especially smaller ones, to try to increase their impact by gathering together in a joint campaign. That could be focused on a policy area, such as animal welfare, or it could be attacking a particular event. When I was doing the review—I have referred to this before—HS2 construction was an important issue, and a number of groups and communities affected by it joined together to campaign to try to change public opinion about the desirability of building HS2 at all. Just those two examples show that this is a very complex area, and finding the appropriate degree of freedom and transparency is hard.
The current rules governing joint campaigning are pretty complex, burdensome and hard to understand, especially if the individual participants are quite small organisations. The present rule is that joint campaigning expenditure bites only when total expenditure by third-party campaigners reaches £20,000—the level at which registration under the Electoral Commission rules is required under Part 6 of PPERA. However, under this Bill there will be a new lower threshold of £10,000. It is true that the lower threshold—the £10,000 to £20,000 level—will be subject to a lower level of scrutiny, but joint campaigning expenditure will still need to be recorded and accounted for. This adds yet another complication to an already complicated arena.
My amendment, complex as it is, seeks to remove some of that bureaucratic burden. How would it work? Let us suppose that charity A has spent £7,000 on its own account and £3,500 as part of a joint campaign with a number of other charities or voluntary groups. That will have taken the total spend to £10,500—above the lower limit. If the amendment were to be accepted, the £3,500 would not be included, so the charity would not have to register. However, if it were to spend £10,000 on its own account and still spend only £3,500 on the joint campaign, it would have to register, because it would have hit the lower level on its own account. Finally, if charity A were to spend £5,000 on its own account and £16,000 as part of a joint campaign, thereby spending £21,000, it would have to register, because it would have infringed the higher level at which full registration is required. That is provided for in proposed new subsection (7B), in my amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to avoid sweeping a range of pretty small organisations into the regulatory net, thus releasing them from the need to undertake ineffective registration, but at the same time to avoid creating loopholes that could be used to undermine the effectiveness of the regime as a whole.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak in this relatively short debate to say that these Benches start from the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Collins: we do not understand what problem the new £10,000 lower threshold is trying to solve. Again, I genuinely ask the Minister what the problem is. Could we have examples of that problem from previous elections, and be told the size of the problem, the methodology and why the lower limit was chosen? That would give us some assurance that the proposed new lower limit has not been plucked out of thin air, and also some evidence base showing why it is required—if, say, for some reason, in previous elections the £20,000 limit somehow tilted the level playing field.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed to this short debate. I acknowledge the complexities here—indeed, in the latter part of his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, illustrated one set of possibilities.
As noble Lords know, the clause introduces a new lower registration threshold for third-party campaigners who spend more than £10,000 during the regulated period. I think that it would be agreed—it is common ground on all sides—that any organisation wishing to influence the electorate should be prepared to be transparent. It is entirely reasonable, in our submission, to expect organisations spending significant amounts of money campaigning in our elections—perhaps I am old-fashioned, but £10,000 seems a lot of money to me—to declare that activity. This is particularly important, given the evolution of campaigning. People ask, “What has changed? What is new?” A significant new factor is that digital campaigning has made election campaigning more cost effective and cheaper, allowing for greater reach for less resource.
This new lower tier of third-party registration has been designed to be proportionate to that smaller spend, and it will ensure a minimal regulatory burden for campaigners who fall within the scope of the new measures, without the same reporting requirements that those spending enough for the upper tier are required to comply with—we acknowledge that there is a burden. This proposal enacts recommendations made by the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technologies Committee in its report on Digital Technology and the Resurrection of Trust, in which it spoke about the need to respond to new manners of campaigning.
I thank my noble friend for his careful consideration of it—I understand what he seeks to do. His comprehensive and balanced report on the regulation of third-party campaigning is held in significant regard. Indeed, the central premise of his report, “getting the balance right” between providing transparency for the public and administrative burden for campaigners, has been present in the minds of all of those considering the measures in Part 4. But, for that reason, we fear that, as it currently seems, the noble Lord’s proposed amendment might inadvertently add an undesirable layer of complexity to the existing rules, which I know is not what he seeks to do. This amendment will require campaigners to consider joint campaigning in their calculation of spending limits for the purposes of registration in some scenarios and not others, a situation that may create confusion for campaigners, who may be unsure under what circumstances they need to count certain expenditure.
Let me be clear on two points. First, at any level of spend, joint campaigning can have a significant impact on the outcome of an election. Reporting of joint campaigning when determining total spending maintains the integrity of spending limits. Secondly, third parties subject to the new lower-tier expenditure limit—the new £10,000 limit—will be subject to the minimum requirements necessary for them to register. As my noble friend acknowledged, they are not required to provide a spending return, and therefore they do not report the specific details of their joint campaigning.
Under the proposed amendment, the entirety of a joint campaign will only contribute towards the spending of a campaigner subject to the existing registration requirements, or the upper tier. However, it will not count towards the calculation of the spending of a campaigner subject to the new lower-tier registration threshold. This means that, in practice, all campaigners would still need to monitor the costs of joint campaigns that they are involved in, if only to determine whether they need to include them in their calculations to register with the commission. Therefore, for consistency, we believe that it would be easier for all campaigners to consider all of the campaign spending, including joint campaigning, in order to comply with the law.
I am pleased that the noble Lord recognises the need for effective campaigning at UK elections. The Government acknowledge that the contributions of civil society are legitimate. But, for the reasons given, in terms of what we think may be the unintended consequences—I am happy to speak to the noble Lord further—I urge and hope that Clause 26 stands part and that joint campaigning continues to form part of the calculation of all regulated spending by third-party campaigners.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The explanation that the noble Lord has given in relation to the clause is not altogether satisfactory because—if I have a better understanding now—he thinks that costs have somehow gone down with online campaigning and that this is less costly than producing leaflets. As he well knows, £10,000 is not a great deal of money, in terms of campaign expenditure—it is simply not.
But what concerns me about the Minister’s response is that, actually, this new lower tier will especially force all campaigners to monitor their costs and will create a chilling effect, as we have warned throughout the Bill. The result will be that organisations that want to have, and should express, a voice will be reluctant to do so if it impacts in terms of their statutory requirements. I heard what the noble Lord said, but we oppose the clause.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Do you wish to test the opinion of the House?
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendments in Lord True’s name relating to Clause 27 restrict the provision made by that clause, so that it applies only in relation to periods involving parliamentary general elections or general elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement relating to the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 38, line 37.
“(7A) In this section, “reserved regulated period” means a period in relation to which any limit is imposed by paragraph 3, 7, 9, 10 or 11 of Schedule 10 (regulated periods for parliamentary general elections or general elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement relating to the amendment in Lord True’s name at page 38, line 37.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (Self-Isolation etc.) (Revocation) (England) Regulations 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kamall
That the Regulations laid before the House on 22 February be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Kamall) (Con)
My Lords, I understand that there is an amendment to the Motion. Given that, I think it would only be appropriate to allow the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to speak first so that I can respond at the end. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is participating remotely.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Brinton
As an amendment to the above motion, at the end insert “but that this House regrets that the Regulations are (1) contradictory to guidance provided by the UK Health Security Agency and NHS England on what action to take when you test positive for coronavirus, (2) an example of public health messaging that has caused confusion amongst the public, and (3) financially exclusionary to those on low incomes who cannot afford either the costs of tests or to isolate without financial support.”
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I want to make it clear that this amendment to the Motion is not a discussion about plunging the UK back into lockdown or imposing mass restrictions on individual liberties. I am talking here about the Government’s decision to scale back sensible public health measures—measures that would help us to continue to manage and monitor this pandemic, which is far from over.
Last week, the WHO reminded nations such as the UK that even when a virus is endemic, it needs managing, including testing, self-isolation and mask wearing. Even if not required by law and regulation, the WHO says that messaging and communications from Governments are vital in ensuring that people can take personal care. I am talking about clear and consistent messaging from our leaders about what they mean by “personal responsibility”. I am talking about support and guidance for those who still want to do the right thing and avoid spreading Covid-19. We still need to protect our NHS and ensure that those who are most likely to get severe disease, even if vaccinated, are also protected. I hope that we can all agree on these principles.
By the way, the Government keep changing the terminology for the group who have variously been called shielders, the clinically extremely vulnerable, immunocompromised and immunosuppressed. I hope the House will forgive me if I just refer to them as the CEV as a shorthand; otherwise, it becomes a real mouthful.
Time and again over the course of this pandemic, we have seen boom and bust policies relating to controlling Covid, stretching our NHS and care systems to the brink of breaking point and then introducing half-baked policies to tackle a fire that is already raging. Now we are seeing the bust again, with the withdrawal of almost all our tools to tackle this pandemic.
While we continue to allow Covid to spread through our hospitals, we cannot possibly hope to tackle the backlog of over 6 million patients waiting for treatment. The weekly average for Covid hospital admissions last week was 1,500 per day—an increase of 18% on the previous week. I am hearing that the NHS in the east of England and in London regions is already at level 4, and cases are still rising extremely quickly. Can the Minister say what plans there are if hospital admissions continue at this pace, and, given that they are a lagging indicator to cases, which have risen over 50% on the government dashboard in the last few days, how will people be protected from infection without access to test and trace from 1 April?
Sickness absences everywhere are also rapidly increasing. What are Ministers doing specifically to help keep infection levels lower among key workers, especially, but not only, in the NHS and social care sectors? Today, the Health Service Journal reports that Covid sickness absence in the NHS is up 20% in one week. What is the contingency plan if that continues to rise?
Those against any precaution say that we have to learn to live with Covid, but many people with omicron BA2 are saying that it is more like a cold at the start, and then it is like flu and worse. The problem is that it is ultra-transmissible when it is asymptomatic and in those early sneezing days. Would Ministers consider a campaign to strongly encourage wearing face masks, and at the very least try to protect key workers and the clinically extremely vulnerable?
The difference between what is being said at the Dispatch Box and in the Government’s living with Covid plan and guidance published at the end of February is most concerning. The UKHSA webpage is very clear: you must self-isolate if you have symptoms and are unwell. But this is not a clear message coming from our leaders, with statements such as “Stay at home if you can” and “Take personal responsibility”. Can people afford to? Can they manage to arrange deliveries? Can they even be bothered? Will the Minister today state in clear terms that, even though the legal requirement to self-isolate has ended, it is still absolutely expected that anyone who tests positive for Covid-19 will self-isolate? Will employers be told that they should not tell staff—as Wilko and Asda have already done—that they must work even if they test positive?
Speaking of testing, the policy document on living with Covid mentions the continued availability of
“limited symptomatic testing available for a small number of at-risk groups”.
As for who is included in these at-risk groups, yet again the public are still in the dark. We are only two weeks away from 1 April and we still do not know. We are told that information on who will have access to tests is coming. Surely this has to have been decided already. Why are we left waiting for this vital information yet again? We know already the groups that should have access to tests: the clinically extremely vulnerable and their close contacts; pregnant women; NHS staff; those working with vulnerable patients; those who attend hospitals regularly; unpaid carers; and, frankly, at the moment, our military as well. These groups will make up a sizeable proportion of the population, and I wonder how the Government are planning to identify those who will qualify for free tests.
Portsmouth City Council is so concerned at the 74% increase of positive Covid cases in just one week—to 630 cases per 100,000—and the 50% increase in cases at the Queen Alexandra Hospital to more than 150 Covid beds that it took the decision yesterday to provide free lateral flow tests to residents for three months if the Government will not. This is really tough, given that local authority public health budgets this year have not even covered inflation, and there is no extra money for any Covid mitigations such as test and trace. By the way, the Minister said on Monday that local resilience forums will now cover test and trace as the central ones are being closed down. But what are they going to do that with? No money at all. But in Portsmouth, a city full of key workers, the council feels that it has to do it.
By not providing tests for asymptomatic contacts of the clinically extremely vulnerable, we are placing them in perpetual lockdown. Not providing asymptomatic testing in hospitals also puts patients at risk. It is interesting that PPE is still going to be provided free of charge for NHS trusts until March 2023. But why has PPE been prioritised over testing? We need to know where the Covid is, and we need to protect our patients and staff. Can the Minister please confirm that this “limited free testing” will be only for people with symptoms and that the plan is to end all asymptomatic testing?
From these Benches, we have talked about the lack of financial support for those who should be self-isolating, and the revocation of that means that many people will have no choice but to go into work unwell. We ask again for this to be reinstated. By taking away the little support that was offered, the Government are clear that people’s self-isolation sacrifices are not worth anything to them—it just does not matter. Ministers talk about personal responsibility but people need to be supported financially to do the right thing, especially with reinfection rates as high as they are.
To conclude, the Government are determined to tell everyone that we have to learn to live with Covid. But by throwing away all surveillance testing and tracing, leaving individuals, employers, our NHS and even the Government completely blind about what is happening, and standing down SAGE at exactly the time that we have the highest level of infection rates, with spiralling cases and hospital admissions and, sadly, a likely increase in deaths in the next couple of weeks, how on earth is the country meant to assess and take their own responsibilities? I hope that the Government will change their mind on these epicentral precautions and mitigations. I beg to move.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the arguments that the noble Baroness has just made, but I think this is probably not the time to have a general debate about the Government’s handling of the Covid-19 pandemic.
These regulations are fairly narrowly drafted and are designed to repeal the earlier regulations that required vaccination against Covid-19 to be a condition of deployment in the NHS. I support the repeal of these regulations. The Government have made a good case for the repeal in the Explanatory Memorandum, but none the less, it represents quite a significant and dramatic U-turn in government policy.
I do not think it made a lot of sense to require compulsory vaccination; there were other ways of ensuring the protection from harm of NHS patients. Of course, the loss of critical front-line NHS staff which the earlier regulations might well have produced would itself have represented quite a significant risk of harm to NHS patients.
Today, I have only one question I want to ask the Minister. Again, it is something that is contained in the Explanatory Memorandum. Paragraph 7.29 says that the Government will engage with NHS employers to review their policies on the hiring of new staff and the deployment of existing staff to take into account their vaccination status. I ask the Minister what the Government want to see change in NHS hiring and employment practices. Will new employees in the NHS, for example, need to have been vaccinated against Covid-19? What does this paragraph in the Explanatory Memorandum actually mean?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment from my noble friend Lady Brinton. One of the main reasons I am doing so is that I think the messaging being put over at the moment is entirely wrong and out of sync with where we are in this pandemic.
I watched a very short World Health Organization video this morning. It was only a minute long and it was called “Moving from Pandemic to Endemic”. The clear message was that endemic does not equal good. During an endemic, you actually require strong health control programmes if you are going to continue to reduce infections, hospitalisations and deaths—something I am sure we all want to do. In my view, there is a pressing need to maintain some of the public health measures that can help us control this virus as it becomes endemic. You can change the label but that does not change the challenges facing us, which, in my view, require sustained protections, particularly for the most vulnerable, and a very strong public health system.
Looking back at the Statement from the Prime Minister when the living with Covid plan was introduced, I was perplexed. He set out the rationale that cases were falling, hospitalisations were falling and the number of excess deaths from omicron was actually in negative territory. Were that still the case, I suspect I would feel quite a lot more relaxed than I do at the moment. This morning, I reviewed the figures and the latest stats from the ZOE study, the ONS and the Government’s own dashboard. Just on the Government’s dashboard we are seeing an increase of 52% in people testing positive over the last seven days and an increase of 18% in patients admitted to hospitals over the last seven days. That is not a virus in retreat.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I would like to ask some questions about data. We are told that the Government’s policy has been data driven. As my noble friend just pointed out, the Prime Minister suggested that the case figures and hospitalisations are going down, when in the last seven days cases have gone up by 52% and hospitalisations by 18.4%. This is a trend: the Prime Minister constantly fiddles the figures. First, we had him misleading Parliament on unemployment figures, then on crime figures, and now on Covid figures. This is very important.
I would like to know why the Government are withdrawing funding from some of the studies that enable us to know what the data is, such as the ZOE study. Without the data, the experts cannot properly advise the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister then cannot, if he chooses to, take the right decisions. Why are we withdrawing funding from these studies? As my noble friend says, if the virus is endemic, we still need to control it and we need the figures to do so.
Lateral flow tests that people can take at home are particularly important, especially in the light of the symptoms of this new subvariant—B2, I think—of omicron because the symptoms start as a bit of a runny nose. If somebody has a runny nose, yes, it could be a cold, but it could be Covid. If we are being asked to be sensible and to protect other people, if it is a Covid runny nose one should stay at home, and if it is a cold one should take precautions, but without the test—and poor people cannot afford £20 a box—people will not know which kind of runny nose it is. Can the Minister say how people on benefits or low incomes, who cannot pay the price that some companies are charging for these lateral flow tests, can afford to have them standing by at home so that when they get symptoms they can check the cause of those symptoms and protect everybody around them?
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, as I said in this House on Monday, I had to stay at home for seven days because I had a very bad chest cough, a bad cold and a lot of catarrh. I tested myself and the test was negative. Those bad symptoms continued for nearly six days and I tested myself every other day. It was very clear that I had a sudden form of flu, but its effects on me were quite strong. I was encouraged because I was able to test myself and the lateral flow tests revealed that I did not have Covid but had an awful cold and flu.
The programme that the Government embarked on in testing and tracking was world class. When we are still in the middle of this very cold weather, why withdraw free testing in April? It is the only assurance we have. I hope the Government will think again about that possibility, although the regulations have gone. To take responsibility for yourself, you need to know whether you have Covid, otherwise you will go out and infect other people, which you should not do.
The messaging still needs to go out. I was quite shocked when “Look North” said that people in our area who are testing positive and sometimes ending up in hospital had stopped washing their hands. That is a shock. It may be said that we have all grown up and know how to wash our hands regularly, but I am afraid that in some places that has gone, so the messaging should still be going out that for the protection of other people we must take responsibility and wear a face covering, not because it is regulated but to be considerate towards others. Sometimes you should keep your distance when you hear people coughing. You are keeping your distance to try to protect people.
When these regulations have all gone and such things are no longer mandatory, will the Government please continue to inform people that there are some places where you still need to keep your distance, some places where you must continue to wash your hands and some places where wearing a face covering is the responsible thing to do? Although it is not going to be policed, we need to create that culture. It happened during lockdown. I used to be shocked when I went to a toilet and people who had not washed their hands came out. We are now going back to our bad habits. Although the regulations have gone, could the messaging still go out to persuade people that the steps we took during lockdown and before these regulations are still worth doing?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, we, too, do not want to see restrictions in place for a day longer than necessary but, as noble Lords have said, lifting the legal requirement to self-isolate needs to be backed up with a plan and an understanding. While it is one thing to acknowledge that free tests cannot go on for ever, while the number of infections remains so high, it is surely sensible to monitor the situation and guard against any new and potentially more severe variants. Not to do that risks being somewhat blindsided by future mutations of the virus. We know that testing is one of the key ways that the return of the restrictions can be avoided. It makes long-term sense to make tests widely available while the threat of a new wave remains.
Questions remain about the implications of the revocation for people’s lives. For example, if you need to care for a clinically vulnerable relative, will you be left out of pocket for that test? After all, should we not be encouraging people to make sensible decisions rather than making it harder for them to do so? I remain unclear about whether unpaid family carers, in particular, will retain access to free testing to allow them to look after their loved ones safely. Perhaps the Minister will comment on this point in addition to confirming that free tests will remain for NHS staff. We cannot have vulnerable patients going into hospital and being treated by NHS staff who have been unable to get tests.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Hutton that this does not feel like the right time to be having this debate, but we are in the situation we are in. In acknowledging that, I echo the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about those who are clinically extremely vulnerable and immunosuppressed. We should have regard to how they are feeling as well as giving them continued practical support. I am sure the Minister will respond to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
I have a question about plans and support for those who live with long Covid. We should not forget that it continues to be a blight on the lives of a number of people. In this regard, it would be helpful if the Minister will tell us about any discussions that have been held with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about working with employers to protect clinically vulnerable employees and to assist, through support and guidance, employers of people still suffering from long Covid.
More than 1.3 million vulnerable people are eligible for Covid-19 treatments, such as antivirals. Can the Minister indicate whether they will be eligible for free tests? What about their families, friends and close contacts? Will there be a limit on how many tests eligible people can receive? It would be helpful to have clarification from the Minister to give people the reassurance they need.
The potential confusion in public health messaging has been referred to. On the one hand, there is guidance telling people to self-isolate if positive, yet on the other there are still pressures—financial from employers, or from elsewhere—that force people to go to work. This suggest that the message that people will take is that Covid-19 is no longer a threat, but we know that the pandemic is not yet over. The British Medical Association has argued that asking individuals to take greater responsibility for their actions while taking away free testing is likely to cause more uncertainty and anxiety.
Finally, I shall raise the matter of sick pay with the Minister. What is the reasoning behind the Government’s decision to scale it back? Those who are sick with coronavirus will now have to wait until the fourth day of their sickness before claiming statutory sick pay. We are highly concerned that when people cannot afford to stay at home they will be forced to bring their infection into work. To put this into some perspective, after April some 7 million workers will have to survive on just £38 per week if they find themselves suffering from Covid. Covid is not going anywhere, and it is right that we learn to live with it, but proper provision needs to be in place to help people make the right choices in what is, I hope, a late stage of this pandemic. I hope the Minister will be able to give assurances to your Lordships’ House today.
Lord Kamall (Con)
I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate today, and in the previous debate on this issue last week. I will try to answer the questions posed, some of which were raised again today.
I think we should be clear about one thing: in every government Statement, we have been quite clear that we are not saying that the pandemic is over. I am surprised when people say that we say it is over. Every government Statement says the pandemic is not over, that we need to be aware, and we need to take precautions. We would not have a living with Covid strategy if we believed it was over. I am slightly puzzled when it is claimed that we are telling people that it is over, and it is “Freedom Day”. We have used the term “Freedom Day”, but we have also said it is not over, you have to live with it. We have repeated that, and we have been clear in every message. I am slightly concerned when every time the Secretary of State or I get to the Dispatch Box, we are told that we are giving the impression that it is over. We have a living with Covid strategy precisely for that reason.
Throughout our management of the virus, our strategy has always been about vaccines, therapeutics and antivirals. The successful rollout of this programme has weakened the link between infection and hospitalisation, and between hospitalisation and death. Evidence suggests that the link between infections and progression to severe disease is substantially weaker than in earlier phases of the pandemic. For instance, the numbers of patients in hospital per 100 infections have remained very low over the last few months. The proportion of patients being admitted to intensive care and requiring mechanical ventilation remains lower, with rates declining even when prevalence has increased.
The Government’s approach has always been informed by a wide range of scientific and medical advice. As I said clearly in the debate last week, when I asked one of the modellers about their data, they said that first they give us scenarios, including a worst-case scenario, not because they want us to work towards a worst-case scenario, but because we need to know what we can do to make sure that we do not reach the worst-case scenario. Then I asked about the other considerations, such as mental health, the backlog, and people’s jobs and livelihoods. The modeller said, “Minister, all we do is give you the data on where we think coronavirus is. It is for you, as a Government, to balance all the other competing issues.” That is what we do: we look at the data and we balance it up with other medical data, such as people who have missed diagnoses or operations, the significant mental health issue and the increase in eating disorders, and we have to consider all that in the round. We have to consider the spread of Covid, but at the same time we have weakened the link—and this is widely acknowledged—between catching Covid and hospitalisation, and between hospitalisation and death.
We are also continuing to monitor a number of variants. We have looked at the BA2 variant, which is more transmissible than omicron, and has become the dominant variant in the UK. It is not driven by increased immune evasion and BA2 does not appear to cause more severe disease at the moment, but we are continually monitoring it.
A number of noble Lords asked about surveillance, and due to the reduction in serious illness and deaths we have begun a new phase of living with the virus. We continue to monitor Covid-19 through our world-leading studies such the ONS Covid infection survey, SIREN and Vivaldi, and there were claims in last week’s debate that we had ended some of these, so let me put it on record: we have not ended them. I wish that any claims made were factual. We will also continue genomic sequencing of cases to provide further insights. We thank all the participants for supporting our surveillance work and the UKHSA will maintain the critical surveillance capabilities, including the population-level COVID-19 Infection Survey, genomic sequencing and additional data. This will be augmented by the SIREN and Vivaldi studies.
Previous debates on the coronavirus have not always pointed to this data, but have pointed to other data produced by global, regional and local academic institutions, so there are many sources of data out there. If I may give an analogy, when I used to look at financial services, there were concerns when the American Fed stopped publishing data on M3 as a measure of money. People said, “Why aren’t you doing this?” but academics and other experts were out there, and they were reconstructing M3, so there was no need for the Fed to do it because those experts were able to look at it. This is what is happening in academia and elsewhere; many people are looking at the data, and will continue to do so, and some of their grants are given on this basis.
We will continue to work with public health partners to make sure that people have the information they need. We are quite clear that the GOV.UK guidance was updated to reflect the legal end of self-isolation on 24 February 2022, and we have always been clear that it is not over, and we have to learn to live with Covid. We also expect it to be managed regionally and locally as part of a wider all-hazards approach, using existing health protection frameworks, and we need a continued focus on protecting the settings at highest risk, through local outbreak investigation and management activities led by UKHSA and the existing local health protection frameworks. Local government has been a vital partner in all this and will continue as such. The Government will continue to provide limited symptomatic testing for a small number of at-risk groups, and free symptomatic testing will remain available to social care staff, and we will look at this in more detail.
We will also look at affordability. This is quite right, as disparities have been a constant theme throughout the Health and Care Bill. We want to encourage a thriving private market, and one of the conversations we are having with private providers is to how to make sure it is more affordable. We are also having conversations across government to make sure that we tackle issues of access for those who are poorer. Noble Lords may have different levels of income, but people do buy tablets, and will buy testing, as part of their personal responsibility. Are noble Lords suggesting that we make it free to everyone, or just the very poor? We have to remember that any money spent on giving free tests to those who can afford to pay for them are resources that could be used elsewhere in the health service. We have to focus on tackling this backlog in particular—it is important that we get more people to diagnostic centres.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the immunosuppressed, and we recognise the importance of this cohort. The noble Baroness and I had meetings with the Anthony Nolan charity, Blood Cancer UK and Kidney Care UK. I understand that on 22 February there was a meeting of the Disability and Health Charities Communication Forum, at which the Anthony Nolan charity, Blood Cancer UK and Kidney Care UK were present, and there was a follow-up meeting on 8 March. These meetings will continue, and the issue of the immunosuppressed is raised with those charities at the meetings, where we talk about communications measures, as well as what we can do to continue to protect those people. I spoke to one of the officials today about their plans, and he told me that the meetings will continue, and in addition they are looking at the idea of inviting the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, along with the three charities that came to the original meeting, to a further meeting, and after that will discuss whether there should be regular conversations. At government level, the effort is led by Jenny Harries of the UK Health Security Agency. We make sure that there is continued engagement with these vital charities to ensure that those whom the noble Baroness referred to as the clinically extremely vulnerable continue to have the appropriate advice, but also that we are informed about the best way to get that advice out to the many sufferers.
We looked at the data and at the public sector equality duty, and we know that there are issues that we have to look at in further detail, such as health and social care staff getting free testing, and some of the other issues raised today. We are really looking into that to make sure that it is targeted, but I recognise that some people can afford to pay for their testing.
We are having conversations across government on the employment support allowance, statutory sick pay, and where an individual’s income is reduced while they are off work sick. I am not sure of the exact status of those conversations, but we are fully aware of the issues that noble Lords have raised and the provision of further financial support, including universal credit, and hardship funds from local authorities.
Employers are responsible for people who enter their workplace, as has always been the case, but we are quite clear that employers should not ask any workers with Covid-19 to enter the workplace. We must get the right balance between personal responsibility and safety. We have always been clear that it is not over. We must learn to live with Covid. It is not defeated. We are monitoring, with these surveys and outside surveys, the different variants: those which become variants of concern, their severity, and whether we need to scale up some of the measures that we have just scaled down. One of the conversations that I have had was about how quickly we can scale up some of the measures that we are scaling down if there is a significant outbreak or variant of concern. We are aware of it. All this, including the Living with Covid-19 strategy, shows that we are not saying and have never said that this is over. We must simply continue getting the precautions right, getting vaccinated, ventilating shared spaces, wearing a face covering in crowded or enclosed spaces, getting tested if you have Covid-19 symptoms, and staying at home. We are not ignoring the virus.
I end by thanking all the people who have got us to this point: the scientists, the health and social care workers—
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister and I thank him for all that information, but is he in a position to answer the question asked by my noble friend Lady Tyler about vaccination of primary age children? There is an awful lot of Covid in primary schools. Vaccinating children was slow to start and the delivery of the programme has been even slower. Perhaps he could tell us something about that.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Yes, I apologise for my enthusiasm to answer.
We have accepted the JCVI advice to offer the vaccine to all children aged five to 11. The advice follows a thorough review by the MHRA, which approved Pfizer’s paediatric vaccine as safe and effective for children aged five to 11. The NHS is also prepared to extend the offer to all children in April, so parents can ensure good protection against potential future waves of Covid-19. Every parent will have the opportunity to make an informed choice. I remember an email from my younger son’s school saying there was a vaccination clinic at the school. Sometimes vaccinations are done in schools, sometimes in an NHS setting, and sometimes in these pop-up centres that we have debated previously. I hope that answers the question asked by the noble Baroness.
I am sure that all noble Lords will want to join me in thanking all the scientists, the health and social care workers, the volunteers, the life sciences industry, and the postal, courier and transport workers, the Uber Eats people—all those who brought stuff to us while we protected ourselves. We have always sought to get the right balance between the safety of the public and keeping the country open. We were criticised sometimes when we went into lockdown and we were criticised sometimes when we came out of lockdown. We have looked at the scientific debate. Whatever you do, there will be scientists who agree with you and scientists who disagree with you. You just have to do the right thing on balance, with all the economic and social factors, as well as all the health factors.
We will continue to monitor the data, listen to scientific advice, build defences and encourage people to get vaccinated. We are always making it clear that it is not too late to get your first and second vaccine. We have targeted community groups, sometimes through faith organisations and sometimes through local community organisations, to reach people who are distrusting of authority, asking who the right people are whom they will trust. We must understand the motivations and why people are not getting vaccinated, rather than tell them that they are silly or complain about them. We must understand and work with them.
I end by saying that we agree with noble Lords who have said that this is not over. We must learn to live with Covid; we must get vaccinated, ventilate shared spaces, wear a face covering in crowded or enclosed spaces, and get tested. Lifting these restrictions does not mean that we are ignoring the virus. We have this Living with Covid-19 strategy, and I welcome all noble Lords’ scrutiny of it and their helpful suggestions. If I have not answered any questions, I will read Hansard and make sure that I sweep up all the other answers.
I hope that I have offered some assurance and answered most questions. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for whom I have incredible respect for her championing of the clinically extremely vulnerable, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken.
The Minister said that we were saying that the pandemic is over. Not one person speaking today has said that it was over. We have all said that is has been moving to endemic and that the WHO advice was about making sure that, as formal restrictions lift, there should be continuing precautions. The Minister said that omicron BA2 is substantially weaker. Yes, it is, but the maths is also simple. He said that it is the dominant strain, but, if you have a very high level of case numbers, hospital admissions, ICU admissions and deaths will also rise. The point about testing was well made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu. If local government’s public health is a vital partner, will the Government please fund this extra work?
The Minister asked us whether we only fund the very poor for lateral flow tests. The point is that the virus does not distinguish and it is really important that those on low incomes, who are facing astronomically high cost of living rises, are given some support. I thank him for his comments about the CEV forum, but just talking, without any active support for the clinically extremely vulnerable, is a chocolate teapot. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, asked a key question on whether this is the right time to change all these mitigations and, while the Minister thanked all the doctors, scientists and other NHS key workers, I think we all agree that most of them are saying that it is too early to lose these mitigations.
I regret that the Minister has not given me reassurance. However, I withdraw my amendment.
Iran Detainees
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, everyone in this House will be incredibly relieved about the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori. It is incredibly heartening news, and I pay tribute to all Members of this House who have campaigned tirelessly on their behalf, and on behalf of their families. I also pay tribute to Richard Ratcliffe, who worked so hard, including on hunger strike outside the FCO. I also pay tribute to their local MPs. It just shows how important constituency MPs can be. Tulip Siddiq and Janet Daby both worked tirelessly on behalf of their constituents.
Sadly, however, their release is long overdue and the Iranian Government’s use of their freedom as a political bargaining chip has been shameful. The years that Nazanin and Anoosheh have lost can never be recovered, and of course it is not only their years that have been lost. I think of Gabriella, Nazanin’s daughter, who has lost an incredibly important period of her childhood without her mother.
We should also use this moment to reflect on how we can avoid this situation being repeated. That must include looking inwards at the world of the Foreign Office and perhaps even at the real possibility that the Prime Minister’s incorrect comments may have worsened Ms Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s detention. There is no doubt that mistakes were made which may have prevented her earlier release, but there are also positive lessons which can be learned from how her return was eventually secured. Ultimately, we must recognise that this release would not have been possible without the dedication and expertise of the FCDO’s staff. I hope that the Government will fully understand that and make a commitment to ensure that there are no further cuts to their number. I hope the Minister will make that commitment today.
To prevent a tragedy like this taking place again, the Government should also look outwards and ask how they can work with our international allies to strengthen international measures to combat the use of arbitrary detention and hostage diplomacy. The unfortunate truth is that Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori are not the only British nationals to have been arbitrarily detained by the Iranian regime, and Ministers should now seek the release of all other British nationals who have been unlawfully or arbitrarily detained. I hope that the Minister can update the House on work with our international allies to secure the release of other nationals in Iran.
I want to focus particularly on the detention of Morad Tahbaz, whose sister was on the radio this morning with Liz Truss. She made a moving comment that their family had been unable to take the public road in terms of media attention. I hope that, with the release of Nazanin and Anoosheh, we do not forget those who remain detained. I hope that the Minister can tell us more about the steps that the Government are taking, with the United States in particular, to support and ensure Mr Tahbaz’s release?
Today’s Statement represents the conclusion of a horrific experience for both Nazanin and Anoosheh, but for the many others who remain in Iran, it is also a glimmer of hope. The Government must use this moment to go further and help others to return home, but also to learn from the mistakes which meant that Nazanin and Anoosheh were not reunited with their families sooner.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for bringing us this extraordinarily welcome Statement and echo what the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has just said. I also thank the Minister personally for his care in keeping me informed. I really appreciate his responsiveness on this, as on other matters.
I hope that noble Lords will excuse me leaving me after the opening statements. As the Minister knows, the time for this Statement changed, and I am responding for the Lib Dems in the International Women’s Day debate in the Moses Room and so should return to hear those speeches.
I am so delighted to join others in welcoming both Nazanin and Anoosheh back home. They and their families should never have been put in this terrible position, as political hostages. I first raised the case of Nazanin’s detention in February 2017 in your Lordships’ House. So much time has passed since then. I too pay tribute to Richard for his remarkable, quiet, determined, loving and constant pressure to seek his wife’s release and the reunion of his family. He was endlessly told, as was I, that work was going on behind the scenes and that he should stay silent. He did not—the world got to know about Nazanin, and the world welcomes her release.
I pay tribute too to Amnesty International and Redress, which have worked tirelessly to secure this result and continue to support others who have not received such prominence around the world. They do a remarkable job. I also think that Jeremy Hunt deserves credit for trying to take forward the hostages’ release and in particular for recognising that there was a debt that the courts had determined we owed to Iran. Of course, there is not the slightest justification for the holding of hostages by the Iranian state and we condemn that. I agree that we should not be seen as paying ransom, but we need to adhere to international law and I am glad that this has been resolved and will go towards humanitarian relief in Iran. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford is also pleased, given her family ties there. I would like to know more about how this aid will be structured.
In this unstable world, it becomes ever more important that we adhere to a rules-based order. We see that with the terrible consequences in Ukraine right now. That is why it is urgent that we tackle Iran’s nuclear position. Although critics said that the JCPOA did not address all that everyone wished, it was a major milestone—a boulder in the door, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who helped to negotiate it, has said. It was appalling when President Trump pulled out, and it is vital that we put this back in place. Can the Minister update us? The best should not be the enemy of the good.
I have felt strongly for Nazanin over these last years as her daughter was growing up—mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Collins—and as the years passed, with all the implications for her and her family. I am so impressed by Richard Ratcliffe’s statements about how there is no solace to be gained from looking back at those losses. Those losses are very real, but, as he puts it, “We live in the future”, and we must indeed. That is important for them. They will need time to recover, and I hope that they are given it.
What progress is being made on the case of Morad Tahbaz and the others held in Iran? Richard made sure that we never forget Nazanin. What of the others? Amnesty has been working publicly on Mehran Raoof’s case. Can the Minister clarify why the Foreign Secretary said yesterday that he does not want to be identified? I am informed otherwise. If he cannot answer now, please will he write to me. What advice do we give to other dual nationals seeking to visit their families in Iran? I met one recently who seemed unconcerned. Is he right?
What are we doing to ensure that there is concerted international action should future political hostages be taken in this way by states? In February 2021, the UK backed a Canada-led initiative against states’ practice of arbitrary detention of foreign nationals for diplomatic leverage, along with 55 like-minded allies. What proposals are coming out of this initiative, and will the Government review the cases of the British nationals held in this way so that we can learn from it and do our best to ensure that it does not happen again? In that context, the Government are now sanctioning many more people in relation to Russia. Are they looking at this in relation to the taking of political hostages?
What support are we giving to these two families who were caught up in a political storm unrelated to their own actions and who now need gently to be assisted and protected and led back into as normal an existence as is possible?
This result has probably come about partly because of the political tectonic plates shifting following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but it is wonderful to have such positive and happy news this week against the background of atrocities elsewhere. Perhaps it was not chance that Nazanin was wearing yellow and blue, the colours of the oppressed in Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, in thanking everyone who has been involved in the many and several consular cases around the world, but particularly those in Iran.
I was in the other place when my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary made her Statement, and it was a particularly poignant moment to see both Richard and Gabriella in the Gallery. I was glad I and other colleagues from both Houses were there to contemplate it; it was very much their moment, and it was necessary that they heard one Member of Parliament after another pay tribute to their tenacity and consistency and, as Tulip Siddiq summed it up, the really high threshold that Richard has set for all husbands—I am sure that I and others will be reminded of that in the months and years ahead.
I join in paying particular tribute to both Tulip Siddiq and Janet Daby. MPs, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said, play an incredible role in being what they truly are: representatives of the people. Both honourable Members have shown exactly that in serving their constituents. The poignancy of the exchanges yesterday was very apparent and real emotion could be felt in the House of Commons Chamber.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Northover. As Human Rights Minister at the Foreign Office, although not directly involved in Iran, I have followed this issue. Many initiatives were undertaken, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her efforts in this regard and to other noble Lords in the Chamber. I am delighted that we are joined by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has been a vociferous campaigner and, through his own insights and experiences, has brought great focus to the cases of those detainees in Iran, and I pay tribute to his efforts. In exchanges both within your Lordships’ House and outside it, as I have always said, all the Front Benches here enjoy strong relationships, and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in that respect.
I have served now under four Foreign Secretaries. I join others in recognising the role of my right honourable friend the current Foreign Secretary in making this issue a priority on her appointment but also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, recognised, the important role played by my right honourable friend Jeremy Hunt during his tenure as Foreign Secretary— I remember him visiting Iran and visiting Gabriella directly when she was still in Tehran—and of course the continued role of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
Equally, I pay tribute to the British diplomats who have been looking at the many issues that one can talk about, and to our ambassador in Tehran, Simon Shercliff, who was consistently in touch, particularly in the last few moments. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover; even in those last few minutes when certain news was breaking, I was giving evidence to a committee at the time but was conscious that, once we had wheels up and airspace had been cleared, we could truly recognise that both Nazanin and Anoosheh were coming home. We saw the emotional reunion this morning, and I think the massive effort that has gone into that has been recognised.
I shall pick up on some of the specific questions—first, regarding other cases that I think are equally important. We were of course pleased to learn of the release from custody of Morad Tahbaz, who I think is now under house arrest after being detained in prison for four years. He was arrested in 2018 and I know my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has been particularly seized of his case. Both noble Lords asked about other cases too. There is a point to be made here: it remains in Iran’s gift to release any British nationals who have been detained. I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, said about a particular case, and I will take that back and write to her as appropriate. However, I assure all noble Lords that we continue to work on these cases.
The change of Administration in Iran brought a new opportunity. Again, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary very much seized the moment through her direct interventions and diplomacy with key members. I add Her Majesty’s Government’s thanks for the important role played in this respect by Oman. My right honourable friend met Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr, and Oman provided the plane that landed in Muscat from Tehran.
This has been a big effort, but equally it should be very much seen as only the beginning. On Richard’s resolute determination, as I have said in answer to previous questions, when he had his vigil outside the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office I specifically went over and said to him that, while the answers from the Foreign Office might not have been what he expected or wanted, there were people in that building who were very much focused on his priority, which was getting the release and reunification with his family, and we all recognise and celebrate that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked about the JCPOA nuclear talks. The issues are not linked, but we are very much at the end of the talks to restore the JCPOA. We are urging all parties to focus now on rapidly concluding the deal. On the table is a fair and comprehensive deal that has been achieved, which would reverse Iran’s nuclear programme, return it to its strict JCPOA limits and restore extensive monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency. We are very much focused on hoping that all parties will ensure that that happens.
On the IMS debt, which has come up repeatedly, the Government accepted that it was a legal debt that was owed and committed to paying it, and that has now been done; the sum of £393.8 million has been paid. As the Foreign Secretary said, the specifics of the deal remain confidential to both parties, but I assure noble Lords that the payment was made in full compliance with UK and international sanctions as well as global counterterrorist financing and anti-money laundering regulations. The debt is very much focused, as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, recognised, on humanitarian support and priorities.
I hope that, as we recognise this important step forward in Iran’s ability to return detainees, it will act, as I have said, as the important first step in the return of all people currently detained in Iran and, in doing so, strengthen and build our relationship. As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord recognised, events gripping us today reflect the importance of working together and ensuring that we can pursue the ultimate goal that we all desire: the peaceful settlement of conflicts and the return and reunification of families of detainees, wherever they may be held in the world.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, at a time when the world news is almost always bleak, it is good to have good news today. I think we all felt very cheered when we saw on our television screens yesterday and this morning the release of Nazanin and the other person. This marks an important point. I do not want to be churlish, but in future we may still learn the significance of the part the Prime Minister played when he was Foreign Secretary; some of us felt that some of his comments were a bit unfortunate.
The Statement says that the Foreign Secretary dispatched an elite team of Foreign Office negotiators. I assume that they are always elite; if they are not then you are sending your second team, so that is a slightly odd phrase.
I pay tribute to the Members of Parliament who have worked so hard and with such determination, and above all to Richard Ratcliffe. I have met him several times, including when he was on hunger strike outside the Foreign Office. He did everything possible to show determination, resolution, insight and a very balanced and sensible approach. Goodness me, the Foreign Office could use more people like him; he has played such an important part.
I am puzzled by something. As I say, I do not want to break up the sense of harmony, but the Statement says that the money, nearly £400 million, will be,
“available only for humanitarian purposes.”
It was always clear that that was the only basis on which the money could be returned. However, the Statement also says:
“The terms remain confidential to both parties.”
I am a bit puzzled by that because all along many of us were saying that, when that money is repaid, it would be the key to the release of Nazanin and the others. We were always told by the Government that we should not make any connection between the two. I am rather puzzled by that and particularly as to why we should not know the terms. I can think of only one reason, which is that there may be other people whose release might be prejudiced by releasing those terms. Otherwise, I do not see why we should not know. All along, we felt that the delay in getting these people released was because we had not paid up the money that we promised to pay many years ago. Why can we not know the details? By the way, I am thankful for the nice comments that the Minister made about me.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I reiterate the points that I have made. I am grateful to the noble Lord and recognise his important role in relation to these consular cases and the detainees issue in Iran. He mentioned in relation to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe the role of Richard Ratcliffe, as I have acknowledged, in ensuring that her issue very much seized the minds of those in Parliament here in the UK. It was also an issue that was kept on the front burner. I remember my meetings with Richard, including during his hunger week at the United Nations in New York—his efforts were not just here in London; he was also active internationally. I have already alluded to some of the other detainees.
I have already said that we acknowledged the existence of the IMS debt. This was a complex negotiation. As regards the point made about elite diplomats, the noble Lord is quite right. We want the best of the best in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Their efforts and professionalism are testimony to the two parallel issues—the release of the detainees and the vehicle that allowed for the payment of the IMS debt.
The noble Lord asked specifically about the reasoning behind the terms. The terms remain confidential to both parties and that was part of the agreement. However, I have sought to reassure your Lordships’ House that the payment has been made in full compliance with our international obligations and regulations—those concerning international sanctions, counterterrorism financing and anti-money laundering regulations.
Lord McDonald of Salford (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the phrase “elite British diplomats” is a tautology. Today’s good news is the product of many years’ work by many people. I congratulate the Government, the team led by the Foreign Secretary in London and Simon Shercliff in the field, as well as their predecessors. As the Minister has done, I single out Jeremy Hunt in London and Rob Macaire in Tehran.
As the world celebrates the release of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Anoosheh Ashoori the Foreign Office will be turning to lessons learnt. Can I seek reassurance from the Minister on two points? First, although Richard Ratcliffe’s campaign was brilliantly successful, maximum publicity will not always be the most effective way in which to help people in trouble. Secondly, the Foreign Office should help those who choose not to publicise their case just as much as those who are in the light of the media.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, these negotiations were carried out over many years and there were high points and low points. I also recognise the important role that the noble Lord, Lord McDonald, played in several years of exemplary leadership at the former FCO in ensuring that diplomatic engagement on this issue was sustained and maintained at the highest level. The noble Lord’s comments as regards the publicity were correct in some instances, as we saw in Richard’s campaign. He felt that that was right and one cannot imagine for a moment until one is in that situation what steps one would take. He certainly was determined. Tulip described him as an accountant who did not really seek the limelight but suddenly found himself thrust in front of the world’s cameras. He showed that he was determined to do what was necessary.
I also totally acknowledge what the noble Lord said about the many consular cases that we deal with involving detainees around the world in which the families specifically ask that the details of the case and the name of the detainee is kept confidential but, at the same time, request discreet and quiet diplomacy. I can assure noble Lords that the issue of quiet and discreet diplomacy is a very effective British tool in unlocking difficult cases.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, it is easy to be joyful on this occasion because it is the outcome for which so many people have been working for so long. It is obviously the outcome to be desired. We should also realise and recollect that there are those who do not share the same joyful outcome, and I hope that their detention will not be longer delayed.
I should like to pay particular acceptance and recognition of the efforts of Richard Ratcliffe. I know that, on occasion, they have not been consistent with the attitude of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but they reflect the kind of commitment and loyalty that is necessary in circumstances of the kind that we are discussing. It is also right to pay compliments to the two Members of Parliament because, for them, there was a particular responsibility and perhaps they found themselves operating in an area with which they were not always familiar.
It has been said that lessons must be learnt. It took a long time for this joyful outcome to happen. It was not helped by the clumsy intervention of the Prime Minister, and I very much hope that in taking account of the way in which this matter has turned out the Foreign Office will have regard to the fact that perhaps other approaches might have been more successful earlier. I suspect that we will never really know what caused this outcome to be achieved. Parts of it are not to be publicised, as we have been told. We will never know precisely what the thinking was in the upper echelons of the Iranian Government, but it is certainly the case that it took longer than we might have expected and that is an issue upon which the Foreign Office would be well advised to give consideration.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, regarding the remarks that the noble Lord made about both Members of Parliament, I have already recognised in my responses to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the incredible roles played by the MPs. I know one of them but perhaps not the other. However, I speak for every Member of Parliament when I say that I am sure they would say that they were doing their job.
As regards the lessons learnt and so on, in every experience and area of work in whichever department and government—indeed, throughout society—there are always things that experience teaches one and provide insight into how one can deal with a situation more effectively. There are always ways in which to improve the response of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development office.
In terms of focus, as the noble Lord acknowledged, others are still detained. Morad Tahbaz has been specifically mentioned. Let me assure the noble Lord that we are working to secure Morad’s return to the United Kingdom. He has three nationalities—Iranian, British and American, as the noble Lord will be aware. There are also others and we are supporting all British nationals in Iran who have requested our help. We, alongside our allies, are urging Iran to end its practice of unfair detention. In our diplomatic push to ensure that all parties are very much on board, my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been very much at the forefront of this release.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
After this splendid news today, I ask the Minister about his mention of our getting very close, together with the United States and other countries, to being able to sign an agreement with Iran. I think every country in the Middle East is strongly concerned about the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, in any form whatever. Can my noble friend reassure us that, in practice, he thinks the controls that will be in this agreement, when it comes, will unquestionably make certain that Iran will not get its hands on nuclear weapons?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend acknowledged, I have already mentioned the discussions going on with regard to the JCPOA. As many noble Lords have acknowledged, and as I have acknowledged myself, it is not an ideal agreement, but it has been sustained and retained, and it is important that all parties work for its restoration according to the criteria laid out, particularly about reversing Iran’s nuclear programme and allowing for effective and regular international monitoring for the very reasons my noble friend articulates—to prevent Iran developing or owning a nuclear weapon.
Iran’s nuclear programme should be for the purpose that it seeks, as many do, peaceful means of securing alternative sources of energy. The issue of Iran’s nuclear programme is very important. We are, of course, aware of the concerns, but I say to my noble friend that it is for those very reasons that it is important that we seek to restore the JCPOA, with the measures and conditionality it brings. At this juncture, it is important that all parties take a long, hard look at the agreement on the table. One hopes we can return to this agreement, with all necessary checks and balances in place, at the earliest opportunity.
Elections Bill
Thursday 17th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 96-IV Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (17 Mar 2022)
Lord Collins of Highbury
“Joint campaigning by registered parties and third parties
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require registered parties to identify targeted expenditure incurred by a recognised third party that is subject to authorisation under section 94G of PPERA by the relevant registered party, and which exceeds the limits in section 94D(4) of PPERA. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include, for relevant returns submitted pursuant to section 80 of PPERA, provision for the introduction of a specific reporting category for targeted expenditure incurred by a recognised third party that is subject to authorisation under section 94G of PPERA by the relevant registered party, and which exceeds the limits in section 94D(4) of PPERA.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would replace provisions on joint campaigning with the recommendation made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in their 2021 report Regulating Election Finance (see recommendation 21).
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
It’s that man again, as they say.
Despite the urgings of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on this clause I shall take a little time, because it is a fundamental issue of principle, whether intended or not. I have tried to stress to the Minister that sometimes, though consequences may be unintended, they are serious in their effect. I want to go through why I believe it is unclear what the purpose of Clause 27 is. There does not appear to be a problem to solve. Spending by non-party campaigners in support of a political party is already highly regulated under the targeted spending rules and counts against the party’s spending limits. I do not believe this clause has been really thought through and it risks substantial unintended consequences that could include silencing independent trade unions and interfering with the right of the Labour Party to set its own rules and order its own business.
Of course, we have had previous debates about tying up small, largely voluntary organisations with close associations with particular parties in red tape and scaring off civil society organisations working with politicians and parties. I urge the Government to think again on this clause and to replace it with recommendation 21 from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, to shine a light on non-party spending authorised by political parties. They should be looking to lift the red tape burden on civil society organisations, not add to them, so that we can get the balance right when it comes to election campaigning.
What is this clause for? We have targeted spending rules already; parties already have to account. The clause brings big changes and risks substantial unintended consequences. My noble friend Lord Kennedy and I have had meetings with the Minister. My noble friend and I worked together in the Labour Party, I as general secretary and he as finance director, and we had a statutory responsibility for reporting and accounting properly for all our expenditure, including third-party expenditure. We are both very keen to know what misbehaviour this clause is attempting to stop. Some may have concerns that non-party campaigners give political parties two bites of the cherry, but this is not really the case with the targeted spending rules brought in in the lobbying Act.
Third-party expenditure in support of a party already has to count towards the party’s election expenses. The third party cannot spend more than £31,980 in England, £3,540 in Scotland and £2,400 in Wales in support of a political party without clear written authorisation, which must be lodged with the Electoral Commission. This expenditure must then be declared by the third party in its return and, crucially, must also be included in the return of the relevant political party and count towards its expenditure. A trade union campaign for the Labour Party therefore already counts against Labour’s limits. Parties cannot artificially inflate their limits by seeking support from a third party. So there is not really any evidence of the need for this clause. What is it intended to stop? Has anyone provided examples of this behaviour?
Certainly, my noble friend Lord Kennedy and I have sought this information. Tell us what it is, because we may actually share the concern and want to seek ways of putting an end to it. As I say, we think the better way is to have greater transparency. Of course, there is a theoretical possibility that a political party could work with a third-party organisation and ask it to co-ordinate campaigns against its political opponents. This would not be covered by the targeted spending rules, but there is no evidence that this is taking place and, were it to take place, it is highly unlikely that the party would enter into a formal joint campaigning relationship with such an organisation. I suspect it would be very much an arm’s-length relationship, possibly deniable, and therefore not caught by this clause. I think it is worth bearing that in mind.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The faith groups will be particularly affected, particularly the Quakers, because of the nature of their organisation, which is quite devolved. It presents difficult challenges for them in campaigning, as well as for some other groups—but the Quakers in particular were brought to my attention.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that. Over the last few weeks, I trawled through all of the types of organisations that could be formally linked with a political party, where they might have some sort of agreement to jointly campaign.
I have tried to grapple with and generally understand what this clause is really attempting to stop. It has been described as closing a loophole, but I do not see that. The biggest loophole in election spending is around the negative campaigning that occurs. This is often associated not with any political party or particular candidates but more with causes that want to disrupt the political process. Again, this comes back to the Russia report. Who is going to do the sort of elicit negative campaigning that we have seen? It is more likely to be organisations under the regulatory framework that will not be captured by this clause. It will be the legitimate civil society and trade union organisations that will be captured by it. It has got nothing to do with transparency or trying to ensure that there is proper reporting; it will have a very negative effect.
I said to the Minister that I would give him examples of how some affiliated unions are quite fearful. I mentioned the Musicians’ Union, a long-established affiliate of the Labour Party. It has a political fund, 32,000 members and a member on the national executive council—so there is a formal organisational link and a formal management link, if you like. Because the definition of “joint campaigning” is not set out in law, there is a real risk that the MU could be deemed to be in joint campaigning arrangements. It will play a part in agreeing our manifesto, through that Clause 5 process that I mentioned. So I can see a scenario where the Musicians’ Union, which spends negligible amounts in campaign expenditure in general elections—it puts out social media and website content about voting Labour but does have anywhere near enough expenditure to even require it to register with the Electoral Commission, as the notional cost of staff time has been all too low—will be captured here, undermining a long-established principle.
I have spoken for a long time, but it is really important that I set out a very clear description of the Labour Party’s structure and relationship with affiliated unions, and how that could be damaged by this clause. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain what it is designed to stop. Tell us, and perhaps we can co-operate in coming up with something better.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 52 in the name of my noble friend Lord Collins. He eloquently explained the pernicious threat posed by this legislation to our democracy. As a former leader of Unite the Union, I do not need anyone to tell me how dangerous this Bill, and Clause 27 in particular, will be to trade unions and their ability to campaign on the issues that matter to their members.
My noble friend Lord Collins said that it has not been thought through. Far from it: it has been well and truly thought through. This is yet another ideological assault on the trade union movement by this Government. It is nothing less than an attempt to gag the trade union voice once and for all, coming so soon after we debated the tax on trade unions to fund their own regulator, and a police and crime Bill which, as my noble friend Lord Hendy warned on Report, could see the end of the right to picket during lawful industrial action. It is clear that the Government’s agenda is nothing more than trying to stop us getting involved in talking with our members. It is certainly not “levelling up”, or “building back better”.
It is a shame, because there is no doubt that, as my noble friend said, trade unions are a working-class group of people who look after their members and those who struggle to look after themselves. They balance the bad bosses and a system that is sometimes rigged against them. We should always remember that union members earn higher wages than non-members. They have more paid holiday, better sick pay and safer workplaces. This is crucial, particularly at a time such as this when there is rampant inflation.
It is quite simple. Trade unions demand the right to campaign on any issue that matters to trade unionists, regardless, as has been said, of the Labour Party’s own priorities. For example, if I want to ask for more doctors for the NHS or to campaign against the far right in this country or on other serious industrial issues such as the shameful practice of fire and rehire, as a trade unionist, I must surely have the right to do so through the democratic structures of my union. Just because a trade union is affiliated to the Labour Party, it does not mean that we always share the same political priorities: far from it. Why should money be spent by Labour on an election campaign count against the limit allowed by, for example, my union, Unite? With the greatest respect, it makes absolutely no sense, unless the objective is to silence the trade unions.
Another clear danger with Clause 27 is the chilling effect it will have on unions because they will be afraid to break the rules. The rules themselves are unclear and could change at the whim of Ministers. It will also actively discourage unions and other groups from campaigning together as a coalition—a totally legitimate activity that should be welcomed in any democratic society.
Clause 27 could even lead to Labour-affiliated unions being held accountable for the entire election campaign expenditure of the Labour Party. This would be a completely crazy state of affairs. Because “joint campaigning” is not properly defined in the Bill, affiliated unions could discover that they had exceeded their own expenditure limits many times over. They could even be breaking the law before they had had a chance to begin to campaign on their own priorities. Surely this is absurd. It is almost surreal. This situation must not be allowed to happen.
Let us not kid ourselves: this is an unprecedented and unconstitutional attack on the Labour Party and on the affiliated trade unions that founded it. It completely undermines the most basic principles of democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of association. Again, as has been said, this Bill breaches the long-standing convention on cross-party support for any fundamental changes to the democratic process. Unfortunately, the Government are riding roughshod over this convention. They are attempting a power grab of epic proportions. For the sake of our democracy and for the freedoms we all take for granted, this draconian legislation—and this clause in particular—must be defeated before it ever reaches the statute book. Amendment 52 is a critical step in this fightback. I urge all those who wish to defend our democracy and freedoms to support it.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when dealing with election law, it is always worth looking at unintended consequences. I could speak at length about trade unions, the Labour Party and funding arrangements. During the 1997 election, I was described by the Sunday Times as the “bag man”.
That has been covered. I shall restrict myself to two unintended consequences which the Government would not have expected and which I think will emerge. The first is the so-called dining clubs. Some years ago, I did quite a lot of work on stopping them meeting in here. The dining clubs are primarily a Conservative Party-supporting concept and institution. Occasionally, there are some in other parties. This is a long-standing way in which the Conservative Party has raised money— in my view, perfectly legitimately. The unintended consequence that I read in the legislation as framed is that, at the moment, electoral law requires only the net income to be considered. If £30,000 is spent on a dinner and £10,000 or £20,000 is raised, there is a specific legal requirement as to how this is accounted for. It is well and adequately covered in the law. However, this clause seems to say that the entire expenditure will have to be accounted for. This is not a problem for national parties, but it is a problem for individual candidates.
Until the last five years it was possible to know when a general election would be. I am in a minority in thinking that it is not a good idea to move away from fixed-term Parliaments. If an election is called at the whim of the Prime Minister of the day, the candidate will not know where this expenditure will fit with candidate expenses. I predict the unintended consequence of the possibility of a legal case which could lead to a duly elected Member of Parliament no longer being a Member of Parliament. I urge caution on this.
A second unintended consequence could be much more widespread. It concerns the use of Labour, Liberal and Conservative clubs for political campaigning—otherwise known as elections. I understand the law and, as I have worked in this area for a long time, I am pretty sure that I am right. At the moment, the law is fairly loose in that a Conservative Party campaign can be based in a Conservative club. Many are. This seems reasonable. There is probably a slight advantage in that there are more Conservative clubs these days than Labour or Liberal clubs. This does not seem to impact on our democracy in any undue way. However, this clause would make it necessary to account for this as joint campaigning and therefore election expenditure. It would become a nightmare of defining what is expenditure, when it is clearly joint campaigning for the officers of an independent Conservative, Labour or Liberal club, to agree to have a campaign base inside their club. As everyone knows, this is common across all three parties. One could easily cite scores of examples—sometimes there is more than one in the same election in one constituency.
That does not seem very clever. Again, people will have a field day with picking holes in it. When one looks at what I think are the appropriate, minimal amounts of spending in any one constituency, this is pretty major for our democracy. It is obviously not the Government’s intent. As ever, with electoral law, unintended consequences are the problem. There is a big problem with this clause.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I will keep my remarks on this group to a minimum, because I have a similar amendment coming up on which I will say more. But I did not want to let this debate pass without saying how problematic this clause is. It is a serious issue that must be addressed. I think the noble Lord, Lord Collins, has set it out very comprehensively and clearly.
Put simply, the clause is unnecessary. Nobody has defined a problem that needs solving by this clause. Secondly, it is unquestionably partisan in its impact; it is absolutely clear that it will affect one party more than the others. That should be a guiding test for this House; we do not do that. We do not introduce legislation that is purportedly even-handed but is anything but. That should not be what we are about in this House. We need to recognise that. I worry a bit that the debate becomes one between the political parties when I think that this side of the House should be as concerned about the constitutional impacts of this legislation as anyone else.
The third issue has just been brilliantly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Mann: there will be a whole series of unintended consequences from the proposal in this clause. But, for me, the worst and most unintended consequence is the chilling effect. It is what will not happen because this is in legislation. People will err on the side of caution; they will not want to get caught up in major legal battles, so they will not campaign on issues that they feel strongly they should campaign on. Effectively, that is a silencing of their voice. All of us, whatever side of the House we are on, should be very concerned about that.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, for the reasons explained by my noble friends Lord Collins and Lord Woodley, Clause 27 poses an unjustified, unnecessary but serious threat to trade unions. I say so for three legal reasons: the threat is to three particular rights. The first is the trade union right to autonomy—that is, the right of a union to determine its own constitution and how it will spend its own money. That is a right protected by Article 11 of the European convention, as vouchsafed in the case ASLEF v United Kingdom in 2002. Secondly, it interferes with the right of a trade union to campaign. That, too, is an aspect of freedom of association and the right to be a trade union member protected by Article 11 of the convention. Thirdly, it interferes with the right of trade unions to express themselves—freedom of expression—protected by Article 10. As I said earlier today, to justify such incursions on to those convention rights requires a demonstration that the restrictions are necessary in a democratic society.
As my noble friend Lord Woodley pointed out, this and other provisions in the Bill form part of a long line of legislative restrictions on the capacity of trade unions to improve and maintain the condition of the lives of working people, to coin the web’s phrase. I will not go back to the restrictions on political expenditure first imposed on unions in the Trade Union Act 1913 and preserved today, but I will refer to the legislation of the 1980s, which Tony Blair, as he then was, described in an article in the Times—which I am afraid is for ever embedded in my memory—on 31 March 1997. He described the legislative situation then to be inherited by the incoming Labour Government as
“the most restrictive on trade unions in the Western world”.
Of course, Tony Blair’s Governments chose not to repeal that legislation, and unsurprisingly, the Governments formed from the Benches opposite have not repealed it either. Indeed, they have extended it. In place of the promised employment Bill, which it was said would extend the rights of workers, we have had further restrictions on trade unions. I refer to the Trade Union Act 2016 and, as my noble friend Lord Woodley has mentioned, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which further restricts the right to picket in many specified industrial sectors. Last week we had the statutory instrument on the trade union levy in respect of the certification officer, which imposes a tax on trade unions and gives further powers to the CO—and now we have the Elections Bill.
When all these things are seen together, it is clear that Clause 27 is part of a pattern. I accept that, as my noble friend Lord Collins said—and as the Minister said this morning—these clauses have implications for other democratic bodies too. But Clause 27 is unjustified. To cite the test of the convention, it is not necessary in a democratic society.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, when I first came into this place, I found it surprising that noble Lords from the other side of the House would often stand up and argue that it was inappropriate to introduce clauses in Bills unless the purpose was clear, and they clearly met a required need. So I now find it strange that, as my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury said, this seems to be an example of precisely that. I appreciate that the Minister was not in the House at that time, but I am sure he was a close observer, and that he will recall those speeches and those comments.
I also find it strange that, when we have a highly respected Committee on Standards in Public Life and it has put forward a series of recommendations in precisely this field, the Government have chosen to ignore them. I hope that when the Minister responds he will explain precisely why those recommendations have been ignored. What is the rationale? Why have the Government said, “We substitute our judgment”, which might, just might, be partisan, “for the judgment of the Committee on Standards in Public Life”—which is clearly non-partisan?
I rather wonder whether the Government misunderstand the nature of the relationship between the trade union movement and the Labour Party. I hope that they will no longer do so after the speeches by my noble friends Lord Collins, Lord Woodley and Lord Hendy. But I have sat in too many meetings with the leadership of my party, who, in the privacy of those four walls, were almost tearing their hair out at some of the campaigning and other activities of trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party. As I am sure my noble friend Lord Woodley would agree, it is a fallacy to say that trade unions and the Labour Party are always marching in lockstep on every issue. Frankly, that is not the case.
The general principles and general philosophy may be the same, but the details are clearly not always to each other’s tastes. The idea that all this activity can be conflated without producing some very unfortunate consequences seems to me extraordinary. I hope that when the Minister responds he will, first, give us a clear explanation of the purpose of the measure and why it has been brought forward at this time. Secondly, I hope that he will tell us why the Government have chosen to ignore the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Finally, he might just give us his understanding of the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour Party.
Lord Stunell (LD)
My Lords, I think that it might be my turn now. First, I apologise for not being in the House for the session before lunch. I was attending the Committee on Standards in Public Life, of which I am a member. That committee, as I have reminded the House before, has on it a representative of the Labour Party, Margaret Beckett, a representative of the Conservative Party, Jeremy Wright, and a representative of the Liberal Democrats. It is under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Weardale, who is of course a Cross-Bench Member of this House, and it has a majority of independent members.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, just reminded the House, the committee produced a report, Regulating Election Finance, which is quite thick and I would like to say quite substantial. It makes the case eloquently and clearly, based on evidence, about the things that need to be improved in our electoral regime, the things that need to be protected and the things that need to be prevented. It does not contain a recommendation that coincides with Clause 27.
I have asked the Minister before whether he would be prepared to give us some kind of ministerial or departmental list in which the 47 recommendations that appear in the report cross-reference with the Elections Bill. His answer last time was that the Government gave their reply to this report last October. I took advantage of the committee meeting this morning just to make sure that I was not mistaken and took another careful look at what the Minister said about the report, specifically what his response said about recommendation 21. The answer that he gave in his letter was that, broadly speaking, the Government were thinking about it.
A slightly more detailed annexe brings together five or six of the recommendations in the report, including recommendation 21. I will not reproduce exactly the reasons given for not proceeding with any of them because I assume that that will be part of the Minister’s wind-up speech in a few minutes’ time. Broadly speaking, it says, “It is all complex, it could easily make it much more difficult for people, it is not proportionate and really we were taking into account a lot of other views and consideration and it needs detail”, et cetera. Noble Lords will obviously be able to hear it in a more refined form when the Minister winds up.
What the response does not do at all is to answer why recommendation 21 should not form part of this Bill. Paragraph 8.29 of the report says:
“The Electoral Commission explained in their 2015 General Election spending report that it is difficult to identify in the spending returns how much targeted spending has been incurred and if it has been correctly attributed to the relevant limits.”
So the Electoral Commission identified a specific problem of third-party spending targeted but not properly attributed to the relevant limits. The same paragraph goes on to say:
“The Hodgson report later made a similar recommendation. We agree that this change should be made to increase the transparency around campaigning that is carried out on behalf of political parties.”
Recommendation 21 is very similar to the explanatory note attached to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Collins:
“Parties should be required to identify what is spent by third parties as targeted spending on their behalf. The government should introduce a specific reporting category for targeted expenditure that non-party campaigners have spent in relation to an authorisation given by a political party.”
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I venture to say that I am unable to alter every word of what I might be advised to say, but I repeat what I said this morning when we had the first group on Clause 25. I hope that those who were present this morning will understand what I said in earnest when I responded to that. I listen to what is said in your Lordships’ House. Sometimes it is not the wisest thing to give a full response on the hoof but to give a commitment to further consideration and discussion with noble Lords in all parts of the House, which I undertake to do.
I will respond in general terms on this clause and will follow up in writing specific points that have been made in the debate. I am advised that it is unlikely that clubs will be affected, but this is why I think it is not wise to give a response on the hoof. I think we need a collective understanding of where it might go and, ultimately, it is for the Electoral Commission to give guidance and advice on these matters.
I enjoyed that part of the debate where the Government’s position was likened to that of Mr Tony Blair. I am not sure whether that was meant as a compliment or otherwise, but I hope that we can move forward in a spirit of understanding. One of those understanding points is that spending limits are an integral part of the political finance framework— I think we all agree on that—and that they ensure a level of fairness between parties and campaigners. The issue that some noble Lords have put is that they do not believe that the clause before the Committee meets those criteria, and I will reflect on what has been said.
Clause 27, which the amendment is designed to take out, is designed to prevent unfair circumvention of spending limits. It is fundamentally unfair that the current rules allow for a party potentially to use another group’s spending limit or resources in order to increase its own spending power. Under the existing legislation, campaigners could game the system by establishing distinct groups that together, working with a political party, have an enhanced spending capacity via multiple limits. Indeed, the noble Lord opposite acknowledged that in his speech. It is right that, where groups work together on a campaign, the spending should be accounted for by anyone involved in that campaign, otherwise spending limits are meaningless, and I think that, again, that is broadly common ground.
The effect of the Bill—noble Lords have questioned this—is to extend the principle of joint campaigning, which applies where third-party campaigners are working together, to cover scenarios where political parties and third-party campaigners are actively working together on a campaign. This is not altering the definition of joint campaigning as it is commonly understood; the measures only apply to qualifying election expenditure, not wider, non-electoral campaigning that groups may undertake. I will come specifically to the point on affiliated trade unions later. Political parties and third-party campaigners will be aware if they are working together on a campaign that involves spending money on regulated election expenditure.
The proposition that the Government are putting forward will simply mean that, where a political party and third-party campaigner are incurring spending together, actively campaigning together, the relative spending for that joint campaign should be accounted for by all groups involved in the spending. This will help to ensure that all campaigners are playing by the rules and make it easier for the public to know who is involved in such campaigns.
The measures are intended to strengthen the principle of spending limits already in law that protect the level playing field by ensuring that political parties cannot use campaign groups to enable them to expand their spending limit potential—what could be seen as a political party outsourcing its regulated spending to a third party. As we discussed in relation to Clause 22 —and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has done some research on the matter—during the 2019 general election, the group Advance Together registered as a political party and a third-party campaign group and proceeded to run negative attack campaigns in five constituencies. What can be done in five places can be done in others.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Just on that point—before the Lib Dems jump up in shock and horror—in that case the one organisation registered both as a political party and as a third party. Those are not the circumstances of separate organisations coming together. That particular problem could have been identified by the Electoral Commission and could be subject to provisions to stop a single entity trying to expand its spending limits by becoming more than one type of organisation. This is not what we are talking about in Clause 27.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I was coming on to say that. While Clause 22 will ban the same organisation from appearing on both registers at the same time, the effect, as noble Lords have said, of existing joint campaigning rules and this proposed extension is to reinforce that by stopping other ways that spending limits could be avoided and so it maintains the level playing field.
Of course, that will not affect groups spending on campaigns, even on the same issues or with the same objective, separately outside a joint plan, in their capacity as an individual recognised third party or political party. Any regulated spending undertaken by an individual group not as part of a joint campaign will only need to be reported by the group incurring the spend. No political party or third-party campaigner should be allowed to use the facade of multiple groups working together to expand its spending limits on campaigns where the various groups are for all intents and purposes operating as a single group.
The noble Lord has proposed an alternative approach, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, rightly said, refers to the CPSL recommendations. By the way, the CPSL recommendations came out after the Elections Bill was introduced. When I refer to some of the things we were doing in the spirit of CPSL, it is in that context. But I did make very clear that we took that committee seriously. The noble Lord’s amendments would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations for the purpose of requiring political parties to distinguish targeted spending from other expenditure in their spending returns.
I appreciate that the noble Lord’s intention, and that of CPSL, is to increase transparency on this important topic. However, this replacement does not match the extent of transparency that Clause 27 creates. There, we get into a point of difference. Targeted spending is more limited in its definition than joint campaigning. It focuses only on the promotion of a single political party and its candidates exclusively, not campaigning in relation to policies or issues that may relate to the electoral prospects of a number of political parties. Furthermore, targeted spending also does not cover negative campaigning intended to, for example, reduce support for other candidates or parties. I know that Members of the other place are particularly concerned by this issue, and it is right that such activity, which is highly prevalent in modern campaigning, is transparent.
Targeted spending therefore does not include all scenarios where third parties and political parties might actively work together. That is not to dismiss the importance of the amendments that the noble Lord has put forward. But focusing only on targeted spending and failing to tighten the rules on joint campaigning, as the noble Lord suggests, would not, in our submission, deliver full transparency for the public and might allow campaigners for parties to—
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
May I ask a question? The Minister refers to concern down the other end. I also wish to express concern about some of the negative campaigning that can occur in general elections, and I am keen to hear from the Government how they intend to deal with that. The fact is that this clause requires there to be a common joint effort, formally recognised, between a party and another organisation. The fact is that most negative campaigning that takes place does not fall into that category, so this clause can have an impact only on those organisations that have a formal relationship—in other words, the Labour Party.
Lord True (Con)
I accept the point made by the noble Lord about the wider ambit of negative campaigning, and I hope that is where we will find—whenever we finally get there—a measure of agreement across the House, in the context of, for example, digital campaigning. I agree with the noble Lord and the Committee on Standards in Public Life that third-party campaigning should be transparent, and campaigners should participate on equal terms and be accountable. These principles are already represented in current law.
I have heard what so many noble Lords, and people who have a proud record of commitment to the trade union movement, have said in this debate, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, was kind enough to say at the outset, my officials have met with the TUC and the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation, and we remain open to continuing those discussions. I have met with the noble Lord and his colleagues, and I am ready to do so again. We have listened closely, and I have listened again today to their concerns that Clause 27 will unduly limit the close relationship between the Labour Party and some trade unions. Much of the expressed concern has centred around the definition of “joint campaigning” and whether it would capture, for example, trade unions agreeing policy or manifesto commitments as part of the Labour Party’s governance structure. Clause 27 does not alter the definition of joint campaigning as it is commonly understood, and the Electoral Commission already provides guidance on what is and is not likely to constitute joint campaigning under the current rules, and we would expect them to update their guidance were new rules to come forward in the Elections Bill to reflect the extended circumstances. We will come onto statutory guidance later.
The Elections Bill also does not change the definition of “controlled expenditure”, meaning that only spending which may be reasonably regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success in the lead-up to an election is regulated, whether that is undertaken by a political party or a third-party campaigner. In practice, such activity as formulating policy for inclusion in a manifesto is unlikely to meet the Electoral Commission’s “purpose” or “public” tests, which will remain used to determine whether spending is regulated. It also would not include campaigning or advocacy on issues such as poverty or climate change that are not linked to the electoral success of parties or candidates.
Finally, I want to be clear that under the current rules or under the rules proposed in the Elections Bill, a party being affiliated or having a formal relationship with another campaigner does not in itself automatically constitute joint campaigning. Being an affiliated trade union does not mean that all activity of any other member of the affiliation would immediately count as joint campaigning, unless that activity met the Commission’s existing tests for joint campaigning. Affiliated groups running related or complementary election campaigns would not necessarily constitute joint campaigning, as the campaigns may be being run independently of each other. Only if the campaigns were being conducted in pursuance of a common campaign plan would both groups need to account for the spending.
I hope my response has gone some way towards at least assuring noble Lords that the Government are listening and have listened to the debate on this subject. I hear the concerns that have been expressed, but this clause is not intended to target trade unions. I have heard the submissions made about unintended consequences, but, as I fulfil my duty to sit here, listen to and respond with great respect to your Lordships—
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
Before the noble Lord sits down, would he reflect on the fact that the last two hours have been about something to do with legislation affecting the Labour Party in particular? It would be intriguing to find a similar amount of time in a Bill looking at the Conservative Party in very similar terms.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Before the Minister answers that, could I gently remind Members that it is within the Companion and courteous not to intervene in debate when they were not here and did not come in until 10 minutes after the debate started?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I will not follow that. The House is master of its own procedures, but it is up to those who wish to intervene to do so when they wish to give advice to other Members.
What I would say with respect to the noble Lord, and indeed to all those who have spoken—whether they were here at the start or were not—is that I understand that noble Lords on the other side are here because they have a specific concern. The concern or perception that I have heard expressed is that they believe they may be unduly affected. Having heard what has been said, I will endeavour to provide further reassurances and to explore the matter further. If noble Lords opposite and in other parts of the House are ready to do so, I am determined to continue the discussion on these topics beyond today—and indeed imminently, as we move over the next few days.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
Could I just clarify what the Minister has said? First, I am not sure that he has yet satisfied the House—he certainly has not satisfied me—on whether the issue being addressed by this is a hypothetical future situation or whether the Government have examples of where this problem has arisen.
Secondly, he talks about further discussion and consultation. I know that that is the sort of process that the Minister would wish to follow, but I was slightly surprised to receive an email from an organisation that is not by any means political but is taking an interest in the implications of the Bill, to tell me that its information—I am not part of the usual channels—is that Report on this Bill is going to start two weeks today. If that is the case, when are all these discussions going to take place?
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord is a very experienced Member of the House and he knows that a Minister at the Dispatch Box is not in the usual channels. The duty of the Minister at the Dispatch Box is to be here and respond to the House, as I have explained, whenever and at whatever hour. I gave an undertaking at the start of Committee that I would sit here for every minute of every hour of every day of this Bill’s Committee, Report and Third Reading—whatever the procedures are in respect of the House—and I will do so. I do not think that I want to proceed on that issue.
I have sought to explain the rationale behind this clause, and I have heard the concerns expressed. As far as discussions are concerned, I am sure that the noble Lord can liaise with his own Front Bench and representatives, but—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, would accept—my door is open, has been open and will be open on this matter.
So that is the position. I repeat that the clause is not intended to target trade unions. However, I understand the perceptions and practical concerns that have been expressed. In light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will accept that the clause should stand part, at least at this point. I undertake to read very carefully what has been reported in Hansard to reflect on the debate, and I hope to have further engagement on this matter. In that light, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
One of the problems that we have had, and I raised this at Second Reading, is the failure to properly consult. The Trades Union Congress and TULO, the organisation of Labour-affiliated trade unions, were not consulted in the first round, unlike other charities and third-sector organisations. It was only after being pushed by me, in a meeting that the Minister organised, that meetings took place, rather late in the day.
The clause has serious consequences. The Minister talks about the definition of joint campaigning being well-established, but where is it in law? Where can we actually ensure that it will not change and then be captured? That is the problem that the clause has, and I suspect he has been unable to reassure anyone in this Chamber about what it may end up doing. We will have to return to it strongly, and I expect that before Report the Minister will not just meet me but will have proper consultations with the TUC and TULO because it is important that these organisations are properly consulted on something that will have such a huge impact.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I gave that undertaking in my speech. I accept the reproof but I say to the noble Lord that we have started those contacts—I was not personally involved because I had other engagements at the time but I am responsible for the Bill in this House, though not for its progress up to this point—and, as far as I am concerned, we will continue to do so.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
But timing is of the essence, and we are being pushed. There is a reason why this House’s scrutiny of the Bill is so important. How long did the other place take to scrutinise this clause? No time at all; in the two hours allocated to the Bill, this clause was not included. We can see from Hansard that they had no debate on these clauses, but it is a fundamental issue that affects our democracy. I know the Minister is concerned about the time we may take over these issues, but I assure him that I will stay up all night and all day until we get proper consideration of these issues. It is not right that this measure is pushed through without proper consultation and consideration. In the meantime, I will not push my Motion to a vote.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
Does the noble Lord beg leave to withdraw the amendment?
“Guidance by the Commission relating to third party controls
(1) PPERA is amended as follows.(2) Omit Part 2 of Schedule 8A (controlled expenditure: qualifying expenses).(3) After section 100 (public inspection of returns under section 96) insert—“100A Guidance by the Commission about third parties(1) The Commission must prepare, and may from time to time revise, a code of practice giving guidance as to the application of Part VI of this Act to third parties, including in particular, but not limited to—(a) the kinds of expenses which do, or do not, fall within Part 1 of Schedule 8A, including what categories of person constitute the “public” for the purposes of paragraph 1(1), (2) and (5) of that Schedule,(b) application of section 85(b) to third parties,(c) the relationship between notional controlled expenditure under section 86 and regulation of donations to third parties under section 95 and Schedule 11, and(d) what types of activities and communications between third parties constitute incurring expenditure in pursuance of a plan or other arrangement where the expenditure can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve a common purpose under section 94.(2) The Commission must consult the following on a draft of any guidance or revised guidance prepared in accordance with subsection (1)—(a) the Speaker’s Committee,(b) the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Select Committee of the House of Commons, (c) the Scottish Ministers, so far as the draft relates to the Commission’s devolved Scottish functions,(d) the Welsh ministers, so far as the draft relates to the Commission’s devolved Welsh functions, and(e) a cross-section of persons and organisations representative of third parties within the meaning of section 85(8) of this Act, including civil society groups.(3) As soon as the Commission has prepared a draft code under this section, it must submit it to the Secretary of State for approval.(4) The Secretary of State may approve a draft code either without modification or with such modifications as the Secretary of State may determine.(5) When the Secretary of State has approved a draft code, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of the draft either—(a) in its original form, or(b) in a form which incorporates any modifications determined under subsection (4).(6) If the draft incorporates any such modifications, the Secretary of State must at the same time lay a statement of the reasons for making them.(7) If, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft, the Secretary of State may take no further steps in relation to the draft code.(8) If no such resolution is made within the 40-day period—(a) the Secretary of State must issue the code in the form of the draft laid before Parliament, and(b) the code must come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and the Commission must arrange for it to be published in such manner as they consider appropriate.(9) Subsection (7) does not prevent a new draft code from being laid before Parliament.(10) In this paragraph “40-day period”, in relation to a draft code, means—(a) if the draft is laid before one House on a day later than the other, the period of 40 days beginning with the later of the two days, and(b) in any other case, the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the draft is laid, no account being taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.(11) In this paragraph references to a draft code include a draft revised code.(12) The Commission must have regard to guidance issued under this section in exercising its functions.(13) It is a defence for a person or third party charged with an offence under this Act to show that any guidance for the time being issued under this section was complied with in relation to Part VI of this Act.””Member’s explanatory statement
This would expand the power for the Commission to produce a code of conduct on what types of expense will be treated as regulated expenditure by third party campaigners at Schedule 8A PPERA, so that it is (i) a duty rather than a discretionary power and (ii) widened to oblige the Commission to provide guidance on other complex areas of election law for third parties, such as the rules around joint spending, and what constitutes a member.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I did not intervene in the last serious and lengthy debate. I understood how seriously many Members of your Lordships’ House took the issue. I had some peripheral dealings with clubs from the three major parties during my review and I have to say that the political affiliation was probably rather less important than the quality of the club, its community sense, the price of a beer and the nature of the bingo—all of which are very important—but the weight of political influence being placed on the clubs was not borne out by any evidence I received. That is not to undermine the point being made, but I would not place on the clubs the weight that I heard some noble Lords putting on them in the last hour and a quarter.
I turn to Amendment 54A and I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who I am delighted to see in his place. This is the most important of the series of amendments that I have tabled on the third-party campaigning system. It takes us to the heart of the various concerns about the impact of the present regime on third-party campaigning, in particular—the phrase we have become familiar with, having heard it many times in sittings of the Committee—“the chilling effect” of the 2014 Act.
The problem for third-party campaigners is the lack of certainty in key aspects of the current regulatory regime. There are two particularly important areas. The first—I come back to it—is the intent test. The key phrase—I say it once more—is
“reasonably regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election”,
which is essentially the linchpin of the whole third-party campaigning regime. It is interpreted by the Electoral Commission, which decides whether a course of action infringes that phrase and makes the decision on its own authority entirely. Although I absolutely recognise that the electoral commissioners work hard and successfully to reassure civil society about its fears, and I applaud that, the kernel of doubt and concern remains there to gnaw away at the confidence of third- party campaigners.
When we debated Clauses 14 and 15—I do not want to repeat the remarks I made in those debates—my noble friend the Minister faced very heavy criticism of the extent to which the Bill, as currently drafted, would undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission. As I listened to the debate, the argument seemed to be that the Electoral Commission should be made more independent, given more freedom of action. As I explained in an earlier sitting, I am concerned about such a development. Just as noble Lords did not believe my noble friend would have malevolent intentions, it was argued that he would not be in post for ever, and who could tell who might succeed him and what his successors might do with the powers that the Bill gave them? Similarly, I am not criticising the current Electoral Commission; I make that very clear. I recognise, as I said, that it worked hard with third-party campaigners to reassure them of the practical implications of the intent test. However, the commissioners too will not be in post for ever, and who knows who might follow them?
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was among those who led the charge and was most critical of the Government in that debate. He and I have made common cause about the inadequacy of the present procedures for scrutinising secondary legislation and I do not resile from that at all. However, the criticism of the Government, if followed through, would create an organisation that would be making tertiary legislation. It would be promoting, making and enforcing regulation in key areas of our electoral system without any vestige of democratic control at all. I argue that this is undesirable.
There is, however, a way to restore this and to restore a decent element of parliamentary—and by parliamentary I mean, parliamentary, not executive—control over the Electoral Commission. This would be achieved by means of codes—codes of practice which have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Crucially, as a result, compliance with the code would give a statutory defence, so ending the uncertainty that has caused so much concern about the present regime.
The amendment therefore introduces a new clause that would require the Electoral Commission to prepare statutory codes of practice—powers, by the way, it does not have in the current legislation. The areas to be covered are listed in proposed new Section 100A(1)(a) to (d). Two areas are of particular importance: first, the intent test—the Electoral Commission will be required to produce a code explaining how it proposes to operate that test—and, secondly but no less importantly, we need clarity on what constitutes a member of an organisation. This is important because, once you are a member of an organisation, communicating with you ceases to be a qualifying expenditure for the purposes of the Act. So a third-party campaigner can build membership quickly and have an increasingly wide reach without any commensurately increasing expenditure being imposed on them.
In today’s hyperconnected modern world, it is astonishingly easy and cheap to email hundreds of thousands of people about an issue and put on the bottom of the email, “Please tick this box if you want to be a member”. I regard this as potentially a very dangerous opening, offering, in particular, the prospect of third parties holding views at the outer fringes of our society being able to build up so-called members, who can then be communicated with free of charge. This would offer such groups a campaigning reach far beyond their real level of support. The Electoral Commission currently has a series of categories—including “committed supporter” and “the public at large”—and I am afraid I am far from convinced that these stand- alone terms will be able to meet the pressures of an age of ubiquitous social media. We need a code for what constitutes “the public”—namely, the opposite of a member—and this is provided for in proposed Section 100A(1)(b).
The rest of Amendment 54A is concerned with process, laying out a list of the groups that have to be consulted by the Electoral Commission: the devolved Administrations, on matters concerning them, and a representative sample of civil society groups. The Electoral Commission must then provide a draft and present it to the Secretary of State, who may approve the code or modify it. If he chooses to modify it, he has to explain why he has done so, so that the difference between what the Minister and the Electoral Commission think is clear. A series of procedures for obtaining the consent of both Houses is then laid out in the latter part of the clause. Crucially and importantly, proposed Section 100A(13) reads:
“It is a defence for a person or third party charged with an offence under this Act to show that any guidance for the time being issued under this section was complied with in relation to Part VI of this Act.”
Amendment 54A could provide, first, a high degree of certainty and, therefore, reassurance on certain key issues of the regulatory regime and, therefore, to third-party campaigners. Secondly, by using secondary legislation, it offers the opportunity to keep regulations up to date, reflecting changes in society, social media, public attitudes and campaigning methods, thus reducing the dangers of evasion. Thirdly, it introduces a proper degree of democratic or parliamentary control of the Electoral Commission, thereby perhaps offering the Government part of a way out of the troubles in which they have found themselves in Clauses 13 and 14.
It is a common phrase that the law is too important to be left to the lawyers. I submit to the Committee that electoral law, which goes to the heart of our democracy, is too important to be left to an untrammelled Electoral Commission. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I put my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in full knowledge of his long-standing commitment to plurality and his excellent report on the previous restrictions placed on third-party campaigning, including by charities, where he rightly pointed out that the chilling effect that has been referred to is as much a danger as the detail of what people are expected to do—in other words, the reflection of what people think they cannot do rather than the actual restriction laid down in the law. Codes of practice will be extremely helpful in the future when we have sorted out the Bill and, I hope, eliminated the attack on the Electoral Commission inherent in Ministers taking power over its policy and strategy direction.
Codes of practice are for clarity and enabling people to do what they do best, which is to take part in civil society in a pluralistic democracy, whether they are engaged in the formal political processes that we have debated under Clause 52 or whether they are involved in the political processes that make up a democratic process within a democratic society. That is civil society action. People will be clear as to what is and is not acceptable. They will adhere to those processes and be able to play their full part.
I was going to say that we have long Committee sittings followed by shorter programmed and amendable sessions on Report, but I heard what the Minister said about listening. Let me make it clear in my short contribution that Committee sessions of this House are valuable only if they impact on whether the Government are prepared to change their mind, and listen to and reflect on the expertise, knowledge and experience of Members of this House. Otherwise, we are spending hours and hours, with some people here into the early hours of the morning, not being listened to by anyone. I therefore appeal to the Minister to fulfil what he committed to in the debate on the previous group and be prepared as a senior Minister, a Minister of State, to take back to colleagues the deep disquiet over a number of areas in the Bill. Otherwise, I hope that this part of the legislature, this House, will stall the Bill. Parts of it are a fundamental attack on our democratic processes.
However, this set of amendments moved and spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is a clarification and strengthening of the power while bringing about greater accountability in relation to the operation, as opposed to the destruction, of the Electoral Commission. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of my Amendment 54 B. There is a lot to commend in the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Blunkett. It is a serious attempt to establish a new accountability framework for the Electoral Commission. I am conscious that we had some debate in the previous group on the issue that I want to touch on. With the benefit of hindsight, it might have been part of that discussion, but I should like to make other points.
My amendment proposes inserting a new clause in the Bill that would require political parties to report on the amount of controlled spending incurred by third parties as targeted spending on their behalf. This is a relatively simple and straightforward amendment in an extremely complex area. It would increase transparency for voters and other campaigners by making it easier to identify in spending returns how much targeted spend has been incurred.
I tabled this amendment for two main reasons. The first reason is to highlight the importance of the report Regulating Election Finance, produced by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. There have been a number of comments and contributions on that report, and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is in his place. He is too modest to say it, but for me this was an exemplar of how to bring forward a balanced, informed and measured approach to the complex and fast-moving world of election finance.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches hope that the Government will be willing not only to listen but to accept both of these amendments, either in their current form or in some reshaped form. They would be constructive and non-partisan additions to the Bill.
I recall that the review undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, came about as a result of what some people felt were the botched efforts of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act, which was rushed through Parliament. Of course, if this Bill becomes law in anything like its current form, I should warn the noble Lord that he—and perhaps not only he but other Members of the House too—will be called on several more times to do post-legislative scrutiny on various aspects of it.
We differ from the noble Lord in one or two respects. We would have fought for Parliament against the executive prerogative of the monarchy in the Civil War; that is where my party comes from. We are therefore in favour of the Electoral Commission being responsible to the Speaker’s Committee much more than to the Secretary of State. We will want to consider and discuss between now and Report whether the Speaker’s Committee too needs to be further reinforced, and perhaps slightly reshaped. Apart from that, we strongly support where both amendments come from, and we hope that the Government will be willing to incorporate them in further discussions on the Bill.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made a distinguished contribution, based on his great experience—although I fear that in identifying Conservative clubs he was thinking of Walsall North Conservative Club, which defines itself online as a pub that has gone out of business, rather than the neighbouring Aldridge Conservative & Unionist Club, which defines itself online both as a social club, which it is, and also as “community and government”. That rather makes my point about some clubs—not only Conservative clubs but also Labour and Liberal clubs.
I want to make one brief comment on Amendment 54B and what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said, and will requote one of the principles he identified, which is clarity. In 1995 I was tasked with ensuring that the Labour Party and the trade unions stayed within the law, as it was emerging under the Nolan committee, to which I presented evidence with my noble and learned friend Lord Morris on behalf of all trade unions. Before the law changed, my experience was that clarity was critical. I was able to go to senior politicians—my noble friend Lord Blunkett was an exception because he was always exemplary on all financial matters, but not everyone was because politicians are often more enthused about their political campaigns than by exactly how they are funded—and one of my roles was to ensure that everything was within the spirit of the law and within the law we already had on trade union funds. Clarity was critical.
It would probably be a best seller if I cited some of the spectacular examples, but there were some ferocious rows. I explained to people that they were not having that money because the way they were trying to get it was not technically legal, despite the fact that the way they wished to spend it was clearly for social good. Politicians have a weakness when it comes to money, especially when it is to do with elections. Clarity is critical.
When the law changed, and treasurers were about to be elected in my local party, when I was a Member of the other place, I always used to say, “You’ll go to prison if you get this wrong.” That quickly weeded out those who wanted the position of treasurer for some kind of political enhancement and left a tiny number who were prepared to ensure that the finances were in order. They were awkward to me, because I kept saying “That’s perfectly legitimate”, and they would delay income or expenditure because they wanted to be absolutely certain.
That is the beauty of what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, is suggesting: a designated treasurer with a duty that they will apply with draconian consequences for breaching the law. I strongly commend this approach and this principle as one of the levers to ensure that transparency is delivered. I think this is rather a good proposal.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am not an expert on dining clubs, working men’s club or gentlemen’s clubs. Sadly, in these days of the pandemic, even nightclubs are a distant memory.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I will get advice from my noble friend on that afterwards.
I am concerned about third parties campaigning in a free democratic society and unintended consequences. My background is as a human rights campaigner, on civil liberties and civil rights in particular. In my experience the nature of those campaigns is that you are always having to side with the opposition of the day—not just the Labour Party but any opposition of the day. Just google me and you will find lots of reasons for my noble friends to be cross with me. I am not expressing hurt feelings on behalf of the Labour Party on this occasion. I am concerned about the ability of human rights organisations and civil society to function in the future, regardless of who is in power.
While I commend the sentiment behind these amendments, I worry about whether the fundamental problem that they attempt to respond to is the one touched on by my noble friend Lord Collins in the last group, which goes back to PPERA itself: the concern about what joint campaigning is and how one is touched by these third-party controls. I totally understand successive Governments’ concerns about third parties who are proxies for political parties in a way that we have seen in other jurisdictions, where one sees even TV commercials funded by so-called civil society organisations that are proxies for political parties. That drives a coach and horses through any kind of regulation, and I understand that, but, at the same time, as someone who was the director of the National Council for Civil Liberties in 2014 when the legislation came in, I can testify about the chronic anxiety that it caused among civil rights organisations that were really not party political in any sense that would be understood in this place or the other place.
I support the instinct behind the amendments. The Minister has been so kind as to say that he wants to drill down a little more before Report. In whatever time is available in his discussions, I ask him to bear in mind that there are ongoing anxieties about that fundamental problem. It is wonderful to have guidance, but, as we always do with legislation when there are ambiguities and concerns, we say, “Well, we’ll have this regulator who will help. We’ll have this guidance that will help after the fact”—whereas, if we are really talking about rights, freedoms and the constitution, ideally we would have sufficient clarity in the primary legislation itself.
We have heard from trade unions, with their particular link with the Labour Party, but we could be talking about all sorts of charities, NGOs or grass-roots campaigns, from the Countryside Alliance to Liberty, which I worked for. I listened carefully to the Minister on the previous group. This is not about climate catastrophe or poverty—except “It isn’t until it is”. It is not an issue until it seems to be the biggest issue of the day and people think that it is then capable of toppling a Government or making an opposition party. I am looking for that level of comfort and—the word has been used a number of times—clarity, not in just for future guidance but in current law.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this. I recall the days when the noble Lord, Lord Mann, was telling general secretaries what they could and could not do. There were occasions in meetings where he was the bad cop and I was the good cop—I do not think that things have changed much, really.
The noble Lord talked about clarity and my noble friend Lord Blunkett talked about certainty. That is the nub of this, and I support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. It is not that I do not trust the Electoral Commission or what it may or may not do; it is because the current system relies on guidance that could change overnight and is not certain. My trade union colleagues behind me know that statutory codes of practice are often used as a way of creating certainty, to ensure that there is a clear defence, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, put it. So the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Blunkett are therefore absolutely right.
There is a problem at the moment with the regulation, and because there is doubt and uncertainty, the result is “Don’t do it” and inaction. Therefore, this sort of proposal, where we create a statutory framework that could be properly scrutinised—again, I support that— would create clarity and certainty, and therefore encourage civil society to participate in our democratic process. So I support the noble Lord.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it has been an interesting short debate. I would be working against the Government’s interests if I was tempted into a philosophical discussion about tertiary law and clarity and certainty. I am quite happy to have that discussion outside the Chamber. However, there are important points raised here. Also, the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, as he acknowledged, rather logically fell into our previous debate. I have undertaken to reflect on the debate on Clause 27, and I will add the remarks from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, into that. There are existing rules on targeted spending for third-party campaigners—placing a cap on the spending—directed at one political party unless the party authorises further spending, in which case it must already report on that.
With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, I will focus on the very interesting interventions—not that his was not, but on the even more interesting interventions—of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in the back corner there, whom I thank for his barbed kind words. I hope that the barbs will not be needed as our reflections go forward.
My noble friend Lord Hodgson, as I think is acknowledged on all sides of this House, has considerable expertise in this area. Someone used the phrase that he “speaks for pluralities”. His Amendment 54A would remove a permissive power on the Electoral Commission to prepare a code of practice on the expenditure controls for third-party campaigners and replace that with a requirement on the commission to produce a code of conduct. It then further specifies the contents of such a code.
Even in this short debate I heard noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Mann and Lord Blunkett, using the words “clarity” and “certainty”. While the Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to ensure compliance by political parties and third-party campaigners and does provide extensive guidance to support this, we are certainly not opposed in principle to encouraging the Electoral Commission to improve the current guidance that is on offer. The Government does and will continue to encourage the commission to work with groups that have specific concerns and to aid their understanding of the rules. That is important. Whether we need something further in legislation to ensure that we get the right outcome on guidance—a point that my noble friend is pushing at in his amendment —will need further consideration.
I look forward to engaging with him on this point ahead of the next stage of the Bill, because in debating terms and potentially in practical terms he has raised issues of importance, and the Government will consider carefully what he has said. In that light, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in favour of my amendment: to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for his support, and to the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, who was kind enough to veer off his own track to give approval to this.
This is a new car which I am taking round the track for the first time to see how it corners and whether it will crash. We have not crashed, but I will say that there are some improvements that can be made to the car. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, referred to procedure and whether guidance should come via the Speaker’s Committee to the Secretary of State. What sieves it goes through and in which order are still to be decided, and I quite understand that this could be improved or changed. They key thing is that there must be parliamentary approval from both Houses as the final step. The noble Lord, Lord Mann, and I will sample the delights of the working men’s clubs of Walsall and Aldridge at some date in the future.
The problem with putting codes of practice into primary legislation is that they cannot be changed. We are already suffering because PPERA and the 2014 Act have been left behind by events. Therefore, being stuck with a phraseology that has become increasingly out of date has to be balanced against the ability to move on a bit with changes over time through statutory instruments, which have parliamentary approval. Admittedly, this is not very satisfactory but they are discussed. Guidance is not the right word. There has to be a statutory code to give the protection referred to in the amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for his support and to the Minister for his further consideration. One can ask for no more. I have brought the car back to the starting point without crashing, which is pretty good.
The use of the term “permissive power” is the problem because it trammels freedom of action. Once how it will work has been written down, one cannot suddenly say, “Oh, we don’t quite like that bit after all”. This is the heart of the problem with third-party campaigning. The Electoral Commission wants freedom to dance around and third-party campaigners want some certainty as to what is happening. The best way to achieve this is via parliamentary approval of codes produced by the Electoral Commission. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(2) Schedule 1 must not come into force until the Secretary of State has made a statement to Parliament on the estimated cost of the provisions.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, we now move back to the beginning of the Bill, to Clause 1 on voter identification and the Government’s proposals to introduce photographic voter ID at polling stations.
I have tabled a number of amendments in this group. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, for their support for Amendment 55. Amendments 55, 61, 62 and 92 all concern cost, finance and what it will mean if we are looking to deliver the requirement for voter identification of electors at polling stations. Some amendments are to do with making Statements to Parliament on the estimated cost in order that Parliament has proper oversight. There are also amendments around local authority finances because they will have a serious role to play in ensuring that this is delivered appropriately and on time. Amendment 62 concerns the public purse.
First, whenever legislation is brought in that has serious cost implications for local authorities, it is really important that those costs are properly understood and considered. We know that local authorities are under huge pressure at the moment. Such new legislation impacts not just on finances but on resources as well. This is not just about money; it is about people and expertise.
The first three amendments in this group relate to Schedule 1. Amendment 92, to which I shall come later, concerns Schedule 3 but is still about costs. When PACAC held its witness evidence sessions on the Elections Bill, it explored the practical and cost implications of implementing the voter ID proposals.
I just wanted to draw attention to the evidence given by Peter Stanyon, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators. He described the cost as:
“Effectively unquantifiable in many respects.”
I find that quite concerning when you are looking at the impact on local authorities. He said that the Bill is
“light on the practicalities because that will come in secondary legislation down the line”.
I am sure the Minister is aware that some of our concerns about the Bill are about the amount that is to come later in secondary legislation. What this means is that noble Lords and Members of the other place are being asked to pass this legislation with a large amount of detail about the cost implications pretty much unknown.
The impact assessment on the Bill, carried out by the Cabinet Office—and discussed at Second Reading, if I recall correctly—estimated the total cost of introducing photo ID at £120 million over 10 years. That includes £15 million to produce the free voter ID cards for those who have no other photographic ID. That £120 million was a best estimate within the ranges that were looked at. The top end was £180 million. We all know how costs tend to go up rather than down with anything brought in by government.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, these costs include £55 million on larger, more detailed polling cards, which will have to be posted in envelopes for the first time, and another £15 million on producing plastic voter cards for the estimated 2.1 million people who may not have suitable ID. Does the Minister believe that this is really a good use of public money? It is worth noting that this is at a time when our NHS, for example, is under immense stress; £120 million could buy 10,316 hip operations or 3,986 new ventilators. I ask again: is this really a good use of public money at this time?
In the evidence to the Committee stage in the other place, Virginia McVea, Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, was interviewed. She gave evidence about when voter ID was introduced in Northern Ireland. She said that in the early stages “the costs were considerable”. She drew attention to the fact that there was a time cost as well as a financial cost and a resource cost, particularly during election times. In fact, she startled the Committee by saying that she needed 70 extra staff during the election period.
The Local Government Association has said that individually each new provision is technically achievable. However, the Association of Electoral Administrators has highlighted that the cumulative impact of these changes to an already fragile system will create capacity and resilience issues. Due to the increasing complexity of registration and election processes over the last 20 years, electoral services teams already work incredibly hard in the run-up to local elections, with significant amounts of overtime and weekend working. Those of us who have been Members of Parliament also know the extraordinary amount of work that goes on in the run-up to general elections.
There were extraordinary elections in May 2021. Then, many councils used what they call the one-council approach, meaning that they drew capacity from across the council to run local elections, with election staff acting as experts on the process. However, there are concerns that this would not be sustainable in the long term. It also fails to account for the added complexity created by the new provisions, which will also require specialist knowledge to navigate, certainly in the early days.
These changes, which add complexity and further duties for returning officers and the election teams, will also put additional strain on the finite election resources in councils. As a result, additional funding and other mitigations may be required to build capacity, maintain the capability of staff in the registration and election system and ensure—this is really important—the resilience of our electoral processes.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I am not going to take anything but a tiny bit of your Lordships’ time. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has given us a very comprehensive and clear introduction to this group. I have been worried for a long time about local authority funding and the squeeze on it for the past 10 years or so and I have just one question for the Minister: has he consulted with a selected group of local authorities about whether they regard this as a good use of their resources and their money? If not, will he set in motion a consultation with local authorities about whether they really feel they can take on this added cost and use of their resources?
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness made some interesting points about the issues that will face local government in implementing these proposals. She referred to the cost estimates, which are of course included in the impact statement, and seemed to say that these were extraordinarily large numbers. There are 45 million electors. At £180 million, the top end of the range, that is only about £3 per elector: we have to get this into perspective. We are talking about proposals that will improve the integrity of our electoral system. This is a very modest cost; can we just get it into perspective?
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
My Lords, waiting five hours to speak, you can get a bit anxious. I am not quite sure how you do this on a regular basis. I would have preferred not to be here today; I would have preferred to be in Cambridge, at Homerton College with my students. We have a big event on, and I would have liked to be there with them, but I told them I need to be here discussing the Bill, because of its immense importance, not least to them and their generation. We are making laws that, if we are not careful, lock people out rather than encouraging people in.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord True—I reached out to him to have a conversation and he said, “By all means”. We had a good conversation, and it was a respectful one. I am not sure I persuaded him on some of the fundamental points that I am going to put now, but he said, “Lord Woolley, you need to persuade the House as well”, not least those on the Government side. He said to make sure I have my facts and to make sure I have evidence. We talked about a number of things, two of which I would say the noble Lord, Lord True, violently agreed with. One was the need for comprehensive citizenship in our schools. He said, “What’s not to like about that? We need to empower, to inform, to educate the next generation to understand what happens in this Chamber. Because, if they do not have that, they do not engage in politics.” It is the truth.
I was struck, as the Minister may have been, that a year or so ago hundreds of thousands of young people, black, brown and white, protested with Black Lives Matter up and down the country, demanding justice and race equality. However, many of those hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets do not vote because they do not see the correlation between their protest and what happens in these Chambers. Having citizenship education, giving them that knowledge, would help their protests to translate into voting. We agreed on that.
We also agreed on the need for the Government and local authorities to ensure that people are encouraged to register to vote. We know that in my community, the black community, particularly among young Africans, 50% are not even registered. So these were the two issues that the Minister and I violently agreed on, yet—think about this for a second—in the Elections Bill there is nothing about citizenship, nothing about how we get people to the polling booths and nothing about ensuring that local authorities and communities engage in voter registration. You could not make it up. What we are presented with is not how we get people to the voting booth, enhance our democracy or inspire a generation to play their part, which this Bill should be campaigning for; instead we are spending hours upon hours ensuring that people do not fall off the register. Many of us today are not trying to ensure that people can get on but trying to save people from falling off. That is the truth. This is putting the cart before the horse.
The Minister said to me, “Make sure you get your facts”—and rightly so, because we are moved by evidence. I am here to tell the House that the last time I spoke here I inadvertently misled the House. When talking about voter fraud, I said in front of your Lordships that five individuals had been convicted of that offence. I was wrong: there was one, and one caution, out of 47 million people. So when we are looking at facts and justifications, are we telling these young people and our society that we are spending £180 million and are on the verge of losing—how many people might we lose through this legislation?—10, 20, 40, 100, 1,000 or potentially even millions of people because we are saying that there is a problem with voter fraud? How can I go to schools and colleges and tell young people to engage in politics when they see how we are doing politics, and when they see that we are spending millions of pounds but the effect is to take people off the register?
Evidence was asked for. The noble Baroness mentioned the local elections in 2019 and the pilot schemes. In its evaluation, the Electoral Commission noted that between 3% and 7% of those who engaged with those elections were turned away because they did not have the right voter ID, including non-photographic ID. We have to extrapolate what that might mean in a general election, because that is the evidence we are presented with. The Electoral Commission and others suggest that between 50,000 and 400,000 people could show up at a general election, be turned away and not come back—that is against one conviction of fraud. Is it me? Am I missing something here about how bonkers that sounds?
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I did not want to be here either today, because of my fractured foot. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and I go back a long way, fighting on the same side on many things. However, I am worried that we are pulling everybody together and thinking that wanting to clean up the system is disenfranchising people.
I have worked so hard locally engaging with people, and the thing I hear back all the time is, “What’s the point of my vote when it’s not going to count?”, because they are not engaged—not, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, because they do not want to be, but because in cities like mine, they are not encouraged to be engaged. I have talked about those who cannot speak and understand English over and again in this Chamber, and I am talking about the many women I engage with every single week in my city. I really try hard to get them engaged in what is going on in their city because their rights are constantly being set aside.
I want our voting system to reflect these women’s desires too, just as the noble Lord and I have fought battles against everything else that is discriminatory. I want to remove this inability for them to believe that they matter. They do not matter because, most of the time, the decisions they want to make are made by people who tend to speak on their behalf because they are the only people who are engaging.
It is not just about the £180 million for me—it really is not. I am passionate that we have a system where every single vote counts, whether it is from the poor, white working class in my city or the women I am engaged with. I spoke with many of them about this Bill—before I did this to my foot—and said that I would listen carefully to what was being said. Often as not, I ask for clarification from the Government Front Bench because I want to know that what I am taking back to them will actually empower them and not take power away. A lot of the time, what they said to me was that they want to be the people who matter in this process. At this moment in time, they do not feel that they matter. For me, anything that tidies that up is a great thing.
I of course want young people to be engaged, but more important than the young people coming forward are the people who are there today—the women from my communities and the noble Lord’s communities, and the poor, working class—who do not feel engaged. If that means we have to have something that helps that process, I am all for it. Do not think for one minute I will not challenge my Front Bench if I do not agree with it, but I really want a system that enables us all to feel that we are part of a process where one vote matters. At the moment, there are plenty in my city who do not believe that.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, what a wonderful, emotional, eloquent contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Woolley. I have to say I totally agree. Here we are this afternoon debating the minutiae of the costs of voter ID, when the big issue we are failing to debate and come to terms with is the huge number of people in our country who should be able to vote but are not able to because they are not on the register. It is disproportionately and discriminatively against those from black communities, Asian communities and working-class communities. That is why the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, was so powerful.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I am tired of this divisiveness that keeps coming up. We have been in this country for a very long time. The divisiveness that has been caused has been caused because we have refused to allow people to be fully engaged. I am going to stand here and say that over and over again. The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, can shake her head, but I have heard it over and over again that minority communities do not want to engage. They do, but unfortunately the systems do not always help them.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I have found this absolutely fascinating—I genuinely have. This is not a rhetorical point. I understand that both the noble Baronesses opposite who have spoken have said they want integrity in the system. The noble Baroness has just said she feels passionate about a lack of engagement and obstacles to people’s engagement—an issue on which I suspect she finds common cause with the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and everyone in the Committee. My question to the noble Baroness, because I really want to understand her position, is whether she feels that, at present, a significant bar to the engagement she seeks is coming from widespread voter fraud in the communities she is discussing. Is that the problem she feels is the stumbling block and is that why she is a supporter of the Government’s policy?
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, there was no intention on my part at all to create any division within our communities. I have spent a lifetime in mixed communities, trying to engage people from every background in the political process. That is the point that I was trying to make and I am sorry if the noble Baroness opposite perhaps misunderstood.
Here we are today, talking about the costs of voter ID, which the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, has eloquently said will create an even greater barrier to people being able to vote. At this point, I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that I am an elected member of Kirklees Council and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
I speak in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman—of course I do. In many ways, she is absolutely right. Any changes in the way in which elections are administered will be an additional cost to already hard-pressed council finances. Returning officers have expressed their concern. They know that there is more to it than just creating the new eligible voter ID for those without it.
Additional costs are mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum, helpfully. What it does not do is list them. I am going to draw the Committee’s attention to what some of the additional costs will be. As we have heard, there is the additional cost of creating a photographic voter ID card for those who do not have one, the cost of providing screens for voters who do not wish to remove their face covering in front of others, and the cost of additional equipment to make it easier for those with disabilities to vote in person. The latter is one part of the Bill that is positive. There is also the cost of additional polling clerks to check ID in busy polling stations—perhaps financial incentives will be required to encourage polling clerks to fulfil that role because they will now have to check the ID of every voter before they get their ballot paper. There is the cost of effectively communicating the change, and the hidden cost of more trained staff. And so it goes on.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has said, the estimate is £180 million—a mere £3 per person. I say to her that, in my council area, that is £1 million a year—and £1 million does not half fill a lot of potholes. If I asked my electors back in Kirklees whether they would rather the council produced voter ID cards for people or filled potholes, I am fairly confident that I know what the answer would be.
Can the Minister confirm that the Government will meet all the additional costs of the changes that they want to make? Can he confirm, given that individual councils will have different additional expenditure based on their demographics, that any government grant will be divided to meet the cost of changes rather than on a formulaic basis? Do the Government believe that extra expenditure is value for money? The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised that issue and I have just given an example. Have the Government consulted with electors on whether they believe that these additional costs are value for money and can be considered a priority in these straitened times?
Schedule 3 relates to the changes proposed to postal voting. There is a very high cost to the requirement to reapply after three years. In my local authority, around 50,000 electors currently vote by post; the postage costs alone are very high. In England there are about 8 million postal voters, so the postage costs for writing out to existing postal voters for them to reapply and fill in the postal voter application would be about £4 million. Is that money well spent in the current circumstances?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, would it not have been nice if, when the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, finished, we could have all said, “Game, set, match and tournament. Let us do the Government a favour, save them £190 million in these straitened times, scrap Part 1 of the Bill and all go for a cup of tea and save ourselves a few hours’ unnecessary work”? There is nothing else to say after that, but I will still say one or two things.
It was so compelling and convincing. I just wonder how the noble Lord, Lord True, whom I have known for a very good while, will react. He knows a lot about elections; he has fought a lot himself. He must know that, when this new system comes into operation—assuming that it does—it will involve a high level of expenditure, not least for explaining to the public what they will now have to do in an election which they did not have to do previously. It will be an expensive operation and will take national newspaper adverts. If it is in the name of public information, so be it.
I wonder what the noble Lord’s view is of the integrity of our elections. Two years ago, his party won an election with a majority of 80. I did not like that result one little bit but, sadly, I thought that the election was conducted in my constituency perfectly fairly. It was free and fair. The result was unchallengeable; we did not do a Donald Trump in the constituency. I have been on the wrong end of several election results in my varied career in politics, but I have never doubted the integrity of the election. However, presumably the noble Lord’s position is this: we should have quite significant doubts about this 80-seat majority that his party enjoys at present. There must have been voter fraud all over the place, and we have to spend a lot of money to get this right.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, that there has been the sum total of one prosecution. This whole Part 1 is much ado about nothing—sadly, it is about something, because it will reduce turnout, as we know. However, the problem it is trying to solve does not exist. We will have to go over and over the same argument. I can make so many detailed points about it.
One that struck me is that polling stations can be quite awkward at times if people forget to take their poll cards and think, “I can’t vote now, but I am going to vote; I’ve lived here 60 years”, and all the rest of it. I do not fancy being a poor old poll clerk under the new regime, telling large numbers of people, as I guess they will have to, “Sorry, you cannot vote. You haven’t got your ID”. “But I’ve lived here for 50 years; I don’t need ID. The wife and I come down and vote, have a drink on the way back and it’s a nice little evening out.” “Yes, but you need your voter ID”.
In the best circumstances, there may be an amiable exchange of views because, in local polling stations, people tend to know each other. However, I can see it turning nasty. I do not fancy being the poll clerk who says, “Sorry, you can’t vote.” This is just one specific example. You certainly need to train the poll clerk and warn them of the difficulties which will arise.
I really would like a straightforward answer from the Minister to my question which was so brilliantly dealt with in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Woolley. Does the Minister think that his Government, with their 80-seat majority, was a result of a free and fair election, or not? If the answer is, “Yes, it was a free and fair election, and I am pleased with my 80-seat majority”, why on earth is he going through all this nonsense to solve a problem which does not exist?
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, in a previous debate on this Bill, I heard my noble friend say that he would not have wanted to be an election agent. I have now heard him say that he would not want to be a poll clerk. So perhaps I should begin by saying that I have been both in my lifetime. Being an election agent was quite a big responsibility, and the law has changed and become more complicated since then.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, very clearly laid out some of the questions that have been raised. Like my noble friend Lord Grocott, I will wait to hear what the Minister thinks.
I would like now to send a message, if I may, to the noble Lord, Lord Woolley. We have never met. First, I thank him for coming from Cambridge today. Secondly, when the noble Lord goes back to Cambridge, can he please tell his students that it was well worth his while coming here to make his speech? I am a new Member and, shortly before Christmas, I went to visit a secondary school in west London to talk to some politics students about politics. I had a very interesting time, and they raised many interesting questions—not least about this place. Of course, I asked them whether they were interested in politics. Some of them looked fairly vague. I said, “I think you are interested in politics. You just don’t realise it.” I asked them a few more questions, including whether they were on the register, because it is essential.
As an election agent, I remember a general election in which I was quite pleased that I had persuaded someone to come with me to the polling station—which was very close by—in order to exercise their vote. From just a single individual, I saw the devasting effect on someone who gets to the polling station and realises that they were not on the register and could not vote. What we are talking about, and what the noble Lord was talking about, was this situation being replicated thousands of times. It is a terrible thing. I am not saying that I made much progress with the students at that west London school, many of whom, unlike me —I am white—
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
Sorry? There was a huge collection of different communities. But it is really essential that we engage with these people.
When the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said that she wanted every single vote to count, I could not have agreed more. What we are talking about is ensuring that every single vote is available to be counted, and I hope that I might persuade her to change her mind on this. However, we will wait and see what the Minister says. I look forward to going back to that school, or indeed to any other which might invite me.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, in this group, ask many sensible questions. Perhaps, no question is no more appropriate than that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, and we all look forward to the Minister’s answer to that in particular.
The questions in this group are about the cost to taxpayers which may follow from the Bill introducing compulsory photo ID at polling stations. As the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, said, we need to know much more about the extra costs to be imposed upon local authorities. The Minister himself was a council leader not very long ago. He will know how local authority finances have been dramatically squeezed in recent years—real-terms cuts are perhaps 40%. Meanwhile, they have also retained the burden of statutory responsibilities, including many connected with social care.
The Government’s impact assessment suggests that making the changes proposed in relation to compulsory photo ID may cost as much as £230 million over 10 years, with a best estimate of £150 million. But the truth is that we do not really know. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, quoted the Association of Electoral Administrators saying that many of these costs were unquantifiable. But the costs of the scheme proposed by the Government are still significantly higher than those of a simpler form of voter identification, as was suggested in the last Conservative manifesto and in the report conducted on behalf of the Conservative Government by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who sits on their Benches. So the Government are proposing to go much further than in their own manifesto—a point that should be noted—and in the report by the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. But both proposals for compulsory voter ID, with or without photos, seem to me to have a lot of costs that are not necessarily included in the impact assessment, and neither scheme has been shown to be at all necessary in any way.
The Government claim that there is public support for the proposals on compulsory photo ID, but I doubt there would be much support if people knew that the cost over 10 years could be £230 million, or if they understood that voting at polling stations is as safe as it is at present. Perhaps the public would prefer their money to be spent on hundreds more police officers or more teachers, doctors and nurses. The Government spend a great deal of public money on market research, much of it perhaps for their own party benefit. In that research, they should perhaps test this proposition in one of their surveys: should there be compulsory photo ID at polling stations, or police officers, doctors and nurses? I would like to know the answer.
In my view, the Government are simply not getting their priorities right if they are genuinely concerned about electoral integrity. An estimated 9 million people are not on electoral registers, or are incorrectly registered on them, and are therefore unable to vote. If the Government were really planning to spend money on improving the integrity of our electoral system, they would not have withdrawn funding for the voluntary organisation Bite The Ballot. During a debate on this Bill, the Government praised its efforts. Bite The Ballot organised events such as national voter registration week, and it succeeded in getting many more young people registered to vote, at very little cost. But that little cost—a few thousand pounds—was too much for the Government. Perhaps it registered the wrong people—principally young people.
But the Government can spend, or want to spend, hundreds of millions of pounds on unnecessary compulsory photo ID. If it is a question of money, they could save a lot on electoral registration by making the process as automatic as possible, cutting down the cost of paper forms and personal canvassers. They could deal with it on databases. But they do not seem to want to save money if that might allow more of our citizens, especially young people, to be able to vote.
Voter identification has been piloted in only a handful of local authorities—and only in local elections. But local elections often have only half the turnout of general elections, so I fear that the number of staff required at polling stations may have to be doubled if they are to check each voter’s ID, especially if it is photo ID. The staff may need a lot more training and support. Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, there will be many more arguments in polling stations and more staff needed to resolve them. As he said, there will also have to be a lot of very costly public information about the changes to what the noble Lord, Lord True, often refers to as our “tried and tested” system.
He seems to like our tried and tested system when he opposes any changes that may not favour his party, but he seems quite ready to change the tried and tested system at polling stations, even at great cost, when no such radical change is at all necessary. Perhaps placing a few more police officers on duty at some polling stations might be a cheaper and much more cost-effective way of reassuring people that the voting process is safe, if that needs to be done. Certainly, we do not need compulsory photo ID.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I have listened to this debate with a sense of bewilderment and admiration, but I am still not clear what the imposition of compulsory voter ID is going to solve. As the noble Lords, Lord Grocott and Lord Woolley, made very clear, there has been one conviction.
While everyone has been getting passionate, I have been a bit of geek over the past couple of weeks and have read the impact assessment, so I want to go through why these amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, are so important. If the Government decide to go down this path, even though they have not been able to determine that there is a need for it, the costings they are using must be absolutely watertight, otherwise people will find it hard, or sometimes impossible, to get this compulsory photographic ID.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that we should not worry because it is £3 per person. She has clearly not read the impact assessment. That is not for every voter. Under the Government’s own impact assessment, it is for those who do not have the ID that is required who will need voter ID. According to the Government’s impact assessment that is 0.1% to 0.4% of voters. That works about at £150 per card, at the Government’s best estimate, to determine a problem that no one can quite work out what it is about.
The Government also say in the impact assessment that the degree of certainty on the final scope of all the costs—the £180, the £230 and the £1 million that have been determined—is so unknown that the costs are preliminary and further work will be needed. Too true that further work will be needed. If you get down to the details, the costs just do not stack up. On basic things, the Government are saying that the poll card that we all get will have to go from A5 to A4, yet they say that the postal cost is 80p. A4 is a large letter—so the costs have not been worked out. If these costs were presented by any person doing a basic business studies degree, perhaps at Cambridge with the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, they would get F or F-minus.
The Government have assumed this from one study in Woking. I have no problem with Woking—I am sure it is a very nice place—but it is not demographically made up of the rest of the country, and you cannot work out that what happened in Woking is going to happen in every community across this country. The Government have taken the average cost in Woking, taken it across every constituency in the country and averaged it out.
So let us look at some of the costs and resources. The Government have worked out that every constituency will need 1.64 machines to print these things. What nonsense is 0.64 of a machine? They have worked out the cost of 1.64 machines for each local authority. A number of people have said, quite rightly, that extra polling station clerks will be needed. The Government’s impact assessment says that: one for every two polling stations. I worry about the poor polling clerks in my city of Sheffield and in my ward who are going to have run three miles between polling stations. This is absolute nonsense.
PACAC has been really clear on this. A survey has been done by the Government. It is referred to in the impact assessment, but it does not give the results. The Government say that only 4% of people will need these, but, when asked, 31% of the public said that they would need them, want them or ask for them. PACAC is right to say that, for every 1% extra of the population who asks for one, it is a £10.2 million cost. As PACAC says, 31% takes it up from £150 million to £450 million.
I know that the Minister will say that it will all be guaranteed under the new burdens process. Under that process, there is meant to be a new burdens assessment with the impact assessment. I ask the Minister where that is, because I have not been able to find it. It does not seem to appear. I speak as a former leader of a council and declare my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. If this kind of nonsense accounting is going to be the basis of the new burdens, I can tell you that you will have polling clerks running between polling stations and 0.64 of a machine. It does not stack up.
That is why these amendments are vital. We need proper accounting, proper costs and proper assessments, and then, and only then, will these cards be introduced—if they are to be introduced—speedily and in a timely way, with councils having the resources to deliver the very things which the Government say are required.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, there is a great temptation to stray into clause stand part issues, which we shall debate later, and it is unavoidable in the context of these amendments and of our first discussion of this issue. I was struck, as I think all of us were, by the speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma. Both spoke in favour of greater participation and greater involvement. I say “hear, hear” to that.
What we are discussing is an additional requirement to vote. At Second Reading, a number of noble Lords—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Hannan—reflected on voting in jurisdictions which have identity cards and said that this was no big deal: you go along with your identity card, you vote, and it is all quite normal. Of course that is so, because that is not an additional requirement to vote; it exists in the society in general for other purposes. What we have here is an additional requirement—an additional impediment to the participation which the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, seek.
That additional impediment will inevitably reduce participation—by how much we can debate. There have been a number of studies, including the evidence which the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, cited and the study by the Rowntree trust, as to the degree to which participation may be reduced. We can disagree as to which study is the more accurate and the more satisfactory, but it is impossible to argue that this will not reduce participation. That is the true cost of these measures—not the financial cost so much, but the true cost.
In what I call his precautionary mode, the noble Lord, Lord True, at Second Reading—
Lord Hayward (Con)
The noble Lord spoke about reducing turnout. Can he identify the evidence that shows that the introduction of ID in Northern Ireland has now reduced turnout?
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
I refer the noble Lord to the evidence mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, and the study by the Rowntree Foundation. I am quite willing to believe—
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
To answer the noble Lord’s question, I was citing the review of voter ID from the local elections in 2019. It is difficult to judge what happened in Northern Ireland, but it is easier to judge what happened with these pilot projects in England. That is what the Government set out to look at—to see what happened when people showed up. The Government now want photo ID but, in the pilot projects, it was both photo and non-photographic ID, and that caused significant problems. Imagine if it was just one type—photographic ID, for example—that could double the problem. Bear in mind that people have to be more driven to vote in local elections, where the rates are a lot lower than in general elections—they have to be motivated to go to the polling booth. Then they are told they do not have the right type of ID, whether it is photographic or non-photographic, and so they have to go home and get the right one, and they do not return—they could not be bothered. The danger is, as has been argued, that potentially hundreds of thousands of people will have that encounter and not return.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
As I was saying to the noble Lord, an accurate study to achieve a careful assessment of the impact of any measure would have to take into account all the circumstances of the time. Over time, there will be a change in circumstances, and therefore the gross figures may appear as if there has been no impediment. However, if you disaggregate the components of the motivations to vote, it is difficult to believe that the introduction of a new requirement or impediment has a zero effect.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
Does the noble Lord believe that this will be a permanent or a temporary effect? As my noble friend Lord Hayward said, voter ID has existed in Northern Ireland for a very long time, introduced by the Labour Government. There has been no evidence of a reduction in voter turnout and, importantly, there is a higher degree of satisfaction with the integrity of elections in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales. I think we ought to ground ourselves in facts—not pilots or the studies by the Rowntree Foundation, but facts.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
I think the noble Baroness would agree that the electoral issues in Northern Ireland are rather different from those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
As I have just said, studying a phenomenon over time requires a careful disaggregation of the effects. Looking at the gross numbers does not tell you anything. Specific studies which carefully disaggregate the impact of particular measures are necessary. I find it difficult to see how one can sustain the argument that introducing a particular impediment to vote will have a zero effect.
As I was about to say, at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord True, in what I call precautionary mode, referred to locking your door to prevent burglaries even though your house has not been burgled. However, it is striking that if you go to the Isle of Sark, where there are no burglaries, no one locks the door. It is the presence of burglars that encourages people to lock their door. If the incidence of fraud is one, as the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, told us, and the cost now is £180 million, or whatever the number is, to prevent one occurrence, is that value for money?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for that long, thought-provoking and interesting debate. I am sorry my noble friend Lord True is not answering on this issue, but this was much more of a stand part debate than one on any specific amendments.
I sincerely thank the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, and my noble friend Lady Verma for what they have said today, and indeed for coming; the noble Lord has come from Cambridge today, and I know my noble friend has a really painful foot. I thank them both for coming because, as noble Lords have said, their passion on this issue really shone out.
I think the issue is connected. It is about making sure that as many people as possible take up their democratic right to vote, and we always have more work to do on that. I totally agree with the noble Lord about citizenship in schools—I was a huge supporter of that for the many years that I was leader of a large council—but we also have to listen to my noble friend Lady Verma and the communities that she comes from about the issues in play at the moment that prevent some of her community using their democratic vote. We are going to try, through citizenship in schools and other measures that the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, is taking, to make sure that people can do that. I thank them both for coming and for their input.
Most of what we have talked about today is about communications. Having worked for many years with electoral officers in local authorities, I know that they are very good locally. I thank them for everything they do in targeting their communities; they know those communities and are very good at making sure that they get the message out.
However, when this Bill goes through, the communication of the new way that the electoral system will work as a result of it will be down to the Electoral Commission, which has agreed to deliver comprehensive and targeted communications about the new system. I hope it will work with those local electoral officers—we will make sure that it does—to make sure that it is a joined-up approach so that everyone understands how it will work.
The top line on this issue is that in our manifesto the Government committed to protecting the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at polling stations. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that we won a majority of 80 seats. Yes, we did, and we won it on that manifesto commitment. That was part of what we offered the electorate at that time.
Lord Scriven (LD)
Can I be clear? The House has heard three times from the Government Front Bench about their manifesto. Did the Government’s manifesto commit to compulsory voter ID?
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
With respect, it was not photo ID, it was ID. That also means non-photo ID. I am afraid that the goalposts are being shifted, which could have a dramatic effect.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I have listened to what the noble Lord said and will check the detail of the manifesto. I will ensure that we write to all noble Lords to make that clear—
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I will not intervene again, but I asked the noble Lord, Lord True, whether he could rely on the integrity of the electoral system and the mechanisms that returned an 80-seat majority. Can the noble Baroness answer that specific question? Is she happy that it was a free and fair election? If she is, why is she bothered about voter ID?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I am sure that any good electoral system can always be improved and that is exactly what we are doing.
Many countries are doing this; we are not the only one. Italy, France, Spain and Norway—all our European friends, which I am sure the Liberal Democrats will be very pleased about—already have voter identification. Canada, which is not in the EU, also does. But as many noble Lords have mentioned—
Lord Scriven (LD)
It is really important that we have a level playing field here. Of the countries that the Minister has just outlined, how many do not have mandatory ID cards?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not know about mandatory ID cards. All I know is that they have to use voter identification when they vote and that is the important issue—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt but surely the important thing is that if they already have to have an ID card, it is very different from having to get a special ID card to vote.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I do not agree with that. I do not think that is necessary. It is in the government manifesto and electoral fraud is not a victimless crime. I know the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, was very clear that there had been only one case of fraud but the impact of electoral fraud on voters can be very significant. It takes away their right to vote as they want to—whether through intimidation, bribery, impersonating somebody or casting their vote for them—
Lord Rennard (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness in her flow but the implication is that a vote is taken away. It is not. There is a process in the polling stations by which if you claim that somebody has already taken your vote—usually because the wrong name has been crossed off by one of the polling clerks—a replacement ballot paper, known as a tendered ballot paper, is given to you. There is no theft and no loss of vote. You get an extra vote. We know from the Electoral Commission’s analysis that there were only 1,300 cases out of the 37 million votes cast in the 2019 general election. Most were simple clerical errors. It virtually never happens and if it does, there is a replacement.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, that is if anybody goes back because they have not been intimidated into not going in the first place, I have to say. I respectfully say that this is something that we simply cannot ignore—
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
Will the noble Baroness explain the relationship between intimidation and the intimidating need to get photo ID?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
You need to do both. We are trying to make sure that people in the communities that my noble friend Lady Verma has stood up and very bravely spoken about have the opportunity, as well as others, to take up their democratic right to vote. She rightly pointed out that many people may feel more empowered to participate if they feel more secure in the system—that has come out in research done by the Electoral Commission. In 2021, 66% said they would have more confidence in the system if there was voter ID at polling stations.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
I am very reluctant to speak, because I have sat through most of this and I did not take part in Second Reading, but if an ID card is presented at the polling station, is that taken as proof that you have voted or are voting? There is a photographic ID card.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
If you have the necessary photo ID and your name is on that electoral register—
Lord Maxton (Lab)
But surely most countries that the noble Baroness has already said are part and parcel of the extension of this scheme have an ID card.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
This might be helpful, because we were wondering what was in the manifesto. In fact, the Joint Committee on Human Rights quotes from it:
“We will protect the integrity of our democracy by introducing identification to vote at polling stations, stopping postal vote harvesting and measures to prevent any foreign interference in elections.”
There is nothing about photo ID.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister might have inadvertently misled the Committee from the Dispatch Box in the figures she has just quoted from the Electoral Commission’s survey of 2019. The Government’s own impact assessment, on page 42, paragraph 83, refers to that, saying that satisfaction in the pilot areas was 69% of the poll in 2019, whereas it was 83% in those areas where there was no photo ID pilot.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I am quoting from the 2021 Electoral Commission winter tracker, which was clear that the majority of the public, two out of three voters, 66%, say a requirement to show identification at a polling station would make them more confident in the security of our elections. That was 2021.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The pilot was done in 2019. These are people who actually had the photo ID. When there was photo ID against a control group of no photo ID, the people who were more satisfied with the ballot, post the election, were the people who did not have photo ID. The Government’s own impact assessment says that, and that was signed off by the noble Lord, Lord True, on 20 January this year. Is the Government’s impact assessment correct?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
The noble Lord is conveniently ignoring the experience from Northern Ireland, which is better than the pilots, as one would expect, because they have had it for a very long time. To keep quoting from these pilots as a way of trying to discredit the rollout is a pretty ineffective approach when there is clearly a lot of experience from Northern Ireland which shows a high degree of satisfaction.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I will answer the Minister directly. The Northern Ireland experience shows that between 2% and 3% of people, after the introduction, did not vote. If we extrapolate that over here, that is 1.2 million people who would probably be less likely to vote. It has taken 10 years to get back to the equivalent before photo ID was introduced. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but that is the evidence, because I have read it. I have read it and I have seen what the effect in Northern Ireland actually is: it has taken 10 years. The noble Baroness shakes her head, so I ask her to show me the evidence that shows that what I am saying is not correct. What is more, for one conviction, is it worth, for 10 years, 1.2 million people being discouraged from voting in England?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I want to move on, rather than discussing different pieces of information. I will move on to costs. My noble friend Lady Noakes is absolutely right about costs. I will come on to costs to local authorities, but the overall cost has been put at £25 per year per person. That is the estimated cost of the production of the voter card and of raising awareness of voter identification across all polls happening within 10 years. We are not expecting this to be a fixed cost; we are expecting it to reduce over time as voters become more familiar with these arrangements.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I specifically asked about education programmes, the rollout of information and how people were going to know about the changes. What is the cost that the Minister has just given us going to deliver? It does not seem very much to engage electors in a pretty enormous change.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
As I said, the Electoral Commission has agreed to do much of this. I will come to local authorities now. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Pinnock and Lady Meacher, quite rightly talked about the costs of this to local authorities. The impact assessment presented a range of costs that could be incurred by the introduction of these measures in order to ensure that local authorities and valuation joint boards are provided with the funding to implement the changes successfully. We will continue to refine our estimates of the future new burdens required to reflect the design of the secondary legislation. Government analysts are engaging with local authorities and valuation joint boards as this model is developed. Work is being done by all those involved.
Any allocation would be subject to detailed consideration of the varied pictures across local authorities and the valuation boards and would seek to allocate funding according to need. As was the case with the introduction of individual electoral registration, new-burdens funding will be provided to cover the additional costs resulting from the changes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, asked about the different needs of different authorities. We accept that. The administrative burden will be driven by a variety of factors across local authorities, including their existing capabilities. The allocation of new-burdens funding, including for any additional staffing required, is being modelled and discussed with local authorities and other key stakeholders, working with the programme team in the department. The allocation of the new-burdens funding will take into account the different requirements and characteristics of all local authorities. We are working with local authorities and with the Local Government Association, and we are looking at all the different characteristics of those individual authorities. As a local authority person, I understand this.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
I want just to check on the question which has already been raised about the extra security costs. While preparing for this Bill, I went to talk to the Bradford electoral registration team. One of the strongest messages that came from them was that a significant number of poll clerks in Bradford were young women. We all know that intimidation is the most frequent election problem in parts of Bradford. When faced with rather aggressive men of one sort or another whose identity is being challenged, young women are going to feel very unsafe. This will require extra staffing and police. Has this been factored in?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I cannot tell the noble Lord whether that has been factored in. I will ask the team and come back to him. The fact that local authorities are working with the team means that those sorts of issues will come up and be dealt with.
We have also already established a business change network covering England, Scotland and Wales, specifically to support local authorities with the implementation of the policy changes arising from the Elections Bill. The network allows the regular flow of information both ways between local authorities and officials in DLUHC, acting as a local presence with knowledge of the Elections Bill and supporting and engaging with administrators during the implementation. That is where these sorts of issues need to come up and I expect them to be dealt with in that way.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, brought up training for returning officers. This will all come out of the same network. We continue to work with local authorities to understand their needs and the needs of voters in relation to training on the new electoral system. I think that deals with all the points, so I will now get on to the actual amendments.
These amendments and those in the groups just after place a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish a wide range of reports, impact assessments and reviews, as well as to hold consultations on the impacts and estimated impacts of various measures in this Bill. Amendment 55 would prevent Schedule 1 coming into force until the Secretary of State has made a statement before Parliament on the estimated cost of the provisions, in addition to the potential impacts on voter turnout across different demographics.
This amendment is entirely unnecessary. A detailed estimate of costs for all the provisions in the Bill was published alongside it, as was an equality impact assessment. To suggest that the impacts of the measures in the Bill have not been considered in great detail would be a disservice to the many officials in the team who have spent considerable time modelling the various impacts and who are already working very closely with the sector to prepare for its implementation in a thorough and very considered way.
On the financial costs, we have worked extensively with the electoral sector to assess the impacts of the measures and have rightfully modelled a range of costs to account for a number of scenarios. We continue to work to refine these as the detail of implementation planning is settled. Our priority remains ensuring that local authorities have the necessary resources to continue to deliver our elections robustly and securely, and we have secured the necessary funding to deliver that goal.
As is usual for programmes of this kind, any additional funding required will be delivered to local authorities via the new burdens mechanism. Rollout of any funding will be timed to ensure that local authorities can meet the costs incurred. This is not the first time that the Government have delivered a change programme in this area. The Government have worked closely with the sector to deliver a number of national programmes, including canvass reform and the introduction of individual electoral registration, to great effect. This programme, while complex, is no different and we will continue to take the same open and collaborative approach to implementation.
When it comes to publications, the evaluation of and reporting on funding for programmes of this kind are already subject to publication requirements, particularly as this qualifies as a government major programme. Furthermore, we are developing robust evaluation plans and intend to produce a process and impact evaluation of the programme across all policy measures. Therefore, in light of the already published assessments for the Bill and the assurances that existing plans will provide ample transparency, I beg the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, this debate has ranged rather wide of the area covered by my amendments, to say the least. Having said that, it has been very interesting. As other noble Lords have said, the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, made a very important and powerful speech. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, that I am sure that we would all agree that every vote should count—of course it should—and I totally understand what she is saying. The challenge for us, as parliamentarians, is how we change that—that is a debate for another day, but she raised an incredibly important issue that we have to look at very carefully. Perhaps we should look at areas where we could do something to increase empowerment and engagement—perhaps that is missing from this Bill. I would be really interested to engage more with the noble Baroness to think about how we can support her, from this side, in what she is trying to achieve and to better understand her concerns.
I will not go into the manifesto commitment debate—my noble friend Lady Lister resolved that quite adequately. But she also raised an important concern, as did—
Lord True (Con)
In the Queen’s Speech in October 2019, the Government announced that they would introduce legislation on voter identification. It was very clearly set out in the guidance and briefing that was given around the Queen’s Speech that that would specifically include photo identification and the free identity cards for local authorities. It was an announced and established policy of voter identification, and the manifesto referred to this.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Queen’s Speech and the manifesto are different things, and the manifesto did not say “photo identification”.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
That is correct. I appreciate what the Minister said about the Queen’s Speech, but, again, my noble friend is absolutely correct. Members of the Government keep telling us that this was a manifesto commitment, but it is important to clarify the distinction between a manifesto commitment and what the Government decided to go forward with in the Queen’s Speech. We can debate that, I am sure—
Lord True (Con)
That was the Queen’s Speech before, not after, the general election. It was established before the general election.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In that case, can the Minister explain why it was not detailed in the manifesto?
Lord True (Con)
That is because the manifesto referred to clearly established and announced policy on voter identification.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
In that case, I will come back to the pilot schemes. If the Government were intending to introduce only photographic ID, and that is what the commitment was, why were pilot schemes run without including photographic identification?
Lord True (Con)
Certain pilot schemes, which we have discussed, involve photo ID. I should leave it to my colleague to complete the group, and we can move on to the debate on clause stand part. The reality is as I have expressed it—that was the announced policy and what the Government hope to carry forward.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Fair enough—we will move on. I will go back to my amendments and discuss cost, which is where we started this debate some time ago. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said the cost was actually not very much. I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness’s knowledge around business finance, but most of my concerns are around the costs to local government. It would appear that she has not been a local authority councillor; I have not been one for seven years, but when I was one, looking at how to balance a budget following the government cuts that were in place seven years ago, it was incredibly difficult to find what we needed to cut in order to balance the books—at what we had to deliver statutorily and what we wanted to deliver.
Seven years have passed, and there have been more and more cuts, so it is even more difficult for local authorities to manage their budgets now. That was the point that I wanted to get across with some of my amendments and with what I was saying. This will be difficult for local authorities, and we need clarity around costs and the kind of investment and support that the Government will give local authorities in good time, ahead of these changes, in order to deliver them effectively, efficiently and with staff who are properly trained and understand what is expected of them and of the electorate.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
Let me respond to that. I was not talking about modelling; I was talking about groupings and communications between DLUHC officers and local authority election officers in individual councils to make sure that we know exactly what the issues are for them and what the costs will be for them. Things such as whether they are rural or inner city and need more security are being discussed at the moment with individual local authorities.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Modelling was mentioned, but I appreciate that clarification from the noble Baroness. Again, the question is when this will be ready. When will the rollout be ready? We know that politics is pretty volatile at the moment. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act is going, so my biggest concern is what happens if things are not ready. Is there a back-up plan? I worry that, if the electorate are not ready and local authorities are not ready, we could end up in a bit of a pickle. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
“(2) Schedule 1 must not come into force until the Secretary of State has made a statement to Parliament on the estimated impact of the provisions on voter turnout.(3) The statement must include an analysis of the impact on voter turnout in different age brackets.”
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group. I thank noble Lords who have been supportive: the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley. In the previous debate, where we strayed into other areas, we heard a lot of concern about voter turnout. My amendments in this group aim to draw attention to the potential impact on voter turnout in all the different areas where concerns have been raised.
I will just run through them. We are looking at age brackets. We have heard concerns that younger people could be badly impacted by this. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, raised huge concerns about the impact on older people.
I also have an amendment about the impact on voter turnout of different disabilities. Our last day in Committee started with a debate on what could happen to blind or partially sighted people if the proposals were brought in without addressing the concerns of the RNIB and other people who have sight problems. Other disabilities have also been looked at; access, for example. There is also an amendment on the impact on voter turnout among different ethnicities. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, who is no longer in her place, talked about this and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, has done tremendous work looking at this area.
There is an amendment on nations and regions. One of the concerns is the differentials that will come with England and the devolved areas, and how this will be managed regionally. We know from different kinds of evidence that certain regions are more likely to struggle with voter turnout than others. Also, there is the issue of voter turnout in different income brackets. At Second Reading, noble Lords referred to the important research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which was carried out because the Government had not looked at this. They had looked at other areas but not at income level. If any noble Lord has not read the report, it is very important in getting an understanding.
I draw attention to one or two things the foundation said. It said that low-income potential voters are much more likely not to have photo ID—1% compared with 6%. It talked about how this could mean 1 million low-income voters in Great Britain not having possession of approved photo ID. On top of that, 700,000 low-income adults who would have photo ID felt that they were not actually recognisable and were concerned that their ID would not be accepted. We will have another debate at some point about people being turned away.
I do not want to take up too much time, as we are supposed to finish at 7 pm, but to cover a lot of those different areas, I want to look at the London Voices project. It carried out a survey that asked organisations to describe the impact that they thought photo voter ID would have. The key concerns expressed were that the requirement for photo voter ID
“would reduce democratic participation thus widening the democratic deficit, and impose unfair barriers on already marginalised communities, such as disabled Londoners and Black, Asian and ethnic minority Londoners.”
The report quoted some people in their own words. We have talked an awful lot in this House, but we need to listen to what people on the street say when they are asked about this.
The first one that I want to read out is from Southwark Travellers’ Action Group, which supports Gypsy, Traveller and Roma Londoners. We have not heard enough in their voice. They are very marginalised and we do not take enough account of the difficulties that they often have in civic life. The group said:
“‘The women who we work with, not all of them, but some of them don’t have either passports or driving licences. So that would be an extra barrier for them. Also just the expense of getting those things … Sometimes we have people who want to get a new passport but can’t afford it at the moment, so that’s a real problem.”
Haringey Welcome, which supports migrant and refugee Londoners, said:
“Loads of people don’t have a passport, have never travelled outside of the country… it’s clearly the poor and the disadvantaged, who are least likely to be able to prove their identity”.
Central YMCA looks after young Londoners and points out:
“We do have an informal economy in London. Anybody who doesn’t want to accept that is just not facing reality. So, the people in that economy will be very reluctant. And quite a lot of people in that economy tend to be from BAME communities, or from poorer communities. And therefore, you’re actually saying to quite a large part of the demographic that they are going to be excluded from the democratic process.”
Jacky Peacock, from Advice for Renters—aimed at private renters—says:
“Fewer people will vote—some won’t have photo ID, some (particularly refugees) have lived in authoritarian countries and are fearful while for others it’s just one more small deterrent”.
Voice4Change England looks after black Londoners, and says:
“In vibrant civil society, it is incumbent on the government to endeavour to increase political participation by expanding voters’ rights. The US case rightly highlights that the introduction of voter ID legislation reduced voter participation, and it is suggested that this was disproportionately high among racial and ethnic minority groups … The government should … address the fact that millions of people are left off the electoral register, to review anachronistic campaign laws”.
Finally, Rachel Coates speaks for Advocacy for All, which represents disabled Londoners:
“I think less people with disabilities will vote as this makes it more complicated”.
I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support this group, and I will speak specifically to Amendments 58 and 59, to which I have added my name. But first I will make some points about the group in general. In the Commons the Minister said:
“The Government are committed to increasing participation in our democracy and to empowering all those eligible to vote to do so in a secure, efficient and effective way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/1/22; col. 83.]
Yet a wide range of civil society groups, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee have all voiced concerns about how the voter ID requirements will have the opposite effect for marginalised groups. We heard powerfully from the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, about that earlier.
When these concerns were raised in the Commons Committee, the Minister tried to turn the tables with the extraordinary response that to suggest that those groups more likely not to hold the requisite photo ID would not be able to access photo cards
“is to unfairly diminish the agency”,
and
“assuming from the get-go that people are disadvantaged on the basis of their background is stigmatising and denies them their agency”.—[Official Report, Commons, Elections Bill Committee, 22/9/21; col. 127.]
As the author of a book on poverty, one of the central themes of which is the importance of recognising the agency of those living in poverty, I would point out that agency has to be understood in the context of the myriad structural constraints and barriers they face. The same applies to all the marginalised groups that concern us here. The Bill will increase those barriers further.
I now turn to the impact of Clause 1 on people in poverty, which I am pleased to say has already been touched on by my noble friend. As she said, the official evidence made available and statements made do not address this directly at all, as income status is not one of the parameters researched, even though the indicators of the likely adverse impact on the unemployed and on people in social housing should have set a red light flashing, prompting further research into those on low incomes. That it did not do so speaks volumes. Instead, as my noble friend also said, we are indebted to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for carrying out the research. I will not repeat the details that my noble friend mentioned, but of the total of all those on low incomes who did not have photo ID, thought that what they had was unrecognisable, or were not sure, only about half said that they would be likely to apply for a voter card, and two-fifths said they were unlikely to, or were unsure whether they would.
That is not to deny the agency of this group, but it might reflect a reluctance to engage with the state in this way, because of a lack of trust, as a number of commentators have observed. Or it may be a function of the sheer hard work involved in getting by in poverty. Getting by in poverty is itself an example of time-consuming agency, the more time-consuming when also juggling multiple jobs, long hours and/or insecure work.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I rise in support of Amendments 56 to 60 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, to which I have added my name. As I said at Second Reading, one of my biggest concerns about the whole Bill—though it is not the only one—is that the ID requirements could, when an election is closely fought, lead to an entirely different outcome of the election from that which would have been achieved without this ID process. In some cases it could result in a change in the MP elected in particular constituencies where, again, the result is close. Although there are obviously problems about individuals and groups, my biggest concern is that this could tip over or interferes with and distort the result of an election. That is a very serious matter.
The requirement in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1 that the electoral identity document
“must … contain a photograph of the person”
risks excluding various groups. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, went through those groups in some detail, and I certainly do not want to repeat her remarks. A differential turnout in these groups and constituencies will therefore determine to what extend the ID system affects the outcome of elections. I have no doubt that the ID system will affect election results and outcomes, and therefore, in my view, the ID provision should not be included in this Bill at all. However, I do understand that the Government had the election ID proposal in their manifesto. Nevertheless, I think I am completely convinced, certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, who did not get to speak on it, that the manifesto did not refer to photographic evidence. I hope the Minister will, therefore, while hanging on to his ID scheme no doubt, agree that these amendments are very important to keep the impact on elections to a minimum. We need the information required by these amendments. It will be difficult to estimate the impact on various groups, and I would be grateful if the Minister in his response would explain how that data will be obtained—assuming of course that he accepts the vital importance of impact assessments, and I am sure he does—before the ID system is introduced.
The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, referred to various countries that have electoral ID documents, but it would be very helpful if the Minister would make clear which countries have electoral ID systems that do not have general national ID documentation. I think it was indicated that it would not make any difference; of course, it would make an enormous difference if everybody was automatically required to carry their ID in their pocket or bag. Of course, they would roll up at the polling station with their ID—so I have to say I do not accept that it does not matter. It does; and it would be very helpful if the Minister could give some kind of evidence about efficacy and about the impact on elections in those countries that have electoral ID but not national ID.
A very different concern relates to the delegated powers in relation to the registration officer’s power to issue the relevant electoral identity document. For noble Lords not involved in the earlier debate, perhaps I should again declare my interest as a member of the Delegated Powers Committee. The registration officer is under a duty to determine the application “in accordance with regulations”. That is a very wide power, which leaves it open to Ministers to determine the conditions that must be met before an applicant is entitled to receive an electoral identity document. We are not going to know that; that will be a ministerial decision under delegated powers. It also allows for the possibility of the registration officer being given discretion in deciding whether or not to issue an electoral identity document to a person. Again, on what grounds? What is actually going to go on here?
The Delegated Powers Committee is wanting an explanation from the Minister about why these provisions are not on the face of the Bill, and it is quite difficult to think why they are not. If the Minister cannot give an adequate explanation, the committee’s view is that the delegation in this case is inappropriate. I bring that to the Committee because I think it is relevant, and it is important for people involved in these discussions. I do not know whether the Minister is in a position to respond to this, but, if he is not, maybe he can respond in writing, not just to the Delegated Powers Committee but to Members of this Committee. I hope the Minister will be able to respond, though, to this concern.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, to vote is a fundamental right. It is not a new-age right invented the other day; it is a fundamental civil and political right. It is also, for many of us, an ethical duty. If the Government took that view, they would not judge the balance of risk in the way that they currently are. That is where this group relates to the debate foreshadowed in the previous group on financial cost. In that debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said that it is worth it to have integrity in the system, but the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, asked whether just one conviction really justified the risk. Now we are closer to the crux of the debate.
Different groups of people have fought for the right to vote over many centuries, all over the world. It is one of the first-order civil rights in a democracy, and an ethical duty. If the Government agreed with me, they would judge the balance of risk rather differently from the way they are currently doing with this one conviction as evidence of a problem. Although it is always hard to prove a negative, any evidence produced for it—whether in pilots or from well-established civil society research organisations—is batted away and the Minister in the other place says, “Let’s lock the house before the burglary happens”.
If I am right that it is a first-order civil right, like the right to liberty, you have to judge the balance of risk and put the presumption in a slightly different place. With the right of presumption of innocence and the right to liberty, we put the presumption in a particular direction. We say that it is more important—many Conservatives not in their places would agree with me—that one innocent person does not lose their right to liberty than that even a few more who are guilty go free. If that is how we judge the presumption of innocence in relation to liberty, and if we take participation in free and fair elections as a first-order right of that kind, why do the Government judge the balance of risk in the way they do? Why are they not doing everything possible not just to ensure that those with the right to vote can do so but to encourage the behavioural change we want so that people get the habit of voting and discharge what I think is an ethical duty?
Some other countries say that voting should be compulsory—that it is not just an ethical duty but a legal one. That is a step too far for my libertarian instincts; speaking of which, I fought for many years with many who are not in their places on the Benches opposite, and the current Prime Minister, against the principle of compulsory identification cards for people in this country. Conservatives were some of the most eloquent participants in that debate and the Conservative Party fought elections on manifestos against it, on the basis that this is the kind of free country in which free-born English men and women should not have to carry compulsory ID.
It did not make me many friends among those who are now my noble friends, but that was the argument and principle that united the Conservatives with the Liberal Democrats in 2010—repealing compulsory identity legislation was their flagship policy—and I welcomed it. It seems a little odd now to say that there will not be universal compulsory identity cards for everyone but we will take your vote off you if you cannot afford ID such as a passport or a driving licence. Ministers are shaking their heads on the basis that they will make it possible for all sorts of other kinds of free and cheap ID to be available. We have to take that on trust.
That does not deal with the principled concern—why we require it at all, given that we blew all those trumpets about free-born Englishmen not requiring compulsory ID in the first place—or solve my practical concern about discouraging people who are already discouraged from getting into the habit of voting. The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, made that point so eloquently in the previous debate.
With all the comings and goings and the vivid nature of the debate, I never heard from either of the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes or Lady Verma, in what way they think fraud is of a significant enough degree in this country at the moment to justify their points about people being shut out of the process by it.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. Seven hours ago, when my back was not aching, there was a good discussion in the Chamber about not rushing through legislation. Do noble Lords remember that? We must not rush it through because, if we do, we are in danger of getting it profoundly wrong.
I was pleased that the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community has been mentioned. I have worked with them for more than 25 years and know they are one of the most marginalised and politically disenfranchised communities in the country. They have told me that voter ID would severely impact their ability to engage in the democratic process. We know of other groups too. In 2019, in reviewing the pilot scheme, the Electoral Commission said:
“In Derby there is a strong correlation between the proportion of each ward’s population from an Asian background and the number of people not issued with a ballot paper.”
There is copious evidence to suggest that, if we go ahead with this, black, Asian and minority-ethnic communities will be disproportionately affected. I suggest that we do not make the mistake that we made with Windrush, when we made legislation with the best intentions—one would hope—and the unintended consequences wreaked havoc with the Windrush generation. What we did not do then was have a comprehensive race equality impact assessment.
The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which looked at the Bill, said in December that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that we need this. We should press the pause button. Let us make sure that we get this right. Our children and voters who find it difficult to get to the booth could be even more severely affected. If we pause, have a comprehensive impact assessment and get this right, I am sure that we can get this in a much better state.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
Given the lateness of the hour, I hesitate to come in now, but I feel passionately about the importance of tackling the uneven and potentially discriminatory nature of what we are doing here without the proper assessment to which the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, referred.
I shall make two points. The London Voices project is worth reading in detail. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on that. It involves more than 100 organisations with more than 5,000 staff. They have produced a comprehensive picture of the risks involved in this project. Has the Minister met the London Voices project? If she has not, will she do so as a matter of urgency?
My second point is about the Mayor of London’s concerns. He has written and set out very clearly the risks, as he sees them, in London: over half a million Londoners without a passport; over 2.5 million Londoners without a driver’s licence; and something like one in five of those with a disability not having a freedom pass. I could go on. A whole range of people in protected groups do not have the evidence that is required. We may then say that there is a free pass available on application—but look at the JRF analysis, which shows that a large number of those very people are the ones most likely not to apply for the free pass. So, the net effect is that they will be excluded. Can that be what we are looking for here? Have we done enough to be sure that that does not happen? I do not think so.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord’s back, after seven hours, recovers. I was one of some Members who were in this Chamber at 2 o’clock this morning debating and voting on another important Bill.
In view of the lateness of the hour, I want to put only one point to the Minister. The Government understand that their proposals in this area are controversial. They are controversial because they are making a very considerable proposed change to the way in which we conduct elections. Yet at the same time, on all sides of the House, we are agreed that we want to see the maximum possible voter registration and turnout. Looking at this group of amendments, which I rise to support, does it seem unreasonable that the Government should be required to provide a statement on the estimated impact of these provisions on voter turnout? That seems to me a very reasonable request.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, listening to this debate, it is quite obvious that some groups of people are less likely to have access to the voter ID that will be required. We should know much more about the potential consequences of such a major change to our tried and tested system at polling stations before introducing it for a general election. As the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, said, let us press the pause button on this. A single survey commissioned by the Cabinet Office is not sufficient to show that compulsory voter ID will not have many of the same problems that we see with electoral registration, which effectively excludes many people from their right to vote.
We should look in some detail at the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on this issue. It drew attention last September as to how:
“The Government must do more to demonstrate the need for voter ID”.
The committee said that the Government must also
“mitigate the potential barriers to voting its proposals may create.”
The Government’s response spoke about making elections “accessible”, but they failed to justify any additional barriers to voting or to show that they were proportionate to what is shown to be an extremely low level of electoral fraud and one conviction. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said that
“it is estimated that over 2 million people will not have an acceptable form of ID and so will have to apply for a free voter card or lose the ability to vote at the polling station. These proposals are aiming to reduce fraud at polling stations, however the recorded instances of such fraud are rare.”
Having taken expert advice, the committee warned that:
“The impact of the proposals may fall disproportionately on some groups with protected characteristics under human rights law. Older people and disabled people are less likely to have photo ID and some groups such as Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities may be hesitant to apply for the Voter Card. The Committee calls on the Cabinet Office to produce clear research setting out whether mandatory ID at the polling station could create barriers to taking part in elections for some groups and how they plan to mitigate this risk effectively.”
It is worth noting that this is what the impact assessment says about this policy in terms of its effects on voting:
“The analysis does not assess the impact of the policy on voter turnout.”
The Government’s own impact assessment has not even looked at what the effect will be on voter turnout. Why was this not done?
It has been mentioned that some countries have voter ID. To answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, certain states in America do not have compulsory voter ID, and the effect on turnout is that those who are more economically affluent will vote while those who are least economically affluent will not, because they do not have access to voter ID. So there are international comparisons showing that this is a problem.
Because of the lateness of the hour, I will say just this: there will be roughly 2.1 million people for whom mandatory voter ID will be a barrier to exercising their vote. If that is the case, why are the Government pursuing this policy, and why have they not carried out an impact assessment to see its effect on voter turnout?
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for an interesting debate. I shall respond to a couple of things straightaway. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, raised some issues from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I have agreed with the Minister that if she does not mind, we will write to the noble Baroness and send a copy to anyone who has taken part in the debate.
Due to the lateness of the hour, and because we are going to have a stand part debate on this same issue at our next sitting, I will be much briefer than perhaps I would have been, because I am sure all these issues will get brought up again. The Government strongly stand by the importance of public participation and engagement, which has come out from many noble Lords today. It is important to us. I reassure the House that we share a joint aim on that front. We all want participation in a strong democratic election system.
Turnout fluctuates from election to election; I think we all know that. If we look at national elections versus local elections versus parish council elections, they all have fluctuating turnout, for many reasons, so it will likely not be possible to isolate the impact of the measures in the Bill on that. It would be quite difficult. I hear the concerns that have been raised but, as I said earlier, the impact of the measures in the Bill have been considered in great detail. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I will get her a list of the consultees that we worked with because that is important.
With regard to making sure that all groups, particularly minority groups, engage with the electoral system, register to vote and vote once they are registered, I go back again to the importance of the local electoral teams in all our local authorities. They are the people who have the experience of the communities that they serve and work within. I myself have a particular interest in the Gypsy, Romany and Traveller communities. If those local electoral teams understand a community locally—I have seen this working locally myself—then they are often the people who can speak to them, find out the barriers for those communities and work through them. I am sure that is same for many other communities across the country.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
I asked a specific question as to whether the Minister had met the London Voices project and, if not, whether he would be prepared to meet them now.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
We will write to the noble Lord. We have met, but I shall make sure that we give the noble Lord a clear response on that.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I know that it is very late, so I shall be quick. The Minister skipped over this, and it is quite key. There has been no analysis of the impact of this policy on voter turnout. The Electoral Commission will do it retrospectively but I am talking about before it comes in. Why have the Government missed this key issue? They keep telling us from that Dispatch Box that the policy will not have an impact on voter turnout, yet they have done no detailed analysis in their impact assessment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
I can confirm that we have not done that impact analysis. The important impact will be after.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
The issue of impacting the outcome of elections is seriously important. Will the Minister go away and think about whether the Government should do an impact assessment not only on overall turnout but on differential turnout among different groups—for example, the disabled, the poor and the elderly—to assess the likely impact on election outcomes. All these things are important, but it seems to me crucial that, in a democracy, Governments should not introduce policies that are going to skew election results. I ask the Minister to take that away and write to us all about what the intention would be.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I am grateful for the wide support for the amendments and for what we are trying to achieve with them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, just made an incredibly important point. All through the debates that we have had, there has been a lot of discussion about the importance of democracy, the importance of participation and the importance of widening democracy and encouraging people to vote. It concerns me that the Government are introducing a policy that could have an impact on people’s ability to vote without having done an assessment of what the impact on voter turnout is likely to be. Whether or not we want to look at the Irish case or at what has happened in the United States or in other places, we know that there is likely to be some form of impact. Would it not therefore be good practice and a good way to do legislation to make sure that all those impact assessments are done in advance? That just seems to be logical.
It is late. I shall not speak any more. All I say is that I am sure that these issues will be discussed more when we next sit in Committee, where the clause stand part debate is the first debate. These issues will also definitely come back on Report and will need further debate and discussion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.